Philosophy Now Forum

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483552 time=1607269636 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483550 time=1607269537 user_id=15238]
Yes, every result requires interpretation, which is why those systems which require Less interpretation are Better.
[/quote]
What's your yard stick for measuring how much interpretation a system requires?

I am using the Chomsky Hierarchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy

Everything language that is lower than Type-1 is insufficient
[/quote]

What use for philosophy is a yardstick that you have to have a doctorate in mathematics to understand? Care to give me a version in English?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:08 pm What use for philosophy is a yardstick that you have to have a doctorate in mathematics to understand? Care to give me a version in English?

Sure. The English version is trivial...

English is not expressive enough to tackle complexity.

You need a more powerful/expressive language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-uOijZ5mRo

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483557 time=1607271183 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483555 time=1607270933 user_id=15238]
What use for philosophy is a yardstick that you have to have a doctorate in mathematics to understand? Care to give me a version in English?
[/quote]
Sure. The English version is trivial...

English is not expressive enough to tackle complexity.

You need a more powerful/expressive language. Like Mathematics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-uOijZ5mRo
[/quote]

OK, a matter of scale. Basically it's the argument i made about visual v. verbal thinking, but extending it to ideas beyond the complexity of minds to manage themselves, and i concur, but since this is philosophy, i'd like to constrain the discussion to the level of complexity that can, at least potentially, be understood by ordinary people to solve ordinary, non-empirical, problems,

Also, i'll be looking for youtube videos to go more in depth without going into math, and trying to relate it to the evolution of consciousness.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:17 pm OK, a matter of scale. Basically it's the argument i made about visual v. verbal thinking, but extending it to ideas beyond the complexity of minds to manage themselves, and i concur, but since this is philosophy, i'd like to constrain the discussion to the level of complexity that can, at least potentially, be understood by ordinary people to solve ordinary, non-empirical, problems,

Since defining the problem is half the solution, constraining the expressive power of one's language is bound to also constrain one's problem-solving abilities.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483560 time=1607271496 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483559 time=1607271442 user_id=15238]
OK, a matter of scale. Basically it's the argument i made about visual v. verbal thinking, but extending it to ideas beyond the complexity of minds to manage themselves, and i concur, but since this is philosophy, i'd like to constrain the discussion to the level of complexity that can, at least potentially, be understood by ordinary people to solve ordinary, non-empirical, problems,
[/quote]
Since defining the problem is half the solution, constraining the expressive power of one's language is bound to also constrain one's problem-solving abilities.
[/quote]

Yes and... If one can define the problem sufficiently without major complexity in expression, one's level of language sophistication will not be a barrier. In other words, if you can deconstruct a problem/question appropriately, higher-order thinking won't be required. Some complex problems can be illustrated simply because they simply aren't as complex as they initially appear. My project in philosophy is to make metaphorical ideas manageable mathematically and give metaphorical insight to complex technical problems - physics in particular.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:17 pm Also, i'll be looking for youtube videos to go more in depth without going into math, and trying to relate it to the evolution of consciousness.

As a philosophical litmus test consider this cliche: Can God make an object so heavy that even God himself cannot lift it?

This is the usual kind of thought experiment we resort to for arguing against omnipotence/absolute power.

The rules of logic place upon us a limit on expressing contradictions.

So I have a similar thought-experiment: Can logic produce a language that is capable of expressing contradictions?

Because if it can, surely that logic is more powerful than a logic which can't...

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:26 pm Yes and... If one can define the problem sufficiently without major complexity in expression, one's level of language sophistication will not be a barrier. In other words, if you can deconstruct a problem/question appropriately, higher-order thinking won't be required. Some complex problems can be illustrated simply because they simply aren't as complex as they initially appear. My project in philosophy is to make metaphorical ideas manageable mathematically and give metaphorical insight to complex technical problems - physics in particular.

You are simply siding with Occam's Razor here.

Of course humans prefer simplicity over complexity because our monkey-brains can't cope with complexity.

That's a bias of our human form, but that says nothing about sufficiency.

What if the problems we want/need to tackle are beyond our current abilities? What choice do we have but to evolve?

Just as easily as one chooses Occam's Razor as a guiding priciple, one can also choose Hickam's dictum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickam's_dictum

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483564 time=1607272040 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483559 time=1607271442 user_id=15238]
Also, i'll be looking for youtube videos to go more in depth without going into math, and trying to relate it to the evolution of consciousness.
[/quote]
As a philosophical litmus test consider this cliche: Can God make an object so heavy that even God himself cannot lift it?

This is the usual kind of thought experiment we resort to for arguing against omnipotence.

The rules of logic place upon us a limit on expressing contradictions.

So I have a similar thought-experiment: Can logic produce a language that is capable of expressing contradictions?

Because if it can, surely that logic is more powerful than a logic which can't...
[/quote]

Para-consistent logic does that, but it's not really different than accounting for uncertainty with statistical probability, other than in how it arranges the parts. Ordinary logic aims at creating certainty so it's not the same project as accounting for uncertainty. A contradiction is a lack of knowledge, just like statistics and any god-of-the-gaps argument.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:32 pm Para-consistent logic does that, but it's not really different than accounting for uncertainty with statistical probability, other than in how it arranges the parts. Ordinary logic aims at creating certainty so it's not the same project as accounting for uncertainty.

Precisely! Because para-consistent logic does that it is more expressive than consistent logic.

If you care about expressivity, then the choice is clear.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:32 pm A contradiction is a lack of knowledge, just like statistics and any god-of-the-gaps argument.

A contradiction can be many things. Type errors, wrong assumptions, conflicts. it doesn't matter in a language which supports error handling/correction.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483565 time=1607272146 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483563 time=1607271974 user_id=15238]
Yes and... If one can define the problem sufficiently without major complexity in expression, one's level of language sophistication will not be a barrier. In other words, if you can deconstruct a problem/question appropriately, higher-order thinking won't be required. Some complex problems can be illustrated simply because they simply aren't as complex as they initially appear. My project in philosophy is to make metaphorical ideas manageable mathematically and give metaphorical insight to complex technical problems - physics in particular.
[/quote]
You are simply siding with Occam's Razor here.

Of course humans prefer simplicity over complexity because our monkey-brains can't cope with complexity.

That's a bias of our human form, but that says nothing about sufficiency.

What if the problems we want/need to tackle are beyond our current abilities? What choice do we have but to evolve?

Just as easily as one chooses Occam's Razor as a guiding priciple, one can also choose Hickam's dictum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickam's_dictum
[/quote]

Problems of scale must start with a settled lower-order understanding in order to ensure we get the higher order ones right, n'est-ce pas? And pragmatically, ideas should be simple enough that the maximum number of minds can interact with them. I accept Occam but also, as Feynman said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483567 time=1607272451 user_id=17350]
If you care about expressivity, then the choice is clear.
[/quote]

Sure, if that's your First priority. If your first priority is Truth, an idea of 1+1=2 or "People don't like having their lives interrupted." don't require a dialectic expression, and a simpler one will usually be more effective.