A World Without Men?

[Skepdick]

I would have thought it fairly obvious that a person who doesn't give a fuck does as they please.

Obviously. But why does telling others that you don't give a fuck please you?

Well yeah, meaning is what people ultimately care about.

I know. And facts/data don't mean anything without a framework for interpretation.

Well, for the latter to obtain, 'we' would have to be the entire galaxy, shrinking while Andromeda is growing

That's equivocation. You are using the term "growing" in "Andromeda is growing" in a different mathematical sense to "the Universe is growing" as meant in the GR sense.

The former is an extensional property of Andromeda (since you are observing it from the outside).
The latter is an intensional property: the expansion of spacetime is measured entirely inside spacetime.

You have switched reference frames (languages) mid-argument and you can't even tell. That is precisely what one predicts would happen on the grounds of Linguistic relativity.

That's why you have to shut up. You lack the mental self-discipline to avoid fooling yourself.

[uwot]

Does it mean that the universe is expanding?
Does it mean that we are shrinking?

That's equivocation. You are using the term "shrinking" in "we are shrinking" in a different mathematical sense to "the universe is expanding" as meant in the GR sense.
That's why you have to shut up. You lack the mental self-discipline to avoid fooling yourself.

[Skepdick]

You are using the term "shrinking" in "we are shrinking" in a different mathematical sense to "the universe is expanding" as meant in the GR sense.
That's why you have to shut up. You lack the mental self-discipline to avoid fooling yourself.

No I am not.

There is no isShrinking() or isExpanding() predicate in the Mathematical theory. Those predicates only exist in the meta-theory. English.

Something value "increasing" is symmetrical to the same value "decreasing". Multiply both sides by -1.

[uwot]

There is no isShrinking() or isExpanding() predicate in the Mathematical theory.

Those predicates only exist in the meta-theory. English.

You mean the language we are communicating in?

[Skepdick]

You mean the language we are communicating in?

In the language we are communicating (English) in it can be said that the universe is expanding, or that we are shrinking.
They are different interpretations of the same Maths and the same data.

In the language the theory is encoded in (Mathematics) there is no "shrinking" or "expanding" - only change. These distinctions have no Mathematical meaning. the English connotation has no corresponding theoretical denotation.

You are hallucinating stuff that the theory does not say. That stuff you are adding when you translate between Maths and English - that's meaning.

[uwot]

In the language we are communicating (English) in it can be said that the universe is expanding, or that we are shrinking.

Great; let's speak English then.

[uwot]

I once made a passing comment to Skepdick about the difference between the way an economist would describe a bank and the way an average consumer would (one sees it as a time machine that allows your current self to enter into financial transactions with your future self, while the other just sees a shop that sells money). He just went into some spiel about how banks are really just computers. At first I was surprised, but then I realised I shouldn't be, nothing is more natural than to show that boy a time machine only for him to reply "oh look, a computer"

Yeah. I don't think Skepdick would recognise a passing comment if it hit him in the face. Er...you know what I mean.

I did Google Rice's Theorem, it turns out you made the right choice.

I had every confidence.

[Skepdick]

Great; let's speak English then.

English is precisely the language in which I am asking you this question: What is the Mathematical denotation of the English word "expanding" and how is it different to the Mathematical denotation of the English word "shrinking" when translating between the Mathematics and the English of General Relativity?

[uwot]

Great; let's speak English then.

OK. Lets speak English.

What is the Mathematical denotation of the English word "expanding" and how is it different to the Mathematical denotation of the English word "shrinking" when translating between the Mathematics and the English of General Relativity?

Granted the words are recognisably English, but you string them together in such a way that no doubt mean something to you, but are complete gibberish. What would an answer even look like in English?

[Skepdick]

Granted the words are recognisably English, but you string them together in such a way that no doubt mean something to you, but are complete gibberish. What would an answer even look like in English?

To somebody who doesn't understand the concepts being invoked?

Like gibberish.

[uwot]

Granted the words are recognisably English, but you string them together in such a way that no doubt mean something to you, but are complete gibberish. What would an answer even look like in English?

To somebody who doesn't understand the concepts being invoked?

Like gibberish.

Indulge me. Perhaps I'll learn something.

[Skepdick]

Indulge me. Perhaps I'll learn something.

To paraphrase Feynman.

I can't explain this in any other terms that would be familiar to you - If I were to use a metaphor I would be certainly cheating you and I would get myself in even deeper trouble the sooner you ask me about the relationship between the metaphor and the concept I am trying to explain to you.

For the concept I am explaining is precisely relations. The semantic relation between concepts expressed in the language of English and concepts expressed in the language of Mathematics.

[uwot]

To paraphrase Feynman.

I can't explain this in any other terms that would be familiar to you - If I were to use a metaphor I would be certainly cheating you and I would get myself in even deeper trouble the sooner you ask me about the relationship between the metaphor and the concept I am trying to explain to you.

For the concept I am explaining is precisely relations. The semantic relation between concepts expressed in the language of English and concepts expressed in the language of Mathematics.

The concept is the same whether you express it in Mathematics or English. You are making a fool of yourself again; if you are aware of any mathematical concept that cannot be expressed in natural language, what is it and how did you learn it?
Back to the earlier point; this sentence:

What is the Mathematical denotation of the English word "expanding" and how is it different to the Mathematical denotation of the English word "shrinking" when translating between the Mathematics and the English of General Relativity?

is word salad and you are a pretentious wanker.

[Skepdick]

The concept is the same whether you express it in Mathematics or English.

Obviously. That's what languages are for: expressing stuff.

Is just that some languages are more expressive than others for particular kinds of ideas one might want to express.

Say if one wanted to perform matter-manipulation with language - English doesn't quite cut it.

You are making a fool of yourself again; if you are aware of any mathematical concept that cannot be expressed in natural language, what is it and how did you learn it?

Idiot. Every concept can be expressed in any language. Synthesise a concept - give it a name. Done.

The concept of uwot drinking a beer. You can call that L in Mathematics. You don't even grok the difference between expressability and communicability.

Kinda like you can express, but you still can't communicate what it means for something to "obtain"...

is word salad and you are a pretentious wanker.

Ironic. That's exactly the sort of thing I said when I first stumbled upon Philosophical jargon.

You know. Like "obtains".

[uwot]

The concept is the same whether you express it in Mathematics or English.

Obviously. That's what languages are for: expressing stuff.

Great. So why are we arguing? I mean, apart from the fact that you could start a fight in an empty room.

Idiot. Every concept can be expressed in any language. Synthesise a concept - give it a name. Done.

Exactly. See? We agree on so much.

You don't even grok the difference between expressability and communicability.

"Grok"? Must be some pretentious wanker jargon that I am not party to.

Kinda like you can express, but you still can't communicate what it means for something to "obtain"...

Unless it's some pretentious wanker jargon I don't grok, communication is a two way thing. If you don't understand what 'obtain' means in pretentious philosophical wanker jargon, you can say so and I will try to translate into some mutually understood language.