Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker

If there's no ground floor, there's no penthouse. And the penthouse is made of the same stuff as the ground floor - rules for the way we use signs. Back to those questions.

(I didn't know you're a phenomenologist. I think that's a-whole-nother can of worms - another metaphysical delusion conflating reality with the ways we talk about it.)

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:19 am If there's no ground floor, there's no penthouse. And the penthouse is made of the same stuff as the ground floor - rules for the way we use signs.

It is evident to me that you do not understand emergence, scale and complexity. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (which speaks of our brains' inability to cope with complexity. It is a pragmatic consideration, not magical thinking) and so the rules which apply on the ground floor are useless in the penthouse. In fact - the rules of classical logic are useless at the quantum level and vice versa. Which is WHY physics is split up over the two realms: Quantum (micro scale) vs General Relativity (macro scale)

Yes, ontologically you and I are nothing more than quarks, leptons and electrons but PHENOMENOLOGICALLY we are humans. Or mammals. Or animals. Or organisms. Or whatever other broad or narrow conception you wish to label us as given the PURPOSE at hand!

Human, animal, organism etc. are all types (abstractions), NOT ontologies in my logic.
The only ontology is quarks, leptons and electrons, from which everything else is CONSTRUCTED.

Which is why it's called constructivist logic.

It should also be pertinently obvious that because it is a CONSTRUCTIVIST approach you get to group the "lego bricks" from which the world is made up as you CHOOSE.

You can CHOOSE to see your TV stand + TV as one object OR as two separate object/phenomena.
You can CHOOSE to see a typhoon as single phenomenon or as two phenomena: wind + rain.
You can CHOOSE to see it as rain, or as water vapor condensation.

You DECIDE how to group OR split up your experiences of worldly PHENOMENA into WORDS. At the level of abstraction, detail and precision as appropriate for your PURPOSE.

Which is why language itself is impossible without an ought.

Sorry - posted this twice.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:29 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:19 am If there's no ground floor, there's no penthouse. And the penthouse is made of the same stuff as the ground floor - rules for the way we use signs.

It is evident to me that you do not understand emergence, scale and complexity. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (which speaks of our brains' inability to cope with complexity. It is a pragmatic consideration, not magical thinking) and so the rules which apply on the ground floor are useless in the penthouse. In fact - the rules of classical logic are useless at the quantum level and vice versa. Which is WHY physics is split up over the two realms: Quantum (micro scale) vs General Relativity (macro scale)

Yes, ontologically you and I are nothing more than quarks, leptons and electrons but PHENOMENOLOGICALLY we are humans. Or mammals. Or animals. Or organisms. Or whatever other broad or narrow conception you wish to label us as given the PURPOSE at hand!

Human, animal, organism etc. are all types (abstractions), NOT ontologies in my logic.
The only ontology is quarks, leptons and electrons, from which everything else is CONSTRUCTED.

Which is why it's called constructivist logic.

It should also be pertinently obvious that because it is a CONSTRUCTIVIST approach you get to group the "lego bricks" from which the world is made up as you CHOOSE.

You can CHOOSE to see your TV stand + TV as one object OR as two separate object/phenomena.
You can CHOOSE to see a typhoon as single phenomenon or as two phenomena: wind + rain.
You can CHOOSE to see it as rain, or as water vapor condensation.

You DECIDE how to group OR split up your experiences of worldly PHENOMENA into WORDS. Depending on your PURPOSE.

Which is why language itself is impossible without an ought.

1 If we can choose which model to use - and every model has a purpose - why are all models wrong?
2 Is talk of quarks, leptons and electrons not just talk, using signs according to logical rules?
3 Why is classical talk of rocks and stones and trees wrong? Just because they're made of quarks, etc?
4 Is a classically true factual assertion - a 'truth' - useless, wrong or false, just because it doesn't mention other (eg quantum) 'truths'?
5 Why is your constructivist logic not mere scientistic reductionism?
6 Is complexity a metaphysical thing, or is the word just a sign with a use in a language?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 1 If we can choose which model to use - and every model has a purpose - why are all models wrong?

Because Mathematics, and therefore logic and therefore language is incomplete. And incompleteness is another name for "model error". And so, by the law of large numbers and by ergodic theory any and all model errors will eventually manifest as failures (errors in reasoning) in practice.

Which was the example I gave very early on:

1 in 50 failure of your toaster is not the same as 1 in 50 failure of your parachute.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 2 Is talk of quarks, leptons and electrons not just talk, using signs according to logical rules?

WHICH logical rules? The rules are what makes a logic!
Different rules a different logic makes!
Different logic a different LANGUAGE makes!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 3 Why is classical talk of rocks and stones and trees wrong? Just because they're made of quarks, etc?

If you are going to answer questions with questions then I'll just ask "Why did you conceptualise those phenomena as rocks instead of 'granite crystals of age X' and "why did you conceptualise a 'tree' instead of a composition of cells and organic fibers'"?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 4 Is a classically true factual assertion - a 'truth' - useless, wrong or false, just because it doesn't mention other (eg quantum) 'truths'?

Had you read the first page of the link I posted then you would've read that in constructivist logic we do not have a notion of 'truth'. We have a notion of 'proof'

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 5 Why is your constructivist logic not mere scientistic reductionism?

Because it's synthesis/holism, not reduction. Or it can be reduction THEN synthesis. Or it can be just synthesis.

Both reduction AND synthesis are TOOLS. For REASONING. And REASONING has a PURPOSE.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 6 Is complexity a metaphysical thing, or is the word just a sign with a use in a language?

It's a quantifiable/measurable thing. Like the meter, or the kilogram. Are measurements metaphysical things?

I have no idea how you've decided to categorize such things. "Metaphysics" and "ontology" is your language - I am only using those words because you seem to understand them.

In my head -there is only one category. What you call epistemology. Know HOW.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:26 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 1 If we can choose which model to use - and every model has a purpose - why are all models wrong?

Because Mathematics, and therefore logic and therefore language is incomplete. And incompleteness is another name for "model error".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 2 Is talk of quarks, leptons and electrons not just talk, using signs according to logical rules?

WHICH logical rules? The rules are what makes a logic!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 3 Why is classical talk of rocks and stones and trees wrong? Just because they're made of quarks, etc?

If you are going to answer questions with questions then I'll just ask "Why did you conceptualise those phenomena as rocks instead of 'granite crystals of age X' and "why did you conceptualise a 'tree' instead of a composition of cells and organic fibers'"?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 4 Is a classically true factual assertion - a 'truth' - useless, wrong or false, just because it doesn't mention other (eg quantum) 'truths'?

Had you read the first page of the link I posted then you would've read that in constructivist logic we do not have a notion of 'truth'. We have a notion of 'proof'

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 5 Why is your constructivist logic not mere scientistic reductionism?

Because it's synthesis/holism, not reduction. Or it can be reduction THEN synthesis. Or it can be just synthesis.

Both reduction AND synthesis are TOOLS. For REASONING. And REASONING has a PURPOSE.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:20 am 6 Is complexity a metaphysical thing, or is the word just a sign with a use in a language?

It's a quantifiable/measurable thing. Like the meter, or the kilogram. Are measurements metaphysical things?

I have no idea how you've decided to categorize such things.

I'm asking questions to get you to think about the implications of what you merely pronounce as (true).

1 Your appeal to completeness, like your appeal to complexity, begs the question. What we call complex things don't conform to the ways we measure them. And if there's no such thing as a complete description, it's vacuous to say all descriptions are incomplete - just as it's vacuous to say all models are wrong.
2 We agree that all uses of language are contextual, rule-based and purposive. But so what? We have reasons for talking about truth, falsehood and proof - constructivist or otherwise.
3 You haven't answered my earlier questions. I'm still interested in your answers.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:49 am 1 Your appeal to completeness, like your appeal to complexity, begs the question. What we call complex things don't conform to the ways we measure them. And if there's no such thing as a complete description, it's vacuous to say all descriptions are incomplete - just as it's vacuous to say all models are wrong.

Strawman.I am not appealing to completeness. I am appealing to DEGREES OF INCOMPLETENESS. Precision!
All models ARE wrong. Some are less wrong than others.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:49 am 2 We agree that all uses of language are contextual, rule-based and purposive. But so what? We have reasons for talking about truth, falsehood and proof - constructivist or otherwise.

And those reasons dictate the rules, and the rules produce the logic e.g language.

So until you point out the particular reasons (e.g set the CONTEXT) for talking about truth, falsehood and proof then this discussion is "vacuous".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:49 am 3 You haven't answered my earlier questions. I'm still interested in your answers.

You haven't posed them in a meaningful way.You want general answers (objective truths) about language/logic. There are none.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:57 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:49 am 1 Your appeal to completeness, like your appeal to complexity, begs the question. What we call complex things don't conform to the ways we measure them. And if there's no such thing as a complete description, it's vacuous to say all descriptions are incomplete - just as it's vacuous to say all models are wrong.

Strawman.I am not appealing to completeness. I am appealing to DEGREES OF INCOMPLETENESS. Precision!
All models ARE wrong. Some are less wrong than others.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:49 am 2 We agree that all uses of language are contextual, rule-based and purposive. But so what? We have reasons for talking about truth, falsehood and proof - constructivist or otherwise.

And those reasons dictate the rules, and the rules produce the logic e.g language.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:49 am 3 You haven't answered my earlier questions. I'm still interested in your answers.

You haven't posed them in a meaningful way.You want general answers (objective truths) about language/logic. There are none.

1 To say all descriptions are incomplete is to appeal to the possibility of completeness. Just as to claim that all models are wrong is to appeal to the possibility of rightness. Sorry, no way out there.

2 I think you're deflecting - refusing to answer my questions, which are perfectly meaningful - in order to preserve your dogmas. And I guess we're not going to get any further with this. Over and out.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:11 pm 1 To say all descriptions are incomplete is to appeal to the possibility of completeness. Just as to claim that all models are wrong is to appeal to the possibility of rightness. Sorry, no way out there.

Strawman? False dichotomy? No. Actually. There is a better phrase here.

ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL FUCKING IDIOCY! INCURABLE STUPIDITY!

This is EXACTLY HOW adhering to the 'law' of excluded middle is making you dumb!

In your logic contraposition works like this: Completeness = ¬Incompleteness (Dichotomized thinking! )
In my logic it works like this: Completeness = incompleteness + X = 1 (Nuance!)

Where X is GAPS IN HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. It's an optimization problem. The goal is to minimize X.

Objective morality is: lim (time -> ∞) X = 0 (Spelled out: Knowledge is power. Maximise it!)

In no stretch of anybody's imagination is curing cancer the same as appealing to immortality! It's an appeal to prolonging life!

To say that all descriptions are incomplete is to appeal to ITERATIVE IMPROVEMENT.

I am appealing to a model that is BETTER than the last one.
I am appealing to CONTROL AND PRECISION in the DIRECTION OF completeness, while overcoming pragmatic, epistemic and logistical challenges!
I am appealing to an Einstein to every Newton. I am appealing to N + 1 !
I am appealing to the "no harm" principle - that is a TREND TOWARDS ZERO, even if ZERO itself is forever unattainable.
I am appealing to reduction of disease.
I am appealing to improvement in education.
I am appealing to improvement in economic growth.

I am appealing to CONTINUED moral progress.
I am appealing to SPEEDING UP the RATE of moral progress! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_derivative )

I am appealing to the mantra of "if you can't measure it - you can't improve it" ( https://guavabox.com/if-you-cant-measur ... mprove-it/ )

I am appealing to building antifragile social systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragility )
I am appealing to consequentialism and the “no harm” principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere )
I am appealing to the Precautionary Principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle )
I am appealing to the Relativity of Wrong ( https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm )

It appealing to the HIGHEST human ideal/value! Self-determinism!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_engineering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continual ... nt_process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:11 pm 2 I think you're deflecting - refusing to answer my questions, which are perfectly meaningful - in order to preserve your dogmas. And I guess we're not going to get any further with this. Over and out.

My 'dogma' is this very thing which I call 'objective morality'. The very thing which you reject. From here on you are welcome to call me by the endearing label "Sanctimonious p****", because from now on I am going to endearingly refer to you as "imbecille.

You are making me angry, so the only way I can keep talking to you is to keep reciting Hanlon's razor in my head.

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

Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not include the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination, which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic. Intuitionistic logic is one example of a logic in a family of non-classical logics called paracomplete logics: logics that refuse to tautologically affirm the law of the excluded middle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... thematics)

In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism asserts that it is necessary to find (or "construct") a mathematical object to prove that it exists. In standard mathematics, one can prove the existence of a mathematical object without "finding" that object explicitly, by assuming its non-existence and then deriving a contradiction from that assumption. This proof by contradiction is not constructively valid. The constructive viewpoint involves a verificational interpretation of the existential quantifier, which is at odds with its classical interpretation.

The very fact that you accept classical logic and I accept constructivist logic puts us so far off-field that I don't even know how to reconcile it...

I reject the law of identity.
I reject the law of excluded middle.
I interpret contradictions differently to you.

What are we left with ? NO RULES!

Because any and all made up rules are FALSE AUTHORITIES! False Gods

Like I said - you are a theist. You bow to a false authority.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:15 pm I reject the law of identity.
I reject the law of excluded middle.
I interpret contradictions differently to you.

What are we left with ? NO RULES!

As I had stated the first default to knowledge is the relevant Framework and System [F&S] need to be defined as agreed before agreements and disagreements are to be discussed.

The three laws of classical logic [Identity, Excluded Middle, Contradiction] are very relevant with a certain range of F&S just as classical principles of Newtonian Physics are very valid for a certain range of reality and to facilitate survival.

I don't believe there are ontological and absolute moral objectives floating within reality but for an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, there is an imperative to establish absolute [not ontological] moral objectives as fixed 'goal' posts to guide practical ethics.
This is the same as using the North Star* as a guide in navigation.
*It is likely the North Star may not even exists as a star in real time, rather what we see is a sensual interaction of light which is light years old.

42. QED

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:34 am As I had stated the first default to knowledge is the relevant Framework and System [F&S] need to be defined as agreed before agreements and disagreements are to be discussed.

As always - you are avoiding the elephant in the room and you are just stating the obvious. Yes - we need to agree on the framework. Or as I have been saying - we need to come to CONSENSUS. The question you incessantly avoid answering is HOW?

Given the two frameworks on the table:
A. Classical logic
B. Constructive logic

Peter says we should use Classical logic.
I say we should use Constructive logic.

Stalemate. Now what?

In what FRAMEWORK do we resolve stalemates about agreeing on a FRAMEWORK?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:34 am The three laws of classical logic [Identity, Excluded Middle, Contradiction] are very relevant with a certain range of F&S just as classical principles of Newtonian Physics are very valid for a certain range of reality and to facilitate survival.

And you are no closer to answering the question: HOW DO WE DECIDE?

When to use or NOT to use Newton or Einstein's equations?
When to use or NOT to use Classical or Constructive logic?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:34 am This is the same as using the North Star* as a guide in navigation.
*It is likely the North Star may not even exists as a star in real time, rather what we see is a sensual interaction of light which is light years old.

When to use and when NOT to use the North star in navigation...

TimeSeeker wrote:
I happen to be an objective moralist and I am TELLING you there is objective morality

You need to DEMONSTRATE that it exists not merely STATE it otherwise I have no reason to accept your ASSERTION

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:03 am You need to DEMONSTRATE that it exists not merely STATE it otherwise I have no reason to accept your ASSERTION

I have been DEMONSTRATING all along! I have thrown at you all the evidence I have and you say 'Nope, not good enough'.

Maybe you need to be upfront about YOUR criteria? What demonstration would convince YOU? Perhaps there is no way to convince you?

Maybe you lack the Mathematical KNOW-HOW to be convinced?

If that is true - what then? Does that mean that objective morality doesn't exist; or does it mean that you are not smart enough to recognise its existence?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:15 pm I reject the law of identity.
I reject the law of excluded middle.
I interpret contradictions differently to you.

Easterners often use many-valued logic, but when they want to get shit done, they turn to classical logic. Not constructive logic, and not many-valued logic, but classical logic.

Do you know why?