Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Atla]

Why would you think that you, some random dude on a philosophy forum, have any smarts about abstraction? Philosophy surrendered that expercise to the formal sciences long ago.

Does it annoy you when I reply before you are finished with your 62 edits of your text?

No, only numbers above 83 which divide by 17 annoy me.

Testing

[Sculptor]

Thesis:
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK,

You got off to a poor start.
We had all these things long before anyone eer head of an FSK

[Skepdick]

Thesis:
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK,

You got off to a poor start.
We had all these things long before anyone eer head of an FSK

You had abstract/theoretical constructs before you had abstract theories?

What?

[Sculptor]

Thesis:
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK,

You got off to a poor start.
We had all these things long before anyone eer head of an FSK

You had abstract/theoretical constructs before you had abstract theories?

What?

Of course.
Socrates had them all yet no FSK.
It's a no brainer.
50,000 year old cave art is a series of abstract constructs before any theory.

[Skepdick]

You got off to a poor start.
We had all these things long before anyone eer head of an FSK

You had abstract/theoretical constructs before you had abstract theories?

What?

Of course.
Socrates had them all yet no FSK.
It's a no brainer.
50,000 year old cave art is a series of abstract constructs before any theory.

So he had no overall method?

Nothing testable or repeatable.

You must be an idiot for thinking that.

Getting tired of explaining the act of reification to ignoramuses.

[Magnus Anderson]

An answer is an answer.
A contradiction is a contradiction.
An answer is not a contradiction.

But an answer can contain a contradiction.

A: Where are you currently?

B: I am currently in Canada and Netherlands. [ A self-contradicting answer. ]

Also, an answer can contradict something previously said.

A: Are you married?

B: No, I am not. [ Answer #1. ]

A: So you don't have a spouse?

B: Well, I actually do. [ Answer #2. Contradicts Answer #1. ]

What exactly are you accusing me of?

"Unicorns are nowhere to be found" does not contain a contradiction within itself. However, it is indeed opposed to the statement "Unicorns exist" but it does not contradict any of my beliefs because I don't believe that unicorns exist and I never said so.

I don't know where the unicorn is, but I know it's somewhere.

THe problem is that you're presuming that it's somewhere.

When you say "Nowhere" you are doing the OPPOSITE of reducing my uncertainty - you are increasing my uncertainty to a maximum.

An answer is an answer regardless of how it affects you. It might not satisfy you, but in that case, you have to say so instead of merely repeating it. And you also have to explain why you find it unsatisfying.

By telling me nowhere after also telling me that it exists somewhere you've left me with a contradiction in my head.

I am not talking about a belief that is held by someone.

I am talking about the statement that is "Unicorn exists".

One can understand what a statement means, and even test its veracity, without anyone believing it to be true.

An answer is an answer is an answer.
A contradiction is a contradiction is a contradiction.

A contradiction is not an answer; and an answer is not a contradiction.

A man is a man is a man.

A father is a father is a father.

A man is not [ necessarily ] a father; and a father is not [ necessarily ] a man.

Therefore, no man is a father.

I am not talking about existing unicorns ( and certainly not about "an existing unicorn". )

Yes you are. Using the word "unicorn" implies that somethign exists in your head which caused you to use the word "unicorn".

That is what the word "unicorn" represents.
That is what the word "unicorn" is refering to.

The idea/concept of a unicorn that is in your head.
The idea which you've expressed USING the word "unicorn".

The word "cat" implies that something exists in my head that caused me to use the word "cat".

Is that what the word "cat" represents?
Is that what the word "cat" is referring to?

Of course not.

Why?

It's because what a word means and what it represents / refers to ( if anything ) is decided by those who use it.

For example, I can take the word "xastolip", a word that has no meaning in English language, and ascribe to it any meaning I want. To ascribe a meaning to a word is to establish the set of all things, existing and non-existing, that can be represented by that word. For example, I can say the word can only represent Biden, Obama, Trump, Hitler and a winged horse. Hitler doesn't exist in the present, but if he did, I'd be able to say he's a xastolip. Certainly, I can say that he was a xastolip. Winged horses never existed, but if they did, I'd be able to say they are xastolips. I can also say that, if they ever pop into existence, they would be xastolips.

The fact that the word "xastolip" implies that something exists in my head that caused me to use that word does not mean the word "xastolip" can be used to represent that something. The concept attached to the word decides whether that's possible. The concept that is attached to it is captured by the definition that is "Either Biden, Obama, Trump, Hitler or a winged horse". That definition tells us very clearly that the word "xastolip" cannot be used to represent mental objects ( such as thoughts, ideas, imaginations, concepts, beliefs, etc. )

Defined this way, the word "xastolip" has no referent. Why is that? It's because the referent of a word is the portion of reality that is the only thing that can be represented by that word. The fact that the word "xastolip" can be used to represent more than one thing tells us that is has no referent.

I can, however, decide to change its meaning, and by doing so, give it a referent. For example, I can change the definition of the word "xastolip" so that it can only be used to represent Biden. By doing that, I give it a referent. That referent being the current president of the United States of America, Joseph Biden.

Fuck me.

Disgusting.

The very statement "Unicorn." implies THAT some unicorn exists somewhere.

What kind of statement is that? Do you mean "That is a unicorn"? If so, yes, that statement states that there is a unicorn somewhere, that "somewhere" being indicated by "that". But it does not follow that it is true, i.e. that the described portion of reality, indicated by "that", is indeed that of a unicorn. Nor does it follow that there are unicorns anywhere else in the universe.

If NO unicorn exists ANYWHERE then you wouldn't have used the word "unicorn".

Backward logic meant to promote the idea that we can never be wrong about anything. Narcissism.

Yes. A number of times already. It has been demonstrated to you that IF you attempt speaking about something which doesn't exist anywhere in the universe then it necessarily results in a contradiction.

If noone is convinced then no demonstration took place. Sure, you can say, "Well, I presented a demonstration that can only convince people who aren't dumb, for it only works on people who are smart, dumb people won't get it." That's possible, for sure, but I highly doubt it that you did anything of that sort. Instead, you offered nothing of any value. You're merely a delusional narcissist with no desire to learn anything.

It means nothing! Literally - nothing.

To use a term without a referent is to use a term vacuous of any meaning.

And why is that? Can you prove that one? Explain to use what the word "meaning" means. Then explain to us what the word "referent" means. Then tell us how it follows that a word that has no referent is one without any meaning.

[Skepdick]

But an answer can contain a contradiction.

Idiot. I explained it to you already.

The answer doesn't contain a contradiction.
The answer causes a contradiction.

B: I am currently in Canada and Netherlands. [ A self-contradicting answer. ]

When evaluated. By the person reading your words.

The answer CAUSES a contradiction.

The answer doesn't "contain" a contradiction because words don't contain anything.

Meaning is in people's heads.

Also, an answer can contradict something previously said.

Obviously. It can CAUSE a contradiction. Given what you previously said.
Which is what happens when you say "The unicorn exists", and then you say "It's nowhere".

What exactly are you accusing me of?

I am not accusing you of anything - this isn't a court of law.

I am informing you that your words are causing contradictions in my mind.

"Unicorns are nowhere to be found" does not contain a contradiction within itself. However, it is indeed opposed to the statement "Unicorns exist" but it does not contradict any of my beliefs because I don't believe that unicorns exist and I never said so.

Sure, but you couldn't have looked everywhere. Otherwise you would've found at least one.

THe problem is that you're presuming that it's somewhere.

The only thing that I am presuming is that you aren't lying to me. I am taking your word for it.

An answer is an answer regardless of how it affects you.

Fuck you! If you have zero concern with the way your answers affect others shut the fuck up!

It might not satisfy you, but in that case, you have to say so instead of merely repeating it. And you also have to explain why you find it unsatisfying.

I did! How many times must I explain to you that an existing unicorn can't be nowhere?

How many times must I repeat that you can't speak about things that don't exist before you understand what it means?

I am not talking about a belief that is held by someone.

If you can't locate it - you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

How many times must I repeat this?

I am talking about the statement that is "Unicorn exists".

No, you weren't. You were using the phrase "unicorns exist.". You weren't mentioning it.

One can understand what a statement means, and even test its veracity, without anyone believing it to be true.

Contradiction!

veracity /vɪˈrasɪti/ noun conformity to facts; accuracy.

That is what the word "unicorn" represents.
That is what the word "unicorn" is refering to.

I know! But you said it's not refering to anything. You were confused. And so here I am explaining your confusion to you.

The idea/concept of a unicorn that is in your head.

The idea in MY head caused you to use the word "unicorn" ?!? How did you read my mind?!?!?

It's because what a means and what it represenst / refers to ( if anything ) is decided by those who use them.

Why IF anything? IF it refers to nothing; and IF it represents nothing then it's meaningless.

What does the word stand for? Nothing? Great!

Shut the fuck up!

For example, I can take the word "xastolip", a word that has no meaning in English language, and ascribe to it any meaning I want.

Sure. That's the use/mention description.

You aren't using "xastolip". That's why you are quoting it - you are mentioning it.

To ascribe a meaning to a word is to establish the set of all things, existing and non-existing, that can be represented by that word.

Jesus fucking christ dude. How many times must you fail at using words for non-existing things before you learn to stop doing it?

You are like that dumb kid who keeps touching the hot plate and simply won't learn.

For example, I can say the word can only represent Biden, Obama, Trump, Hitler and a winged horse. Hitler doesn't exist in the present

WHERE does Hitler exist? In the past. You are still talking about something which exists in spacetime.

It doesn't exist in the present. But it exists.

Winged horses never existed

Sure, maybe they never existed (past tense). But you literaly brought them into existence. As you spoke about them!

They appeared into existence as your imagination spawned them.

, but if they did, I'd be able to say they are xastolips. I can also say that, if they ever pop into existence, they would be xastolips.

They already popped into existence... Jesus. You are dull.

The fact that the word "xastolip" implies that something exists in my head that caused me to use that word does not mean the word "xastolip" can be used to represent that something.

Dude. I am sick and tired of having to explain this to you. Charles Sanders Peirce - semiotics

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

The concept attached to the word decides whether that's possible.

You can attach and re-attach words to concepts as you please! You can attach and re-attach words to referents as you please.

The relationships between meaning, symbols and referents IS the Semiotics I refered you to.

The very statement "Unicorn." implies THAT some unicorn exists somewhere.

What kind of statement is that? Do you mean "That is a unicorn"? If so, yes, that statement states that there is a unicorn somewhere, that "somewhere" being indicated by "that". But it does not follow that it is true, i.e. that the described portion of reality, indicated by "that", is indeed that of a unicorn. Nor does it follow that there are unicorns anywhere else in the universe.

It implies all of those things.

Unicorn.

The above statement reports what I was imagining a moment ago. For the instant that it happened - it was true somewhere in the universe.
Specifically - it was true in my imagination.

Backward logic meant to promote the idea that we can never be wrong about anything. Narcissism.

Not true. For example - you are wrong right now. It's not narcissism.

It's freedom of thought and expression. I can imagine whatever the fuck I want, and I can report the fact that I have imagined it.

If noone is convinced then no demonstration took place.

At least one person is convinced. Me. The demonstration took place.

Sure, you can say, "Well, I presented a demonstration that would convince people who aren't dumb, for it only works for people who are smart, dumb people won't get it." That's possible, for sure, but I highly doubt it that you did anything of that sort. Instead, you offered nothing of any value. You're merely a delusional narcissist with no desire to learn anything.

You can't understand why speaking about non-existing things leads to contradictions and I am the delusional narcissist?

Dude. Get a bigger mirror. Because I am not enough.

And why is that?

Because words stand for things! And if a word stands for nothing - it means nothing.

Can you prove that one? Explain to use what the word "meaning" means.

I am not sure what sort of answer you expect from me here. Can you show me what sort of response would satisfy you?

Explain "explain".

Then explain to us what the word "referent" means. Then tell us how it follows that a word that has no referent is one without any meaning.

You first. Explain "explain"

At some point you have to catch on that words can't always be effectively defined. But that doesn't seem to prevent you from using the word just fine.

That was the define "define" joke! You can't define it. But you know how to fucking use it.

The end.

[Iwannaplato]

The answer doesn't "contain" a contradiction because words don't contain anything.

Ah, the gnarly conduit metaphor for language. It's like a virus....
http://www.biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cu ... taphor.pdf

[Sculptor]

You had abstract/theoretical constructs before you had abstract theories?

What?

Of course.
Socrates had them all yet no FSK.
It's a no brainer.
50,000 year old cave art is a series of abstract constructs before any theory.

So he had no overall method?

Nothing testable or repeatable.

You must be an idiot for thinking that.

Getting tired of explaining the act of reification to ignoramuses.

You are only tired because you lack basic cognitive ability and/or understanding of the most basic philosophical concepts.

Normal people make abstract concepts all the time.
Are you deficient in this skill?

[Skepdick]

You are only tired because you lack basic cognitive ability and/or understanding of the most basic philosophical concepts.

NOOO ! WAAAAAY!

There's a framework for understanding ?!? Called philosophy ?!?!

Normal people make abstract concepts all the time.
Are you deficient in this skill?

NOOO ! WAAAAAY!

Normal people have the faculties for constructing abstract frameworks for understanding ?!?!?

It's almost like... we have words for that concept. Like world-view, or perspective, or mind-set, or a philosophical foundation; or maaaaybe. Maybe it's just called "having a philosophy" ?!?

It's like you are deficient in the skill of identifying synonymous terms.

[Skepdick]

The answer doesn't "contain" a contradiction because words don't contain anything.

Ah, the gnarly conduit metaphor for language. It's like a virus....
http://www.biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cu ... taphor.pdf

The undying pestilence of this confused desire to pack everything worth saying into as few words as possible...

God!
Truth!

In information theory this is studied under Kolmogorov complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
It's basically an ideal lossless compression schema.

[Magnus Anderson]

The answer doesn't contain a contradiction.
The answer causes a contradiction.

When evaluated. By the person reading your words.

The answer CAUSES a contradiction.

The answer doesn't "contain" a contradiction because words don't contain anything.

Meaning is in people's heads.

You have way too many issues with language. You seem to think that a statement is merely a string of characters, implying that, if something is not a string of characters itself, it cannot be contained within a statement. Stuff like that makes it impossible for you to understand what other people are saying. You have no choice but to constantly misinterpret them.

I am not accusing you of anything - this isn't a court of law.

There you go again. When I say "You're accusing me" I mean "You're saying that I did or that I'm doing something bad".

Fuck you! If you have zero concern with the way your answers affect others shut the fuck up!

I do . . . but an answer IS an answer even if it makes you cry.

No, you weren't.

Yes, I was.

Sure, maybe they never existed (past tense). But you literaly brought them into existence. As you spoke about them!

Idiotic statement.

They appeared into existence as your imagination spawned them.

Noone ever created winged horses with the power of their imagination.

Imagination can create mental images in your head but a winged horse is NOT a mental image.

Unicorn.

The above statement reports what I was imagining a moment ago. For the instant that it happened - it was true somewhere in the universe.
Specifically - it was true in my imagination.

Alright. So when you say "Unicorn", you're saying "I just imagined a unicorn." That statement does not tell us that a unicorn exists. It tells us that an imagination of a unicorn existed a moment or two agp inside your mind. When people say "Unicorns exist", they aren't saying "Imaginations of unicorns exist". They are saying "Horses that have a straight horn on their forehead exist". Two very different statements.

At least one person is convinced. Me. The demonstration took place.

This is a social venue, dummy. I know you're an anti-social shut-in faggot freak, but come on, restrain yourself a bit.

Because words stand for things! And if a word stands for nothing - it means nothing.

"Skepdick is a worm."

What does the word "worm" stand for in this statement?

Does it stand for Skepdick himself? Does it stand for something in my head? If it stands for something in my head, doesn't that mean I'm saying you're something inside of my head?

I am not sure what sort of answer you expect from me here. Can you show me what sort of response would satisfy you?

Explain "explain".

Given a word, how do we discover its meaning? How do we discover the meaning of the word "worm" in my statement "Skepdick is a worm"?

Are the meaning of a word and its referent one and the same thing? Or are they different things? If so, what's the difference? And how do we discover the referent of a word?

At some point you have to catch on that words can't always be effectively defined. But that doesn't seem to prevent you from using the word just fine.

You're supposed to expose your reasoning process. If you can't do that, then this discussion is over. You should stop engaging in it.

That was the define "define" joke! You can't define it. But you know how to fucking use it.

I've already defined the term.

The end.

You've certainly reached the end of your sanity . . . long time ago.

[Sculptor]

You are only tired because you lack basic cognitive ability and/or understanding of the most basic philosophical concepts.

NOOO ! WAAAAAY!

There's a framework for understanding ?!? Called philosophy ?!?!

Normal people make abstract concepts all the time.
Are you deficient in this skill?

NOOO ! WAAAAAY!

Normal people have the faculties for constructing abstract frameworks for understanding ?!?!?

It's almost like... we have words for that concept. Like world-view, or perspective, or mind-set, or a philosophical foundation; or maaaaybe. Maybe it's just called "having a philosophy" ?!?

It's like you are deficient in the skill of identifying synonymous terms.

You are just making an arse of yourself as usual

[Skepdick]

You have way too many issues with language.

I don't have any issues with language. Language has very many issues. All of which contribute to misscommunication.

What I also have is a number of strategies for avoiding; and navigating around miscommunication.
None of those strategies are effective against sabotage. Intentional or otherwise.

Sounds like you've never heard of Wiio's laws.

You seem to think that a statement is merely a string of characters

I don't think that at all. But I do think that a string of characters (even if those characters are perfectly sensible English sentences) is not a statement.

Imagine you woke up one morning and the clouds in the sky spelled out "I am hungry." Is that a statement? No. It's sheer accident. A miracle of nature. Can you infer any intent or purpose behind those words? Is there an agent?

If there is no agent/intent behind the words - it's not language.

, , implying that, if something is not a string of characters itself, it cannot be contained within a statement. Stuff like that makes it impossible for you to understand what other people are saying. You have no choice but to constantly misinterpret them.

If it's impossible how is it that I am understanding this English text?

A statement is merely a string of characters.

No, it isn't. You are incredibly confused about what meaning is.

The pixels on your monitor are arranged to look like English letters. It's all just meaningless matter in a pattern-formation you recognize.

These aren't characters or symbols. This isn't a sentence. This isn't a statement. This is just meaningless matter in a pattern-formation you recognize as English letters, sentences statements and language.

Your brain is interpreting it all as characters, symbols, sentences, statements, language.

The meaning of a statement (which is in your head) is what really matters.

Exactly!

These aren't characters or symbols - your brain is recognizing characters.
This isn't a sentence - your brain is interpreting it as a sentence.
This isn't a statement - your brain is interpreting it as a statement.

This is just meaningless matter in the configuration of English letters and your brain's putting it all together as "meaningful English sentences".

All the meaning's in your head.

There you go again. When I say "You're accusing me" I mean "You're saying that I did or that I'm doing something bad".

You are stalling communication by causing contradictions with your words.
You are making me expend extra mental effort to identify and correct your errors.
It's costing me time and I am not getting any money teaching you how to use language; and how to think.

These are not moral judgments. These are just facts. You decide whether that's good or bad.

I do . . . but an answer IS an answer even if it makes you cry.

OK, then it's a bad answer.

Sure, maybe they never existed (past tense). But you literaly brought them into existence. As you spoke about them!

Idiotic statement.

You are welcome to feel however you want about it, but the statement is true.

Noone ever created winged horses with the power of their imagination.

Every single person who imagines winged horses is doing it! If you have imagined it - it exists!

Perhaps you mean that nobody has ever reified winged horses into something concrete? Sure.

reify /ˈreɪɪfʌɪ,ˈriːɪfʌɪ/ verb FORMAL make (something abstract) more concrete or real.

Imagination can create mental images in your head but a winged horse is NOT a mental image.

Then what is it? Reify one and show me.

Alright. So when you say "Unicorn", you're saying "I just imagined a unicorn." That statement does not tell us that a unicorn exists.

Of course it exists. Where does it exist? In my imagination. That's the unicorn I'm talking about.

It tells us that an imagination of a unicorn existed a moment or two agp inside your mind.

It was still in my imagination as I was writing the word "Unicorn.". It's there now. OK, it's not there - I am imagining a cup of coffee now.

When people say "Unicorn exist", they aren't saying "Imaginations of unicorns exist". They are saying "Horses that have a straight horn on their forehead exist". Two very different statements.

Oh. Ok. Where do they exist?

At least one person is convinced. Me. The demonstration took place.

This is a social venue, dummy. I know you're an anti-social shut-in faggot freak, but come on, restrain yourself a bit.

Am I not part of society?!? At least one person in society was convinced. ME!

"Skepdick is a worm."

What does the word "worm" stand for in this statement? Does it stand for Skepdick himself? Does it stand for something in my head? If it stands for something in my head, doesn't that mean you're something inside of my head?

Why are you asking me? You used it - you tell us.

I heard what you are saying. I have no idea why you are saying it.

Given a word, how do we discover its meaning? How do we discover the meaning of the word "worm" in my statement "Skepdick is a worm"?

Don't you see how you are playing a pointless game here? You always end up with a recursive question.

What do you mean by "meaning"? Looks like you know exactly how to use the word "meaning". So you know what it means TO YOU.
You could come up with a dozen definitions for "meaning". Which one is the most meaningful?

You could come up with a dozen definitions of "definition". Which definition is best?
Which definition of "best" is best?

And it looks to me as if you are using the word "meaning" in exactly the same way I would use it. So we are probably using it in exactly the same way.

So meaning means meaning and we both know what it means.

Are the meaning of a word and its referent one and the same thing? Or are they different things? If so, what's the difference? And how do we discover the referent of a word?

Sometimes. Not always. If you are pointing to a real horse outside of your head referent and meaning are different. If you are pointing to a conceptual horse the meaning is the referent.

And self-reference gets messy...

You're supposed to expose your reasoning process.

*sigh* that's fucking stupid! Do you think you can step up to your own challenge?

Expose the reasoning process by which you recognize this color. N.B I am NOT asking you to tell me what this color is (I already know that answer).
I am asking for your reasoning process as to how you arrive at the answer.

https://www.symbols.com/images/symbol/2 ... -color.png

If you can't do that, then this discussion is over. You should stop engaging in it.

OK then fuck off.

I've already defined the term.

Yeah but you used a bunch of undefined terms to define "define".
Now go ahead and define the undefined terms you introduced in the definition of "define".

I hope you see how you are going backwards here...

You've certainly reached the end of your sanity . . . long time ago.

At the end of sanity was the beginning of more sanity.

[Skepdick]

You are just making an arse of yourself as usual

I'm always an ass. It's my name, you retard.

I am just making an even bigger ass of you.