Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:09 pm**

Logik wrote:Consistency is a human value. The desire for simple models. The desire for determinism. The desire for control.

don't confuse motivation with observation.

science indeed emerged partly as an effort to control our world (and even people), but that does not in any way affect the observation that the universe is consistent, or has behaved consistency thus far. anyone can verify that, not contingent on mindset.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:12 pm**

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:09 pm
Logik wrote:Consistency is a human value. The desire for simple models. The desire for determinism. The desire for control.
don't confuse motivation with observation.

science indeed emerged partly as an effort to control our world (and even people), but that does not in any way affect the observation that the universe is consistent, or has behaved consistency thus far. anyone can verify that, not contingent on mindset.

OK, I know what the adjective "consistent" means when we speak about logic.
I have no idea what it means when you speak about the universe.

To say that the universe is ANYTHING from the data we have collected in 3000 years is to make a hasty generalization.

Can you say small sample size fallacy?

But seriously - what is the utility of SAYING "the universe is consistent."

Suppose that it isn't - what then?

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:41 pm**

i would say it is very far-reaching.

i mean at this point we're just repeating ourselves as far as saying it is concerned, but the observation is foundational to almost all human developments. it's simply taken for granted. even before science, i think many human groups and developments had a notion of consistency in their worldviews they just symbolized it differently, referring to gods and whatnot.

i think without it humans would not even be able to move for fear of being struck by lightening. humans were meant to discover the consistency of the universe. they would not be able to practically live without it. it's just so taken for granted now.

and if the universe turns out not to be? well we have to wait and see then

that possibility isn't relevant yet.

and QM basically only applies to a very narrow scope of reality, the findings of QM did not usher in the collapse of our buildings, or everyone falling off the world, it appears to me to be isolated very small scale phenomena. the rest of physics is not affected by what's going on in the tiny world of QM, and actually it's this disconnect with macro physics or whatever you want to call it that makes me think that QM just needs to be understood better, rather than posing a legit challenge to our understanding of the universe. 'small' does not mean 'fundamental'. if QM was really fundamental, it would manifest on a larger scale, yet it's isolated and contained. rather than resort to calling everything we see an illusion because of some weird phenomena in a super small isolated segment of our universe, we ought to focus on understanding it more thoroughly, unless for one reason or another that is impossible but i doubt that is the case. my impression of QM is that there is much territory to trek, and also ways to approach it.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:45 pm**

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:41 pm and if the universe turns out not to be? well we have to wait and see then

Suppose we discovered it tomorrow morning. What then?

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:09 pm**

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:01 pm i think we just need to be patient, keep at it steadily, and eventually it will fit. and our universe will appear consistent once again.

Maybe because we are little gods organizing what we can comprehend (or pretend to) into consistent bits that we can feel in control of? The "consistency" we perceive probably relies on ourselves as the "ordering agent". If something doesn't fit... if something seems magical (beyond our usual scope) on a grand scale... many of us will dismiss it, while others will claim to be the messengers/knowers of it... both approaches are ways of having/claiming order... and reducing it to our level of contrived understanding and definitions. Why does there NEED to be order on a grand scale according to us? Why can't there be random and moving efficiency within a vastness of disordered potential?

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:54 pm**

the universe doesn't need to be consistent, and i am all for an approach that seeks to find and emphasize inconsistency to the extent that it exists as that is just as important to understand as consistency, if not more important, both as a threat and opportunity for advancement. maybe a gross inconsistency is actually just what we need to make some leap.

my prediction though is that it would be temporary, not that it needs to be, or it wouldn't be beneficial if it wasn't, but that it is probable.

basically, if a true inconsistency did arise, i would start thinking that someone is pulling the strings, so to speak. i can't fathom that something with no human-like consciousness or will can act inconsistently, think about it.

it's the same problem we have with creating artificial intelligence. computers can only do what we tell them to do. well, if the universe is so far just acting on its own, then it must be consistent because there no other way for it to moving other than according to the same 'program' that's existed for eternity.

think about it, if there is no one behind the curtails, then the universe must be consistent and 'move' according to a 'program' (of consistent rules, etc.) because there is nothing or no one to change the program. i mean yes thing colliding and whatnot can result in unpredictable reactions, but gross inconsistencies that turn fundamental traits on their head, i don't think the mere interaction of inanimate matter can muster that, which means, if such inconsistencies were found:

1) there is a god after all

2) the universe is being controlled, or perhaps was even created by, more advanced humans than us!

3) something else similar to the above

which actually i don't think is impossible, neither of these, nor necessarily a bad thing as i think it would be cool and interesting, but it isn't useful really to approach the study of the universe as if one of these three were true. it's an intellectual and scientific dead end. and i mean even just practical engineering and other applications justify the orderly approach, there are pragmatic limitations or motives to science. but i don't think it's an either or scenario anyway, i am pretty sure anything that appears disorderly or inconsistent is being given plenty of attention, probably more than the other stuff, as would be expected. but an approach that looks at or for such things to the exclusion of further discovering more useful consistencies within the consistency model seems wasteful.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:42 am**

I'm here because . . .

1) I don't like being bored.
2) I'm addicted to knowledge, growth and self-improvement.
3) Philosophy is fun!

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:22 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:15 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:24 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pm
RIchard Feynman said: What I cannot create I do not understand.
I can create logic. So I understand it.
As I pointed out earlier EVERY human being CREATES logic. So, you are NO more special than another human being is. Even when a new born baby learns what to do, in order to get what it wants, it has, obviously, recognized a pattern. it is using logic to get what it wants. This ability for pattern recognition in order to learn, and then understand and reason is what 'intelligence' IS.

ALL human beings have intelligence, EQUALLY. In fact ALL human beings are born equally intelligent. Most just do not grow up arrogant enough to TRY TO portray a sense that they are more intelligent/have pattern recognition than others are, like some do here.

Obviously, the one labeled 'logik' does NOT recognize, let alone even SEE, patterns that "others" can very easily SEE, recognize, and disseminate.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pmWhere is the arrogance in that?
IN the way you write. It is here for ALL to SEE.

Even just now, saying, 'I can create logic. So I understand it', as though not many others could, some might say is portraying a sense of arrogance.

So, that is where the arrogance IS, just in this one small quote of yours here, let alone in the countless other quotes of yours.

Also, just because a human being with the label 'richard feynman' said some thing, and then just repeating what that human being said does NOT give any thing more weight, in my perspective?

Either a statement is True, by Itself, or it is not. This pattern is very easy to recognize, with the right know-how.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pm There is no assumption.
You asked: Does being logical make me "smart"?

I said what I said here.

The ASSUMPTION you have made is that what I have been saying has some how led to the CONCLUSION that "being logical infers you being "smart". Besides the FACT that this is so OFF TOPIC from what I was just pointing out, your continual diversionary tactics from what I say gets boring.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pmI said I am logical. Demonstrably so. The assumption of "smartness" is yours.
Relating the two together, that is; "logical" and "smartness" is YOUR own ASSUMPTION. This can be EASILY SEEN in our past texts.

Also, saying that you are logical AND demonstrably so, implies a sense of "WHAT" exactly?

Some might say that you are implying that you are logical, and demonstrably so, while "others" are NOT.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pm Competence without comprehension. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/dennett_on_comp/

I have competence WITH comprehension.
AGAIN, what does this imply in relation to "others"?

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pm I did.

No, it isn't.

Temporal. I cannot conceptualize what "smart" behaves like and I cannot juxtapose it against what "not-smart" behaves like.
Yet you say that YOU ARE NOT SMART.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:27 am I am not using logic. I am pointing out that you have no falsifiable definition for the concept.
So, instead of LOOKING AT and discussing what what I was actually pointing out, you instead lead down your usual path of using words but when questioned about what do you actually mean when you say those words, you inevitably point us to the FACT that you can NOT conceptualize what they mean or that you put your OWN meaning to words but that you will NOT convey that meaning to us also.

If I recall correctly I have yet to see you even just consider what another might just be saying without you jumping straight into disagreement with them, even if it means you disagreeing with what you, yourself, have said previously.

You are on this forum to; Either disagree with absolutely any and every thing, no matter what it is that is being said, or you are TRYING TO portray that YOUR logic is far superior to any thing else known to human beings, from my perspective of what I have seen so far.
Seems like you are still hungry. Would you like another crayon?

Just another example of WHY 'you' are here on this philosophy forum. That is; as I have been explaining, 'you' are TRYING your hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority over "others". But it is just NOT working.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:55 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:37 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:31 pm Which is what some are doing.

It is just that you do NOT have a good enough filter to SEE this.

Seeing the bull from the outside can some times be far easier than seeing it from the inside.

I think that most people here on this forum agree with you that academia and institutions, and the teaching of academia through institutions can be and is mostly full of bull, but most here do NOT going around portraying bull at the same time about how they are "better" than others are. We just give our view of things, which is what you are doing, but if we do NOT like what "others" are saying, then we say so, and preferably and hopefully with reasons and evidence too.

I am just expressing my views of your writings, and give reasons with evidence, for what I am seeing and saying. Just take it or leave it. If, however, you are going to propose that what I say is WRONG or is BULL, then give the reasons WHY and provide at least some evidence as well. Also, if you are going to accuse me of things, then providing some examples so we can LOOK AT them helps.
We can't afford to give you any evidence. You keep munching it as if it's crayons.

This is about YOUR weakest attempt at continuing to NOT provide any evidence at all so far.

You have to provide at least ONE shred of evidence before you could accurately claim that you can not afford to give ANY evidence.

So, when will you provide at least some evidence for what you allege and make accusations of?

And, if you are going to portray that you have already provided some "evidence", then direct us to it, so that we can at least take a look at it. Otherwise, some might assume that really you have never provided any evidence at all.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:01 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:46 pm
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:44 pm
logik wrote: Which part of QM seems "consistent" to you in any way?
Is QM illogical?
YES!

It's counter-intuitive. It defies EVERYTHING we thought we knew about the universe!

"It" might defy EVERYTHING 'YOU' thought 'YOU' knew about the Universe. But that certainly does NOT apply for ALL. What 'you' think, see, and view does NOT apply for me.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:46 pmIt challenges our minds all the way down to our metaphysics.

"It" might challenge 'you' but that is NOT hard to do. 'You', after all, find things the Universe very complex and hard. Bu to some EVERY thing is very simple and easy.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:07 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:02 pm
11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:01 pm QM is still in its infancy, i don't even regard it as a full-fledged science yet.

i think part of it is we don't have the technology yet, and we haven't delved into QM completely enough to be able to fit it into our previous models or vice-versa.

just because we can't reconcile a new field with existing knowledge RIGHT NOW doesn't mean all our existing knowledge is wrong or our fundamental observations of the universe hitherto are wrong. that's just silly and jumping to conclusions. (please don't tell me this is what your views on all this is based on?)

i think the 'messiness' of QM is being overpromoted and overstated...for a variety of reasons i won't get into (eh hem, funding)

i think we just need to be patient, keep at it steadily, and eventually it will fit. and our universe will appear consistent once again.

i mean come on, isn't this how it is with any sort of exploration? it happens in stages. there are surprises along the way, this is the history of science. there were periods where findings challenged the consistent picture before on numerous occasions, but a decade or two later, sometimes it took a century, the challenge was resolved, models were adjusted, and the trait of consistency was reaffirmed.
If you are going to be classifying knowledge as "right" and "wrong" you are going to have to define the difference between the two.

I called it "useful" because every human has their own, subjective need and pursuit. One man's utility is another man's indifference.

But "right" and "wrong" - those are BIG words.... Like Objective Morality big.

ALL these words are defined by agreement, within one's self or any number within a group. What is so hard or BIG about that?

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:54 am**

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:22 am Just another example of WHY 'you' are here on this philosophy forum. That is; as I have been explaining, 'you' are TRYING your hardest to portray a sense of intellectual superiority over "others". But it is just NOT working.

Yet more evidence that you have beliefs.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:54 am**

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:55 am This is about YOUR weakest attempt at continuing to NOT provide any evidence at all so far.

You have to provide at least ONE shred of evidence before you could accurately claim that you can not afford to give ANY evidence.

So, when will you provide at least some evidence for what you allege and make accusations of?

And, if you are going to portray that you have already provided some "evidence", then direct us to it, so that we can at least take a look at it. Otherwise, some might assume that really you have never provided any evidence at all.

Further evidence that you have beliefs.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:55 am**

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:07 am ALL these words are defined by agreement, within one's self or any number within a group. What is so hard or BIG about that?

And we all agree that Age BELIEVES that Age has knowledge.

Age is very mistaken.

Posted: **Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:56 am**

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:54 pm the universe doesn't need to be consistent, and i am all for an approach that seeks to find and emphasize inconsistency to the extent that it exists as that is just as important to understand as consistency, if not more important, both as a threat and opportunity for advancement. maybe a gross inconsistency is actually just what we need to make some leap.

What if the universe doesn't exist? Suppose that tomorrow we uncover that we don't live in the universe,but we are in Biblical hell or something.

Then what? You begin a bunch of sentences but you never finis them.

Make a leap towards.... ?

Philosophy Now Forum

Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

Re: Why are we here on a philosophy forum?