Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:02 pm You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:02 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:54 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm You said we need 1 bit for a decision.

Indeed. If you are to answer any yes/no question - you need 1 bit of information.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm But now you say we also need a human (or some similar stuff like a computer I guess) for that decision, otherwise there's no way to make sense of that bit.

Hey Mr 'I understand contexts' can you give me an example of decision-making that does not involve an entity with some agency? You can't? I guess that's an omission in your world-view.

Can you think of anything other than humans which cares to ASK QUESTIONS? You can't? I guess your model of reality is fucked up, eh?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm A human or computer etc. is made of many particles, and a part of that is used for the decision.

A human is a computer. The mind is a measuring apparatus.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:49 pm So much for your theory

Hey Mr "I understand contexts", can you give me an example of any theories (MAN MADE NOTIONS!!!) that exist outside of the SOCIAL context of HUMANTT? You can't? SO I guess we have to factor in the HUMAN element then!

For a psychologist you are pretty dumb.

Maybe you have spent no time trying to factor yourself or how your mind works into your model of reality? What a shame!

If you want to do science you need a reference frame. You need an observer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:04 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:02 pm You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.

The observer needs 1 bit to make a decision. Because you need the observer to ASK the yes/no question.
AND draw the distinction!

The universe doesn't need to draw distinctions. Categorization is a human need.

Now you are measuring the observer's composition in bits?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:04 pm Well, look how quickly you have learned to use bits (that don't exist!) for measuring things when contrarianism calls!

To say I didn't predict this would be a lie. And I don't even have a degree in psychology

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:07 pm Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:09 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:07 pm Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

Does the universe exist?

Yes/no question

1 distinction. 1 bit.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:07 pm Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:07 pm Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

I don't know what you mean. There is a perverse idea where we assume that 0/1 abstractions are encoded at Planck-scale, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:09 pm You are picking on Atla like someone without a rational argument.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:07 pm Also, young fella...when you break down the most finite piece of reality - you are left with a 'bit' either an event or not an event.

I don't know what you mean. There is a perverse idea where we assume that 0/1 abstractions are encoded at Planck-scale, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:04 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:02 pm You are saying:
- we need 1 bit
- we need way more than 1 bit

You said many times that contradictions don't exist, so I assume the above doesn't bother you.

The observer needs 1 bit to make a decision. Because you need the observer to ASK the yes/no question.
AND draw the distinction!

The universe doesn't need to ASK QUESTIONS or DRAW DISTINCTIONS. Categorization is a HUMAN NEED!

Now you are measuring the observer's composition in bits?

Well, look how quickly you have learned to use bits (that don't exist!) for measuring things when contrarianism calls!

To say I didn't predict this would be a lie. And I don't even have a degree in psychology

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:15 pm So you need an observer to make use of the bit. (The observer also needs to know btw that it's for a distinction, what kind of distinction it is, and it's strictly 0/1).
You said: 1 bit = 1 distinction, which is an universal claim. We can now see that this is complete bullshit.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:15 pm Also, I'm only measuring the observer in bits because you are, idiot. It's your theory, I'm just showing that it doesn't work in the real world.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:14 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:09 pm You are picking on Atla like someone without a rational argument.

My "rational argument" is that he's guilty of a performative contradiction!

Categorization requires choice (value-judgment!).
Choice requires an agent.

The most primitive categorization is bi-modal. Take the whole (the universe) and split it into two categories.
A and B.

That is one line. 1 line through the middle of the universe makes for 2 categories!

And you would be correct. "Rational arguments" is a bullshit notion, because it suffers from exactly the same flaw I am describing!

You have drawn a line. Rational vs irrational argument. Can you provide me the criteria for rationality?

I am pointing at rational action!

Rational thought is as unscientific an idea as it gets.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:19 pm Things are obviously subjective in any rational argument...to a degree, and within physics - which is what we comprehend rationality with, it comes down to binary...eventually, again, either there is an event or not - at THE most finite point of existence.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:20 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:19 pm Things are obviously subjective in any rational argument...to a degree, and within physics - which is what we comprehend rationality with, it comes down to binary...eventually, again, either there is an event or not - at THE most finite point of existence.

Such is the nature of human experience. Whether it is the nature of "reality" - fuck knows.

This is the perception we are stuck with.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:21 pm Holy shit, we agree on something rather ethereal.