Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Skepdick]

The concept of unicorn is invented, you imbecile. Unicorns aren't.

Uhuh. So what came first? The concept onicorn or the unicorns themselves?

How many irrelevant questions are you going to ask? And why are you even asking? Isn't it obvious? Isn't it obvious that unicorns never came into existence whereas unicorn-concepts did?

They do not even exist, so how can you say they were invented?

So what are you talking about then?

Reread our exchange.

Understand my question.

If unicorns only exist as concepts in your head, what is a unicorn that isn't a concept?

[Skepdick]

It means that "They are not abstractions, they are not concepts, they are not descriptions."

Of course that "bachelor" is an abstraction.

Manhood depends on the person's physique. You can determine whether somebody is or isn't a man by examining them in a lab..
Bachelor depends on the person's history. You can't determine whetehr somebody is or isn't a bachelor by examining them in a lab.

PIck a random man from the street. Bachelor or not bachelor?

Dummy, you literally failed to understand what has been said to you. You still don't understand what definitions are. You still think that definitions are the same thing as descriptions. They aren't. How many times must it be said?

Dummy, I understood perfectly.

I didn't describe that contradictions don't exist.
I defined that contradictions don't exist.

It does not work for you because "I can't contradict myself" is not a definition. It's a statement.

It's both a definition and a statement. It's a definitional statement.

And a false one. You calling it a definition does not make it a definition.

What the fuck? So what makes your definition a definition; and what makes your definition "true"? What's a "false" definition?

A definition is a decision that a term should only be used to represent certain things.

Precisely. I am deciding that contradictions will NOT represent anything whatsoever.

For example, long time ago, humans have decided that the term "law of nature" should only be used to represent laws that are immutable. The implication is that everything that can be represented by the term "law of nature" is immutable.

So what? Why can't I decide differently?

[Magnus Anderson]

Understand my question.

If unicorns only exist as concepts in your head, what is a unicorn that isn't a concept?

Unicorns do not exist as concepts inside your head. Unicorns do not exist at all. When people say "Unicorns only exist as concepts", they are merely saying "Unicorns do not exist, only concepts of unicorns do." It's figurative speech not meant to be taken literally. Regardless of whether unicorns exist or not, unicorns can never be anything other than what the definition of the term "unicorn" permits. In other words, they can never be anything other than horses that have a horn on their forehead. They can never be concepts, abstractions, descriptions, etc.

[Skepdick]

Unicorns do not exist as concepts inside your head. Unicorns do not exist at all.

The fuck? So even though you defined what a unicorn is, the concept of unicorn doesn't exist in your head?

How confused are you?

[Magnus Anderson]

The fuck? So even though you defined what a unicorn is, the concept of unicorn doesn't exist in your head?

How confused are you?

The concept of unicorn exists. Unicorns don't. Read the rest of my post instead of rushing.

[Skepdick]

The fuck? So even though you defined what a unicorn is, the concept of unicorn doesn't exist in your head?

How confused are you?

The concept of unicorn exists. Unicorns don't. Read the rest of my post instead of rushing.

You fucking retard.

The concept of unicorn is invented, you imbecile. Unicorns aren't. They do not even exist, so how can you say they were invented?

If unicorns don't exist then the only fucking thing you are talking about when you talk about unicorns is the concept of unicorns. Not unicorns.

[Magnus Anderson]

I didn't describe that contradictions don't exist.
I defined that contradictions don't exist.

You win "The Most Stubborn PN Forum Member" award. Hands down, I don't think anyone does it better than you. You're an ass like no other.

You didn't DEFINE that contradictions don't exist. You STATED that they don't. Get over it. Definitions are about assigning meaning to symbols. You didn't do that. Everyone can see it.

It's both a definition and a statement. It's a definitional statement.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Precisely. I am deciding that contradictions will NOT represent anything whatsoever.

That's not what you said. This is a shameless lie. And a decent reason to consider the possibility that you're a paid agent. An agent paid to demolish Internet gatherings.

So what? Why can't I decide differently?

Read my response to iwannaplato.

[Magnus Anderson]

If unicorns don't exist then the only fucking thing you are talking about when you talk about unicorns is the concept of unicorns. Not unicorns.

Nope, try again.

[Skepdick]

If unicorns don't exist then the only fucking thing you are talking about when you talk about unicorns is the concept of unicorns. Not unicorns.

Nope, try again.

Great. So you don't even know what you are talking about.

[Magnus Anderson]

I do. You don't.

You're too caught up in this pathetic subjectivist bullshit.

[Skepdick]

I do. You don't.

So tell me!

You're too caught up in this pathetic subjectivist bullshit.

Whatever it is you are talking about is trapped in your head and you can't express it, but I am "caught up in this pathetic subjectivist bullshit" ?!?

[Magnus Anderson]

So tell me!

You really are annoying. You know very well what I'm talking about. I am talking about horses that have a horn on their forehead. The problem is that you start with the erroneous premise, one that you don't even bother to state, that we can only talk about things that exist. From there, you somehow deduce that, if unicorns do not exist, statements such as "Unicorns are horses with a horn" are either talking about nothing at all or they are talking about something that exists but that is not actually unicorns -- but something else, e.g. unicorn-concepts. For some reason, you go for the second possibility. Unfortunately for you, that contradicts your premise "Unicorns don't exist". If the term "unicorn" actually means "unicorn-concept", and if unicorn-concepts exist, then "Unicorns do not exist" is actually false.

It's not necessary for a thing to exist in order to be able to talk about it. That's the mistake that you're making. We can talk about both ACTUAL and POSSIBLE-BUT-NOT-ACTUAL existence just fine. When we say "Unicorns are horses with a horn", we're talking about things, both actual and possible-but-not-actual, that can be represented with the term "unicorn". We are saying that all such things are horses and that all such things have a straight horn on their forehead. We are NOT talking about concepts, abstractions, descriptions, etc. That's complete and utter nonsense.

[Skepdick]

You really are annoying. You know very well what I'm talking about. I am talking about horses that have a horn on their forehead.

Yes, you are talking about the concept of unicorns (not actual unicorns because those don't exist) - I got that.

The problem is that you start with the erroneous premise, one that you don't even bother to state, that we can only talk about things that exist.

You said that unicorns don't exist, and they don't. So you can't be talking about them. So you are necessarily talking about the concept of unicorns which does exist.

From there, you somehow deduce that, if unicorns do not exist, statements such as "Unicorns are horses with a horn" are either talking about nothing at all or they are talking about something that exists but that is not actually unicorns -- but something else, e.g. unicorn-concepts. For some reason, you go for the second possibility. Unfortunately for you, that contradicts your premise "Unicorns don't exist".

It's not my premise - you said that unicorns don't exist. What's going on in that head of yours?

If the term "unicorn" actually means "unicorn-concept", and if unicorn-concepts exist, then "Unicorns do not exist" is actually false.

Is it your equivocation of "exists" that's confusing you here? Unicorns do exist in your head. Unicorns don't exist outside of your head.

The existence of unicorns is conditional on the location of existence.

It's not necessary for a thing to exist in order to be able to talk about it.

Yes it is. What could you possibly be talking about if it doesn't exist somehow and somewhere? Even if it only exists as an concept in your head.

Like unicorns.

That's the mistake that you're making. We can talk about both ACTUAL and POSSIBLE-BUT-NOT-ACTUAL existence just fine.

I am not making any mistakes. I've defined myself such that It's impossible for me to make mistakes. And I've defined it so that all mistakes are yours.

When we say "Unicorns are horses with a horn", we're talking about things, both actual and possible-but-not-actual

That's just silly. What actual unicorns are you talking about? They only exist in your head.

that can be represented with the term "unicorn". We are saying that all such things are horses and that all such things have a straight horn on their forehead. We are NOT talking about concepts, abstractions, descriptions, etc. That's complete and utter nonsense.

Yes you are. You are only talking about the unicorns in your head. Those are concepts.

They will stop being just concepts when you show me an actual unicorn.

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes, you are talking about the concept of unicorns (not actual unicorns because those don't exist) - I got that.

Nah. If that were the case then the statement "Mary is riding a unicorn" would be a meaningless one. You can't ride a concept.

You have to understand what it means to say that someone is talking about something and that there is no requirement for things to exist in order to be able to talk about them.

You said that unicorns don't exist, and they don't.

Can't you see what you're doing? When you say "Unicorn don't exist", you're using the word in the standard way, namely, to mean "a horse with a horn". You're talking about things that don't exist. You're doing it yourself. But because you have this erroneous idea that we can't talk about things that don't exist, you are misled into redefining the term "unicorn" to mean "the concept of unicorn". Now, you can say that unicorns exist, even though previously you agreed that they don't. It's a silly little word game. Nothing more.

Is it your equivocation of "exists" that's confusing you here? Unicorns do exist in your head. Unicorns don't exist outside of your head.

The existence of unicorns is conditional on the location of existence.

We're asking whether unicorns exist anywhere in the world or not. The location of their existence is irrelevant. They are allowed to exist anywhere.

Do unicorns exist, McDickie? If you say "Yes, they exist in heads", can you show me a horse with a horn that exists in someone's head?

You're playing word games, dummy. That's all you do.

What could you possibly be talking about if it doesn't exist somehow and somewhere?

You can talk about what can possibly exist, dummy.

I am not making any mistakes. I've defined myself such that It's impossible for me to make mistakes. And I've defined it so that all mistakes are yours.

Oh yes, you are. You are making a ton of mistakes. In fact, your entire portfolio is made out of mistakes. What you think about yourself -- which, by the way, is not a definition -- is completely irrelevant.

What actual unicorns are you talking about?

You missed the point, dummy.

They will stop being just concepts when you show me an actual unicorn.

So if unicorns came into existence then the meaning of the word "unicorn" will magically go from that of a concept to that of an animal?

Isn't it a bit idiotic to say such a thing?

[Iwannaplato]

Nah. If that were the case then the statement "Mary is riding a unicorn" would be a meaningless one. You can't ride a concept.

A concept version of Mary can ride a unicorn. I'm experiencing this two part concept right now.