Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Magnus Anderson]

Before you can establish the truth value of a statement, you have to understand what that statement is saying.

If you want to evaluate the truth value of Peter's statement that "John is a married bachelor", the first thing you have to do is to discover the meaning of that statement, i.e. what is it that Peter is actually saying? That entails discovering the concepts that Peter is attaching to the words he's using in that statement.

You are NOT free to attach your own concepts to his words. If you do that, you will likely end up with a different statement, one he didn't make. In other words, you will end up addressing something he they didn't say, potentially creating a strawman argument against him.

You can attach any concept you want to any word you want. That goes without saying. Language is indeed flexible. However, if you're addressing someone else, you have to work with THEIR concepts. ( In fact, even if you're dealing with your own statements, you have to deal with concepts that you've attached to your words at THAT time. ) if Peter has attached the concept of unmarried man to the word "bachelor", then what he's saying is "John is a married unmarried man" which is very clearly a statement that contains a contradiction within itself. As such, it is a false statement. ( Unless you listen to Skepdick, whose intellectual issues run much deeper, given that he doesn't believe that statements that contain contradictions within their predicate are necessarily false. )

The fact that you can take Peter's statement "John is a married bachelor" and attach the concept of "a person who holds a first degree from a university" to the word "bachelor" and thereby make the statement "John is a bachelor" free from contradiction proves absolutely nothing other than that you're making an embarrassing mistake at best ( that you're equivocating ) and that you're trying to deceive at worst. When you attach your own concepts to other people's words, what you end up doing is creating a statement that is different from the one you're addressing even though it uses exactly the same words in exactly the same order.

In order to test the veracity of the claim "Unicorns exist", the first thing you have to do is establish what concept the author of that statement is attaching to the word "unicorn". This is something that has to be done long before any observation, any exploration, takes place. You can't search for unicorns if you don't know what the word "unicorn" means. You might be able to check every corner of the universe, but given that you don't know what the word "unicorn" means, you won't be able to tell whether what you're looking at is a unicorn or something else.

What concept is the most commonly attached concept to the word "unicorn"? You can ask Google or check any dictionary of your choice. The most commonly attached concept is that of "a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead". It's the concept of an animal. And since animals aren't concepts, it's not the concept of a concept. What this means is that, when people speak of unicorns, they are talking about animals, they are not talking about concepts.

As such, in most cases, the statement "Unicorns exist" means "Horses that have a horn on their forehead exist". It almost never means "The concept of a horse with a straight horn on its head exists". Even when people say "Unicorns are merely concepts", they do not mean it literally, they are merely saying "Unicorns do not exist, only unicorn-concepts, imaginations of unicorns and beliefs in their existence do." It's an instance of figurative speech not meant to be taken literally.

In order to prove that unicorns exist, all you have to do is observe a single unicorn. Its location in space is irrelevant. It can be located anywhere. It can be located inside or outside of people's heads, it does not matter. All you have to do is observe a unicorn. But noone has ever directly or indirectly observed a unicorn. They are nowhere to be found -- not even inside people's heads ( they only figuratively exist there. ) The fact that iwannaplato can imagine a unicorn in his head does not mean he's looking at one. He's merely thinking that he's looking at one.

If you're like Skepdick, you will do the following:

1) You will read my statement "Unicorns exist" and correctly interpret that the word "unicorn" means "a horse with a horn". ( You aren't really that dumb. You know very well what the word "unicorn" means. You just don't understand what definitions are, how they work and what purpose they serve. )

2) You will then proceed to test that claim by looking for horses that have a horn on their forehead.

3) After a while, you will conclude that no unicorns exist.

4) However, because you erroneously believe that we cannot talk about things that do not exist, which means that every statement of the form "X exists" is necessarily true, you will be misled into doubting the above conclusion. Given that I already spoke of unicorns, and that you believe that we can never talk about things that do not exist, it follows that unicorns exist. This actually means that you had no reason to search for unicorns in the first place ( and that you're a bit of an idiot. ) But that doesn't bother you in the slightest.

6) You will reject the conclusion on the ground that my statement "Unicorns exist" does not actually mean "Horses with a horn exist" but "The concept of a horse with a horn exists". Your initial interpretation was wrong, and if the author of that statement, which is me, tells you otherwise, you will tell them that they are wrong as well.

We're dealing with a confusing mind incapable of reasoning properly playing word games.

[Skepdick]

We're dealing with a confusing mind incapable of reasoning properly playing word games.

We aren't, but you certainly are.

If it helps projecting your mind's failures onto me - I'll gladly carry on playing pretend with you.

Otherwise, let me know how else I can help you navigate your way out of your own mess.

[Skepdick]

4) However, because you erroneously believe that we cannot talk about things that do not exist, which means that every statement of the form "X exists" is necessarily true,

This is your problem right there. Fix it. The "exists" is superfluous. If you say X then it's implicit in you talking about some X that X exists somewhere. This is generally true except when you talk about "nothing" in the literal sense. There's nothing to be said about "nothing" because it's nothing. And nothing is not like anything.

If you are talking about X - it exists at least as an idea; or a thought in your head.

If X doesn't even exist as an idea/thought then you can't possibly be talking about X. There is nothing to to talk about!

[Magnus Anderson]

The "exists" is superfluous. If you say X then it's implicit in you talking about some X that X exists somewhere.

Not true, dummy.

If you are talking about X - it exists at least as an idea; or a thought in your head.

Stop dreaming, dummy. Unicorns do not exist AT ALL. "Unicorns exist as an idea or a thought inside your head" is figurative speech. Unicorns aren't ideas. They aren't thoughts. They are animals. Go back to school. Learn English language. GROW THE FUCK UP.

[Skepdick]

The "exists" is superfluous. If you say X then it's implicit in you talking about some X that X exists somewhere.

Not true, dummy.

Absolutely true.

The word "unicorn" is just a bunch of symbols on my screen. The letters u,n,i,c,o,r,n. don't mean anything.

What or where is its content/meaning of those symbols? It's certainly not in the symbols, so what is "unicorn" refering to?

It must be refering to something, otherwise you aren't talking about anything.

Stop dreaming, dummy. Unicorns do not exist AT ALL.

So how are you talking about something which doesn't exist?!? What are the symbols "unicorn" refering to?

How do you know anything about it? How do you know that it's an animal?

If your imagination of unicorns doesn't exist then what are you talking about when you talk about unicorns?

[Iwannaplato]

The "exists" is superfluous. If you say X then it's implicit in you talking about some X that X exists somewhere.

Not true, dummy.

Absolutely true.

The word "unicorn" is just a bunch of symbols on my screen. The letters u,n,i,c,o,r,n. don't mean anything.

What or where is its content/meaning of those symbols? It's certainly not in the symbols, so what is "unicorn" refering to?

It must be refering to something, otherwise you aren't talking about anything.

Stop dreaming, dummy. Unicorns do not exist AT ALL.

So how are you talking about something which doesn't exist?!? What are the symbols "unicorn" refering to?

How do you know anything about it? How do you know that it's an animal?

If your imagination of unicorns doesn't exist then what are you talking about when you talk about unicorns?

Could we say that for you concepts exist and unicorn is a concept and exists as that?
And when MA uses exist he wants it to be something that is, oh jesus, mind independent?

When he says unicorns do not exist, he is not contesting whether the word or concept exists, he is saying it doesn't refer to something outside the mind (and that he's a realist and probably also committed to some other -ism or at least against some -ism).

I feel almost crass writing this, but hey...

[Magnus Anderson]

So how are you talking about something which doesn't exist?!? What are the symbols "unicorn" refering to?

When we say "Unicorns exist", we are describing the state of the universe at that point in time. It's similar to how "Skepdick's vagina exists" and "Skepdick has a vagina" are saying one and the same thing. Skepdick exists, you dummy. The question is merely what kind of state he exists in ( i.e. does he have a vagina? ) Similarly, the universe exists. The question is merely what kind of state it exists in ( i.e. are there any unicorns within it or not? ) How can we do that? How can we say that the state of some portion of reality is something other than it is? How are falsehoods possible at all? It's mindblowing! According to you, we can only speak truth. Noone is ever wrong. Whatever we say, we are right. Narcissistic bullshit. That's what you're peddling.

[Skepdick]

Not true, dummy.

Absolutely true.

The word "unicorn" is just a bunch of symbols on my screen. The letters u,n,i,c,o,r,n. don't mean anything.

What or where is its content/meaning of those symbols? It's certainly not in the symbols, so what is "unicorn" refering to?

It must be refering to something, otherwise you aren't talking about anything.

Stop dreaming, dummy. Unicorns do not exist AT ALL.

So how are you talking about something which doesn't exist?!? What are the symbols "unicorn" refering to?

How do you know anything about it? How do you know that it's an animal?

If your imagination of unicorns doesn't exist then what are you talking about when you talk about unicorns?

Could we say that for you concepts exist and unicorn is a concept and exists as that?
And when MA uses exist he wants it to be something that is, oh jesus, mind independent?

When he says unicorns do not exist, he is not contesting whether the word or concept exists, he is saying it doesn't refer to something outside the mind (and that he's a realist and probably also committed to some other -ism or at least against some -ism).

I feel almost crass writing this, but hey...

What he is doing is using "exists" in a polymorphic manner. Philosophers would simply call him out on the equivocation (which, strictly speaking it is), but that's silly. All he has to do is catch himself using the same word in different senses every time.

Sometimes he's using it to refer to things in minds.
Sometimes he's using it to refer to things outside of minds.
And some times he's using it to refer to things in different timelines (possibilities).
And sometimes he's using it to refer to things that could in principle be known in the future (finding unicorns on other planets).

Once he defines the term "unicorn" he wants to forget entirely that he manifested the idea into existence.

[Skepdick]

So how are you talking about something which doesn't exist?!? What are the symbols "unicorn" refering to?

When we say "Unicorns exist", we are describing the state of the universe at that point in time.

And this state of the universe includes your state of mind. So where in the entire state of the universe is this unicorn located at that particular instance in time?

It's similar to how "Skepdick's vagina exists" and "Skepdick has a vagina" are saying one and the same thing. Skepdick exists, you dummy. The question is merely what kind of state he exists in ( i.e. does he have a vagina? ) Similarly, the universe exists. The question is merely what kind of state it exists in ( i.e. are there any unicorns within it or not? ) How can we do that? How can we say that the state of some portion of reality is something other than it is? How are falsehoods possible at all? It's mindblowing!

I don't care what kind of state exists in. I am simply asking you WHERE it exists.

The referent for the term "unicorn" has a location. Pinpoint it.

According to you, we can only speak truth. Noone is ever wrong. Whatever we say, we are right. Narcissistic bullshit. That's what you're peddling.

Well, my dear genius. It is by the principle of charity which I am obliged to assume that everybody who speaks is speaking their mind. And they are speaking their mind in the best way they know how to speak their mind. And they couldn't speak their mind any better because they don't know how to speak better.

So I much prefer to understand what it is that people are trying to say, rather than jump to judging. And I much prefer to echo back to them what I think they are trying to say in slightly different words, so that they could decide whether they like my way of saying what they are trying to say better.

It works real good for effective communication.

So it really depends on what you think "wrong" refers to.

WHERE in the universe is the referent for the term "wrong"?

[Magnus Anderson]

Could we say that for you concepts exist and unicorn is a concept and exists as that?
And when MA uses exist he wants it to be something that is, oh jesus, mind independent?

IT's true that words and concepts exist. And figuratively speaking, it is also true that unicorns exist as concepts, ideas, thoughts or mental images. However, literally speaking, it is not true that unicorns exist.

The problematic part isn't the word "exist" but the word "unicorn". We define it in two different ways. He's defining it in the non-standard way, which isn't a problem per se, whereas I am defining the way pretty much everyone defines it. For him, the word "unicorn" can represent a concept. For me, and pretty much everyone else, it cannot; it can only represent animals; specifically, horses that have a horn on their forehead. The problem is that he's also saying that I and other people are defining the word the way he does. For example, he won't agree that "Unicorns don't exist" is a true statement; even if you tell him that what you mean by "unicorn" is an animal and not a concept.

[Skepdick]

IT's true that words and concepts exist. And figuratively speaking, it is also true that unicorns exist as concepts, ideas, thoughts or mental images. However, literally speaking, it is not true that unicorns exist.

The problematic part isn't the word "exist" but the word "unicorn".

No, it's definitely the word "exists". You are continuously equivocating it.

You are using "exists" in both a figurative and a literal sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Notice how you say "unicorns exist figuratively" and I say "unicorns only exist in your head". We are saying the same thing.
Notice how you say "unicorns exist literally" and I say "unicorns exist outside of your head". We are saying the same thing.

But while you are changing the meaning between figurative and literal - I am only changing the location of the referent without changing the meaning of "exists".

I am not equivocating and you are.

[Magnus Anderson]

And this state of the universe includes your state of mind. So where in the entire universe is this unicorn located at that particular instance in time?

Nowhere, dummy. That's what we keep telling you.

I don't care what kind of state exists in. I am simply asking you WHERE it exists.

That's your idiocy. We are saying that there is no place in the entire universe occupied by a unicorn. You are asking "Where?"

The referent for the term "unicorn" has a location. Pinpoint it.

You're getting distracted, dummy.

Every proposition has a subject ( the portion of reality it refers to ) and a predicate ( what it says about that portion of reality. )

In the case of "Unicorns exist", the subject is "The state of the universe at the present time" and the predicate is "It contains at least one unicorn".

The referred portion of reality, in other words, is the entire state of the universe at the present time. That's obviously a real thing, you imbecile. Isn't it?

And it's the only thing that has to be real. The predicate does not have to be true to the portion of reality it is trying to portray. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to say anything false about the world. And there is also no need for it to correspond to any other portion of reality.

There are no 30 meters tall people in the world. When I say "Skepdick is 30 meters tall", I am saying something that is very clearly false. But according to your own so-called-logic, I am saying something that is true ( since I can't show you a 30 meter tall person anywhere in the universe, I must really only be saying that I'm imagining Skepdick to be 30 meters tall, which means, my statement is actually true. )

So I much prefer to understand what it is that people are trying to say, rather than jump to judging.

Precisely the thing you suck the most at.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am not equivocating and you are.

Shamelessly accusing the other side of his biggest flaw.

[Skepdick]

And this state of the universe includes your state of mind. So where in the entire universe is this unicorn located at that particular instance in time?

Nowhere, dummy. That's what we keep telling you.

So the term "unicorn" as you are using it has no referent.

e.g it's meaningless and you don't know what you are talking about when you use it.

That's what I said.

That's your idiocy. We are saying that there is no place in the entire universe occupied by a unicorn. You are asking "Where?"

And I am saying that the symbols u,n,i,c,o,r,n don't point or refer to anything meaningful. So they are meaningless!

You aren't talking ABOUT anything when you are using the term "unicorn".

Which is to say you don't know WHAT you are talking about when you are using the term "unicorn".

You are talking about nothing which is nowhere.

Every proposition has a subject ( the portion of reality it refers to ) and a predicate ( what it says about that portion of reality. )

Yes, Where is the subject of the term "unicorn". You said - it's nowhere. So it has no subject.

So you have no idea what you are talking about.

In the case of "Unicorns exist", the subject is "The state of the universe at the present time" and the predicate is "It contains at least one unicorn".

FIne. Where is that one unicorn?

The referred portion of reality, in other words, is the entire state of the universe at the present time. That's obviously a real thing, you imbecile. Isn't it?

Yes, imbecille. All of it is real. including your mind. So where in the entire universe is the one unicorn you are refering to?

And it's the only thing that has to be real. The predicate does not have to be true to the portion of reality it is trying to portray. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to say anything false about the world. And there is also no need for it to correspond to any other portion of reality.

Don't bring the judgments of truth and falsehood into the conversation - you are going to confuse yourself even more. Focus on the unicorn that you are talking about.

WHERE is it?

There are no 30 meters tall people in the world.

Sure, but there's the idea of 30 meter tall people in the world

When I say "Skepdick is 30 meters tall", I am saying something that is very clearly false.

No, you aren't. You could be talking about how you imagine me. You have imagined me as being 30 meters tall.

While judgment is suspended there is nothing true or false about this. It's just your imagination - it's how it is.

But according to your own so-called-logic, I am saying something that is true ( since I can't show you a 30 meter tall person anywhere in the universe, I must really only be saying that I'm imagining Skepdick to be 30 meters tall, which means, my statement is actually true. )

PRECISELY! Now you get it.

It's fucking obvious to any non-idiot that I am not 30 meters tall. So what else could you be talking about when you say "Skepdick is 30 meters tall."

It's obvious that you are talking about your imagination of me; and not about me.

Precisely the thing you suck the most at.

I suck way less than you.

[Skepdick]

I am not equivocating and you are.

Shamelessly accusing the other side of his biggest flaw.

It's not an accusation. It's a statement of fact.

I even explained to you why.

When judgment is suspended I accept the existence of everything. Just help me locate the referent of your term in spacetime.

Which is why I keep asking you WHERE the damn unicorn you are talking about is located.