What is P and -P?

[Terrapin Station]

I should have brought this up when you first mentioned it, by the way, but were you thinking that insofar as physics deals with energy, it's dealing with something that's not physical?

I didn't bring that up at first because I find the notion of energy occurring on its own incoherent, and that's more interesting to me.

Whatever physics deals with it would be the same kind of stuff irrespective of the label you put on it.

The nature of things doesn't change in any way just because we re-describe them. It would be stupid if it did.

Physics deals with symmetries and structures, so the Mathematical equations used to describe physics would be exactly the same even if energy was non-physical.

Underneath molecules are atoms.
Underneath atoms are quarks, leptons and gluons.
Underneath quarks, leptons and gluons there's nothing.

Those things can only be understood in terms of Mathematics.

I'm simply asking you if you believe that a major portion of the subject matter of physics is something that's not physical. And the answer is?

(By the way, not that I agree with this, but a common characterization of physicalism is that it posits that ontology is (or at least will be or theoretically could be) exhausted by physics.)

[Terrapin Station]

Except, conventionally, syntax and semantics are distinct categories.

Hence the conditional.

[Terrapin Station]

If only that had something to do with coherence.

If only you could tell us what "coherence" is. Sure sounds as mystical as the christian God.

I won't hold my breath.

I'm not about to cater to playing stupid, and if it's legitimate stupid, that's worse.

[Skepdick]

I'm simply asking you if you believe that a major portion of the subject matter of physics is something that's not physical. And the answer is?

And the answer is... It's a fucking idiotic question. I am indifferent either way.

It is neither testable, nor falsifiable whether physics deals with "physical" things or "non-physical" things. It's not even wrong.

Damn undecidability!

(By the way, not that I agree with this, but a common characterization of physicalism is that it posits that ontology is (or at least will be or theoretically could be) exhausted by physics.)

Oh, so we could just as well call it Mathematicalism then? Because Physics is mathematical after all.

Or we could call it Computationalism then? Because of the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle.

Or we could call it nonsense. Because it's untestable/unfalsifiable!

[Terrapin Station]

I'm simply asking you if you believe that a major portion of the subject matter of physics is something that's not physical. And the answer is?

And the answer is... It's a fucking idiotic question.

It is neither testable, nor falsifiable whether physics deals with "physical" things or "non-physical" things. It's not even wrong.

Damn undecidability!

(By the way, not that I agree with this, but a common characterization of physicalism is that it posits that ontology is (or at least will be or theoretically could be) exhausted by physics.)

Oh, so we could just as well call it Mathematicalism then? Because Physics is mathematical after all.

Or we could call it Computationalism then? Because of the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle.

Or we could call it nonsense. Because it's untestable/unfalsifiable!

You could call anything whatever you want. Whenever the topic is what we're going to call anything, what we're going to consider anything, what we're going to include or not include in our concept of anything, etc., there are no correct or incorrect answers.

Re the physics question above, the idea is rather whether you think that physicists (in general) consider energy nonphysical. In other words, it's asking you what you think the results of a survey would be.

The idea isn't whether the term "physical" is correctly or incorrectly applied to energy. There is no correct/incorrect for such things. (Which is just the idea when we're talking about ethical stances, too. This is the relevance of the fact that ethical stances are solely matters of individuals' dispositions about interpersonal behavior that the individual considers more significant than etiquette.)

Re mathematics, by the way, most would say that's a language of physics, it's not what physics studies. The field that studies mathematics is conventionally called mathematics.

[Skepdick]

Except, conventionally, syntax and semantics are distinct categories.

Hence the conditional.

It seems like you missed the implication.

If meaning resides in syntax, then syntax is sufficient to account for meaning. The notion of "semantics", and the distinction between syntax and semantics is a distinction without a difference.

[Terrapin Station]

Except, conventionally, syntax and semantics are distinct categories.

Hence the conditional.

It seems like you missed the implication.

If meaning resides in syntax, then syntax is sufficient to account for meaning. The notion of "semantics", and the distinction between syntax and semantics is a distinction without a difference.

Meaning residing in syntax wouldn't make meaning identical to syntax. You residing in your house doesn't make you identical to your house, does it?

[Skepdick]

You could call anything whatever you want. Whenever the topic is what we're going to call anything, what we're going to consider anything, what we're going to include or not include in our concept of anything, etc., there are no correct or incorrect answers.

Re the physics question above, the idea is rather whether you think that physicists (in general) consider energy nonphysical. In other words, it's asking you what you think the results of a survey would be.

I have absolutely no idea. Conduct the survey and find out.

The idea isn't whether the term "physical" is correctly or incorrectly applied to energy. There is no correct/incorrect for such things. (Which is just the idea when we're talking about ethical stances, too. This is the relevance of the fact that ethical stances are solely matters of individuals' dispositions about interpersonal behavior that the individual considers more significant than etiquette.)

I understand all of that. What I don't understand is why the question matters.

Since the answer is entirely arbitrary - would you be happy if I flipped a coin and gave you an answer?

Re mathematics, by the way, most would say that's a language of physics, it's not what physics studies. The field that studies mathematics is conventionally called mathematics.

And the field that studies formal languages (like Mathematics and Logic) is conventionally called Computer Science.

Theres Formal Language Theory and everything.

[Skepdick]

Meaning residing in syntax wouldn't make meaning identical to syntax. You residing in your house doesn't make you identical to your house, does it?

That is such a terrible analogy I don't even know where to start correcting you.

My house doesn't even begin to account for me.

Syntax fully accounts for semantics.

[Terrapin Station]

Meaning residing in syntax wouldn't make meaning identical to syntax. You residing in your house doesn't make you identical to your house, does it?

That is such a terrible analogy I don't even know where to start correcting you.

My house doesn't even begin to account for me.

Syntax fully accounts for semantics.

If you want to argue that syntax is identical to semantics, you'd need to actually argue that. I don't at all agree, by the way, and I don't agree that "meaning resides in syntax." I'm a subjectivist on meaning, which says that I think that meaning occurs in individuals' heads, and it can be and is in response to all sorts of things (which can include syntax).

Re the other thing, the point is that many (including me) would not consider energy to be something that isn't physical. At that, I think the notion of energy occurring "on its own" is incoherent, but you prefer to approach that by pretending to not understanding what coherent/incoherent "means," rather like when we call someone a hipster and they pretend that "hipster doesn't mean anything."

[Skepdick]

If you want to argue that syntax is identical to semantics, you'd need to actually argue that.

I don't want to argue it. I am telling you it's true in the context of formal languages.

The long answer will take very long to explain to somebody who has zero background in formal languages.

The short answer is: If it's formalised, we can explain it to computers.

I don't at all agree, by the way, and I don't agree that "meaning resides in syntax." I'm a subjectivist on meaning, which says that I think that meaning occurs in individuals' heads, and it can be and is in response to all sorts of things (which can include syntax).

So then what does "+" mean and, and if meaning resides only in heads why can I explain "+" to a computer?

Re the other thing, the point is that many (including me) would not consider energy to be something that isn't physical. At that, I think the notion of energy occurring "on its own" is incoherent, but you prefer to approach that by pretending to not understanding what coherent/incoherent "means," rather like when we call someone a hipster and they pretend that "hipster doesn't mean anything."

I don't know what "coherent/incoherent" means to YOU, and much like the notion of "truth" - I have no idea what "coherent/incoherent" means to me either but I sure know how to use the word.
/
For example... the notion of "energy occurring on its own".... is incoherent to me. Where would energy occur if it were to occur "on its own"? Where does energy normally occur?

[Terrapin Station]

I don't want to argue it. I am telling you it's true in the context of formal languages.

Even if it were the case with formal languages, syntax doesn't only apply to formal languages, so semantics and syntax still wouldn't be identical in general.

The long answer will take very long to explain to somebody who has zero background in formal languages.

I have an extensive background in logic. I have philosophy degrees. I don't have a background in programming.

The short answer is: If it's formalised, we can explain it to computers.

You believe that computers literally understand things?

So then what does "+" mean and, and if meaning resides only in heads why can I explain "+" to a computer?

So, as a mental phenomenon, we can't actually share any meanings. What we do is share definitions, which are different than meanings. Definitions are correlated to meanings, but they're not the same as meanings.

We can't explain anything to computers, as computers do not have minds. They're incapable of understanding anything.

I don't know what "coherent/incoherent" means to YOU,

Nothing different than standard dictionary definitions, but you need to actually read through the definitions.

For example... the notion of "energy occurring on its own".... is incoherent to me. Where would energy occur if it were to occur "on its own"? Where does energy normally occur?

Energy is the relative motion of matter.

[Skepdick]

Even if it were the case with formal languages, syntax doesn't only apply to formal languages, so semantics and syntax still wouldn't be identical in general.

Which is why I said "in the context of formal languages".

But you are a physicalist, and if physics (mathematics) accounts for all of reality then it sure as hell it accounts for natural language too.

I have an extensive background in logic. I have philosophy degrees. I don't have a background in programming.

So you've never actually spoken logic as your first language?

Because that's what programming is. "Arguing" with interlocutors which only speak logic - computers.

You believe that computers literally understand things?

I believe you don't have a criterion for "understanding".

I believe that when I say "Alexa, please turn on the lights" - my words have been understood about as well as they can be understood by any human.

I also believe that you are heading for the hills of the Chinese Room argument.

So, as a mental phenomenon, we can't actually share any meanings. What we do is share definitions, which are different than meanings. Definitions are correlated to meanings, but they're not the same as meanings.

Ironic drumroll: What do you mean by "meaning"?

We can't explain anything to computers, as computers do not have minds. They're incapable of understanding anything.

They understand arithmetic. They do arithmetic EXACTLY like you do arithmetic.

Energy is the relative motion of matter.

Is this an episode of useless trivia?

You've told me nothing to address the incoherence of your question. If you want me to answer you - help me help you. Answer the meta-question. Why does the question matter?

[Terrapin Station]

But you are a physicalist, and if physics (mathematics) accounts for all of reality then it sure as hell it accounts for natural language too.

As I said above:

"By the way, not that I agree with this, but a common characterization of physicalism is that it posits that ontology is (or at least will be or theoretically could be) exhausted by physics."

A pet peeve of mine is people taking "physicalism" to be in any way subservient to, or a cheerleading section for, etc. physics. In my view there's a lot of garbage as conventional wisdom in the discipline of physics, including that there are so many mathematical platonists among physicists.

Language is definitely physical, of course. That doesn't say anything about what the scientific discipline of physics does or will do.

So you've never actually spoken logic as your first language? . . . Because that's what programming is. "Arguing" with interlocutors which only speak logic - computers.

"First language" conventionally refers to the language one spoke before all others.

At any rate, computers are incapable of "doing" meaning. You're speaking metaphorically above, which is fine, but it's metaphorical.

I believe you don't have a criterion for "understanding".

How much money would you put on that, and will we put it in escrow so I can definitely get the money if you're wrong?

I believe that when I say "Alexa, please turn on the lights" - my words have been understood about as well as they can be understood.

Weird.

They understand arithmetic. They do arithmetic EXACTLY like you do arithmetic.

No, they don't understand anything. They can produce the "same" results for arithmetic, sure. That doesn't imply understanding.

You've told me nothing to address the incoherence of your question.

You mean re energy occurring on its own? The task would be to make intelligible, to make some sense, of how that would be possible--just how it could obtain ontologically, etc.

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, if you believe that meaning is identical to syntax, why wouldn't you believe that the meaning of terms like "true," "physicalism," "coherent" etc. are identical to some observable expression of syntax, so that if you then don't read that syntax correctly, you've gotten the meaning wrong?