Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:40 pm Sorry, I don't kn ow what these are.

Do you interpret X in context of Type theory or set theory?

for all x: x = x
for all humans: human = human

There are two ways I can interpret that:

1. An axiom. It says "All humans are the same".
2. A proposition. A claim that all humans are the same.

If it's an axiom - there's nothing further to discuss. You either accept or reject axioms. Like 1 = 1.
If it's a proposition then one asks: Is that true ? How would you test if any two humans are "the same"? This is precisely my demonstration where B ≠ В (and I have put it in Python for you so you can scratch your head again. Click 'Run' here: https://repl.it/repls/BouncyOlivedrabMass )

So it begs the question: What do you mean by the symbol = when you say "X = X" ?

The symbolic representation of human (X) contains zero actual information about the positive OR negative properties of 'humans'.

And since no two humans are ACTUALLY "the same" one can conclude that the symbolic representation, as well as the concept of 'human' is just an abstraction. Go ahead and make any positive/negative claims about "all humans" and I will show you edge cases.

TL;DR of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

We are of TYPE humans. It is a categorization, not a claim about our nature. It's just an abstract model/label.

TimeSeeker, by now it may be apparent to you that I'm not versed in formal logic or maths, and that I struggle with such as your kind explanation about set theory and type theory. Despite my drawbacks I am interested still and hope that you will bear with me.

It seems to me that the jargon in which the participants cooperate sets the agenda for whether x=x is axiom or proposition. Both are true within the sort of discourse.Of course, philosophers and scientists will recognise all propositions as models, or heuristic devices, and I understand that those are also called 'frames'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:42 am TimeSeeker, by now it may be apparent to you that I'm not versed in formal logic or maths, and that I struggle with such as your kind explanation about set theory and type theory. Despite my drawbacks I am interested still and hope that you will bear with me.

I am sorry. I am trying to make it as simple to understand as possible by giving you the actual experiment. Then you can learn by EXPERIENCE - e.g empirically rather than though 'reason'.

I keep tripping over my own illusion of transparency https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sSqoEw9 ... stands-you

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:42 am It seems to me that the jargon in which the participants cooperate sets the agenda for whether x=x is axiom or proposition. Both are true within the sort of discourse.Of course, philosophers and scientists will recognise all propositions as models, or heuristic devices, and I understand that those are also called 'frames'.

Exactly. Frame/paradigm/context - they are all the same phenomenon. A symbol without a context/frame/paradigm has infinite meanings/interpretations.

Or rather - it has as many meanings/interpretations as the number of frames/paradigms/contexts you can THINK OF!
And so - the more DIFFERENT uses for a word you are familiar with - the harder it becomes to select one particular meaning if the current context/frame/paradigm is not quite clear to you.

Colloquially: I've just given you a Platonistic model for how ambiguity works.

TimeSeeker, regarding the illusion of transparency (nice article BTW) would you not agree that meaning by way of written language is more transparent than spoken language?

Regarding that article about transparency of meaning, I was puzzled by the examples of archaic English sayings. 'Hang the goose high' although I never heard it before seemed to me to recommend keeping smelly meat out of the way of people's noses, with obvious political implications. 'Lay out in lavender' I never heard before either and it's meaning is clear to me that a potentially smelly dead body gets packed with lavender, which is famous for disguising organic smells, similarly with political implications. Interpretation of poetry ,which those saying are, depends quite a lot upon the receiver understanding the idiom and its concrete references. The Sapir Whorf hypothesis is similarly about linguistic relativity.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:25 pm TimeSeeker, regarding the illusion of transparency (nice article BTW) would you not agree that meaning by way of written language is more transparent than spoken language?

Absolutely not! In person I get to clarify my meaning if I see that you misunderstand me in person! Communication is a skill and you get to guide the discussion as necessary! I don't get to do that when you interpret my words from paper!

I get to give you more context - and point you to articles that clarify my position.

Of course. The SOFTWARE I write (also language) speaks for itself - because the rules (context!) for interpreting it are not up to YOU to decide.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:25 pm Regarding that article about transparency of meaning, I was puzzled by the examples of archaic English sayings. 'Hang the goose high' although I never heard it before seemed to me to recommend keeping smelly meat out of the way of people's noses, with obvious political implications. 'Lay out in lavender' I never heard before either and it's meaning is clear to me that a potentially smelly dead body gets packed with lavender, which is famous for disguising organic smells, similarly with political implications. Interpretation of poetry ,which those saying are, depends quite a lot upon the receiver understanding the idiom and its concrete references. The Sapir Whorf hypothesis is similarly about linguistic relativity.

It is ALL connected Language is all we have! The question is simply WHICH language do you speak? In your own head...

That thing we call metaphysics. As you do mathematics/statistics you develop intuitions/concepts that never existed in your head before. It is this thing we call 'creativity'. And that IS how the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis works in practice!

Timeseeker, I think that you might elucidate a little:

It is ALL connected Language is all we have! The question is simply WHICH language do you speak? In your own head...

That thing we call metaphysics. As you do mathematics/statistics you develop intuitions/concepts that never existed in your head before. It is this thing we call 'creativity'. And that IS how the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis works in practice!

I guess you and I agree that linguistic relativity is true and even that in many cases linguistic determinism is true.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:39 pm I guess you and I agree that linguistic relativity is true

Yes. Absolutely.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:39 pm and even that in many cases linguistic determinism is true.

Minor objection here. This is all about precision. What is "deterministic enough"?
We can use English to set the context. So that we are (approximately) on the same page. We can even use English (as well as other tools like articles, videos, images etc.) to produce new jargon/words/concepts.

But at one point English runs out of agility. And then we could switch to Mathematics (which has much stronger semantics) and allows for a little more precision. in calculating consequences. And given the context which we established in English - it takes the conversation further.
And then you go to Programming languages which are truly deterministic and only require interpretation of the results, but not the 'argument' itself.

And so any language in the Chomsky hierarchy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... 0_grammars ) is the minimum bar for what I call 'deterministic".

Spoken languages can be deterministic when SPOKEN. But only IF the interlocutors are optimising for consensus. On paper - they are not.

If the interlocutors do not wish to agree - they can forever play the Philosophical contrarianism game.

Either way - the discussion can go only as far as the tool (language) allows it to go in terms of precision.

TimeSeeker wrote:

Minor objection here. This is all about precision. What is "deterministic enough"?

I like. Your discussion here does actually help to introduce me to the Chomsky hierarchy.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:52 pm TimeSeeker wrote:

Minor objection here. This is all about precision. What is "deterministic enough"?

I like.

The fact is - through applied systems engineering I have concepts in my head which are difficult to explain in English and sometimes even in Mathematics. And yet - SO USEFUL!
Particularly to somebody who wants to tackle climate (which is to a systems engineer is 'just a Lorenz system' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system ). All I can point you at is complexity science

In order of time-cost to be sunk in learning I offer this:
Wikipedia (10 minutes reading time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
Video (+- 2 hours of watch time): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutCca ... 9UR-DdLsAQ
Book (+- 8 hours of reading time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos:_Ma ... ew_Science

At some point you are going to have to learn some Mathematics/Calculus AND Monte-Carlo simulations if you want to tackle climate change

TimeSeeker, it's not only climate change it's general lack of respect for what one might consider to be not oneself.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:15 pm TimeSeeker, it's not only climate change it's general lack of respect for what one might consider to be not oneself.

Well. Respect is hard to pay when one does not know HOW to respect. Reality is very very complex! And we are really ignorant in context. Hanlon's Razor applies.

Sometimes I really wish that we did have a Total Perspective Vortex so that people can develop an intuition for proportion and complexity. It is humbling...

I want to respect what we all hold in common. In order to do it I follow the scientific experts as well as I can, Moreover the scientific experts are on the side of the political angels. Pope Francis has just made Oscar Romero into a saint. Isn't it obvious that the poor and our common necessities of life are what we all have in common?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:48 pm I want to respect what we all hold in common.

Which is ? Fair warning: it will be REALLY hard to define. In any language.

True, many of the common necessities of life remain to be defined. I read a newspaper article this morning about how religion , as acts of binding together , is historically ancient predating Stonehenge and there is evidence that significant numbers of individuals are becoming superstitious in the absence of any any cleverer symbols of personal identity. A newly published book, actually.

"In any language". What do you think of interdisciplinary conversations?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:58 pm True, many of the common necessities of life remain to be defined. I read a newspaper article this morning about how religion , as acts of binding together , is historically ancient predating Stonehenge and there is evidence that significant numbers of individuals are becoming superstitious in the absence of any any cleverer symbols of personal identity. A newly published book, actually.

"In any language". What do you think of interdisciplinary conversations?

If you give any credence to statistics and the weight of evidence (e.g surviving the test of time) then the Lindy effect is something to pay attention to. If religion is such a crappy idea, then how come it has survives as long as Stonehenge ?

https://medium.com/incerto/an-expert-ca ... b30f146eaf