A World Without Men?

[FlashDangerpants]

I see he was doing those redundant little 3 packs of synonyms even then

This one is my new favourite.

stupid, dumb, not smart

All of which describe him, ken, Age.

It' s a shame, that first post he ever wrote demonstrated that he can compose a coherently structured set of thoughts if he puts his mind to it. Yet more or less everything since is a kaleidoscopic series of deterioration.

Is it a Dr Jekyll / Mister Hyde sort of situation, where the reply with quote button turns him into a gibbering delusional fool? Perhaps because he doesn't really understand how to relate any of his ideas to those of anybody else.

[FlashDangerpants]

I can only give you the facts, that can go some way to curing your lack of education.

You REALLY seem to be NOT YET be ABLE TO UNDERSTAND that the FACT that MORE galaxies are red shifted, from the perspective of earth, which is, so called, "evidence" for some HYPOTHESIS in NO WAY AT ALL means that the HYPOTHESIS is even remotely correct in anyway.

The HYPOTHESIS was ONLY based off, and from, the FACT that there are more red shifted galaxies than blue shifted ones. But the FACT that there are more red shifted galaxies than blue shifted galaxies does NOT mean, with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the Universe IS ACTUALLY EXPANDING.

The IDEA that the Universe COULD BE EXPANDING was based SOLELY on just an INTERPRETATION ONLY, like I have been saying. The red shift data was OBSERVED, and INTERPRETATION was made that this could mean that the Universe EXPANDING. A HYPOTHESIS was born.

So, the HYPOTHESIS was FORMED that the Universe IS EXPANDING, and the evidence for this HYPOTHESIS is the red shift data. Which, it could be argued is just circular reasoning, but this is just the FACT of the matter.

Call me old fashioned, and I am no great philosopher of science, but I was under the impression that if there is a hypothesis of an expanding universe which is called upon to explain observational data that giant parts of it are moving away from each other fast enough to alter the wavelength of light as perceived at a distance... then the bad way to argue against that is to use a religious argument (see your previous references to Galileo), and the good way to argue against it is with an alternative hypothesis that explains the same facts.

And then I think the next thing that crops is normally to look for the implications of these competing hypotheses and see if one of them also explains some new data which the other cannot, thus empirically falsifying the bad hypothesis. Perhaps one of those sort of test things that scientists sometimes like to do, an experiment if you will.

But sure. If you think it helps your cause to argue that empirical observations must be interpreted via your personal religious convictions-that-aren't-belief, then go for it. You do you Ken.

If you need assistance with designing an experiment, I can heartily recommend the assistance of Hedgehog7, he can detect amazing things by simply waving a divining rod at a triangle and experiencing discombobulations in his anus.

[Skepdick]

...and the good way to argue against it is with an alternative hypothesis that explains the same facts.

The alternative hypothesis (interpretation) is that we are shrinking. Obviously, nobody has developed the language to express it fully, but it will be isomorphic to any language which expresses the inverse axiom.

They are observationally equivalent, so neither is falsifiable. It's just a conventional choice to assume a default interpretation.

And because Philosophy, any two interlocutors will just argue the opposing interpretations, so anyone observing the debate should be able to recognise they are disputing the interpretation of the data/facts, they are not disputing the data/facts themselves.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

That is Classical logic's for you...

THIS COLOR is Red.
THIS COLOR is not Red.

Pick your interpretation and defend it to the death.

[uwot]

It' s a shame, that first post he ever wrote demonstrated that he can compose a coherently structured set of thoughts if he puts his mind to it. Yet more or less everything since is a kaleidoscopic series of deterioration.

Is it a Dr Jekyll / Mister Hyde sort of situation, where the reply with quote button turns him into a gibbering delusional fool? Perhaps because he doesn't really understand how to relate any of his ideas to those of anybody else.

Weird isn't it? Psychology isn't my bag, but confirmation bias is widely recognised and no doubt some bright sparks have their names attached to a 'syndrome' or two. It's common enough among the ken's, Can's and Aequitas's of this world to be selective with their data, invent all sorts of bollocks explanations and use Occam's Razor to clean their toenails.

[uwot]

THIS COLOR is Red.
THIS COLOR is not Red.

Oh goody. This dumb shit again.

[Skepdick]

THIS COLOR is Red.
THIS COLOR is not Red.

Oh goody. This dumb shit again.

Open Google. Type "Rice's theorem".

All non-trivial semantic properties are undecidable.

This dumb shit is only worth a million dollars. P vs NP.

[uwot]

Open Google. Type "Rice's theorem".

I'm afraid the fact that I couldn't give a fuck prevents me.

[Skepdick]

I'm afraid the fact that I couldn't give a fuck prevents me.

A person who "doesn't give a fuck" shuts up... So if you don't mind, I'll allow myself to continue.

The data/evidence is the data/evidence. The question of import is "What does the data/evidence mean?"

Does it mean that the universe is expanding?
Does it mean that we are shrinking?

It data/evidence means whichever one you choose it to mean.

[FlashDangerpants]

Open Google. Type "Rice's theorem".

I'm afraid the fact that I couldn't give a fuck prevents me.

I once made a passing comment to Skepdick about the difference between the way an economist would describe a bank and the way an average consumer would (one sees it as a time machine that allows your current self to enter into financial transactions with your future self, while the other just sees a shop that sells money). He just went into some spiel about how banks are really just computers. At first I was surprised, but then I realised I shouldn't be, nothing is more natural than to show that boy a time machine only for him to reply "oh look, a computer"

I did Google Rice's Theorem, it turns out you made the right choice.

[Skepdick]

I once made a passing comment to Skepdick about the difference between the way an economist would describe a bank and the way an average consumer would (one sees it as a time machine that allows your current self to enter into financial transactions with your future self, while the other just sees a shop that sells money). He just went into some spiel about how banks are really just computers. At first I was surprised, but then I realised I shouldn't be, nothing is more natural than to show that boy a time machine only for him to reply "oh look, a computer"

I did Google Rice's Theorem, it turns out you made the right choice.

Idiot. You don't even understand the difference between a computer (any given implementation/model) and computation (the universal idea).

You don't even understand time. Or system dynamics. Or what a "transaction" is.

You are just cargo-culting other people's theoretical models/language, without so much as an understanding of how to construct any new knowledge.

Economists still use economic theories constructed upon Classical Logic. And we've already established (well, I have - you are too dumb to understand) why that's a terrible choice of logic for anything in system dynamics.

I read this in an obituary about Rumsfeld, but it's really befitting every time I am forced to interact with you.

His fatal judgment was equaled only by his absolute self-assurance. He lacked the courage to doubt himself. He lacked the wisdom to change his mind.

[FlashDangerpants]

Hmmm, I'm starting to remember why I told you to reapply for attention in July.

Let's reset the clock, you can have some attention in November if you can learn how to play nice between now and then.

[Skepdick]

Hmmm, I'm starting to remember why I told you to reapply for attention in July.

Let's reset the clock, you can have some attention in November if you can learn how to play nice between now and then.

Better yet - spare me any of your attention permanently.

Nobody can convince you that your "understanding" and methods are dated - the sunk cost fallacy prevents you from re-thinking your own ideas from first principles, but of course I also understand why that fact won't prevent you from shutting up.

His fatal judgment was equaled only by his absolute self-assurance. He lacked the courage to doubt himself. He lacked the wisdom to change his mind.

[FlashDangerpants]

Lol, I just got a telling off for being out of date from someone who still believes in "first principles". Maybe we will discuss that in November, but probably not.

[Skepdick]

Lol, I just got a telling off for being out of date from someone who still believes in "first principles". Maybe we will discuss that in November, but probably not.

Q.E.D Idiot.

You got told off my somebody who doesn't even believe in beliefs.

The first principle is that there are no first principles.
The lack of foundations is a foundation.

That you think this is contradictory speaks to your utter inability to comprehend.

[uwot]

A person who "doesn't give a fuck" shuts up... So if you don't mind, I'll allow myself to continue.

I would have thought it fairly obvious that a person who doesn't give a fuck does as they please.

The data/evidence is the data/evidence.

Yes. Perhaps you'll have more luck than I persuading Age of this truism.

The question of import is "What does the data/evidence mean?"

Well yeah, meaning is what people ultimately care about.

Does it mean that the universe is expanding?
Does it mean that we are shrinking?

Well, for the latter to obtain, 'we' would have to be the entire galaxy, shrinking while Andromeda is growing, along with roughly 100 other galaxies, while the other trillion galaxies are shrinking at a rate proportional to their distance. You'd have to assume that gravity only acts at a galactic level, but at least you could dispense with 'dark energy', but wait; that means the rate of shrinkage accelerates proportional to r. And the Milky Way would have be at, or very close to the centre of the universe. Nah. The universe is expanding.

It data/evidence means whichever one you choose it to mean.

Indeed, but not what obtains.