Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:"Strikingly like" is not the same as "exactly like"

This doesn't help, I'm afraid. The maths are still wildly against it...infinitely, in fact. If there are no limiting factors, nothing to impose the law that after a certain period of time outcomes must reappear, then no "strikingly like" is more likely than a "completely unlike forever."

In infinity, there are always infinite other options to both the same thing happening twice and similar things having to reappear. In fact, all that's to be anticipated is wild, infinite diversity.

Your maths skills are still right where I remember. In an infinite universe, any particular arrangement of a finite subset of matter (say that which makes up Earth and its entire causal cone) must repeat, exactly, an infinite number of places. It repeats over distance, not time, so there is none of this 'waiting for the state to occur again', which would violate entropy.

There is a very recent thread about exactly this in the articles section, and the author makes a lot of very self-contradictory assumptions, thus invalidating the conclusion. So while I find your application of maths quite backwards, yet your conclusion still stands. The existence of distant perfect copies of my physical state/history in these distant places does not in any way imply that they're me or that I am something that will for some bizarre reason inhabit each of them (and only them!?) one after the other, and yet that was what the article suggested. I don't think either of us believe that.

Noax wrote:Your maths skills are still right where I remember.

On this, indeed they are...remembered or not.

...I don't think either of us believe that.

No, indeed. The universe would have to be finite in order for us to suppose that an infinite amount of time would increase the odds. Barring that, there is no increase in probability occasioned by time or space. An infinite universe has infinite alternate possibilities, always.

Greta wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Greta wrote:Does the chatbot Mitsuku have a soul? http://www.mitsuku.com/. One can have a conversation with it in much the same way as a human; its comprehension is uneven - sometimes sophisticated, sometimes akin to a toddler...

...a fairly sophisticated conversation all-in-all which includes playfulness! I noticed especially it never once tried to purposely distort anything you said but tried to understand what was meant, implied or inferred. If AI can already emulate intelligence to this degree, talking to other humans in the future won't even be desirable. Something I'd look forward to if time allows though unlikely.

It's improved a bit since last time but remains hard work to produce sensible "conversation". It ignores most of what is said and misinterprets most of the rest unless extremely simple or happens to be a pre-programmed response. At this stage it doesn't make much more sense than Windows error messages or dispensing machines

Based on your "dialog" with it, admittedly dispatched in short sentences many perfectly apropos in response, it's clear there is no 'real mind' behind it...yet. The greater quandary is how much of a mind it takes to write something like this:

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true

We have different interpretations of it but to me it comes across like this:

Hogamous higamous man is polygamous
Higamous hogamous man is monogamous.

It begs the question to what extend is human intelligence in collusion with stupidity.

Dubious wrote:

Greta wrote:

Dubious wrote:
...a fairly sophisticated conversation all-in-all which includes playfulness! I noticed especially it never once tried to purposely distort anything you said but tried to understand what was meant, implied or inferred. If AI can already emulate intelligence to this degree, talking to other humans in the future won't even be desirable. Something I'd look forward to if time allows though unlikely.

It's improved a bit since last time but remains hard work to produce sensible "conversation". It ignores most of what is said and misinterprets most of the rest unless extremely simple or happens to be a pre-programmed response. At this stage it doesn't make much more sense than Windows error messages or dispensing machines

Based on your "dialog" with it, admittedly dispatched in short sentences many perfectly apropos in response, it's clear there is no 'real mind' behind it...yet. The greater quandary is how much of a mind it takes to write something like this:

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true

We have different interpretations of it but to me it comes across like this:

Hogamous higamous man is polygamous
Higamous hogamous man is monogamous.

It begs the question to what extend is human intelligence in collusion with stupidity.

Relativism does not claim that 'nothing is true'. You are just being silly building a straw man.
If something is true then something is true in relation to it's premises. Thus a thing can ONLY be true, if relativism is true.
There is no doubt that what passes for human intelligence in your case has made a fatal collision with stupidity, never mind collusion.
Black is dark relies on a relation of meaning with the constituents of the definitions and in relation to, in this case the absence of light. The statement has no meaning without light, sight, or relations with these concepts. Thus the truth of this statement is relies on the relativism of the conditions.
Killing is Bad: DEPENDS.
Thus relativism is true.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Killing is Bad: DEPENDS.
Thus relativism is true.

I once made the statement, to a pastor, that "killing wasn't always bad" to which he argued that murder was always bad. He immediately misconstrued my statement of Killing as meaning murder. I didn't have the opportunity to ask what he had eaten for supper that evening, proving that to live, humans had to kill something, even vegans kill the plants that they eat.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:"Strikingly like" is not the same as "exactly like"

This doesn't help, I'm afraid. The maths are still wildly against it...infinitely, in fact. If there are no limiting factors, nothing to impose the law that after a certain period of time outcomes must reappear, then no "strikingly like" is more likely than a "completely unlike forever."

In infinity, there are always infinite other options to both the same thing happening twice and similar things having to reappear. In fact, all that's to be anticipated is wild, infinite diversity.

Immanuel, you are inappropriately applying maths to the deliberative vague term "strikingly similar". The term is deliberately vague precisely because I am unwilling to go beyond what I know.

What I do know - and your pretend-math has nothing to do with this - is that somewhere on Earth will be people who are the very most similar to me in most obvious respects and attributes. There will be someone whose DNA is most similar to mine, despite being (relatively) unrelated. Someone who is more like me than any others. For instance, I suspect there'd be someone in India or China who, if we met, we would find our resonances and similarities surprising.

This is really obvious logic. I cannot see how (or why) you can argue against it.

Greta wrote:. For instance, I suspect there'd be someone in India or China who, if we met, we would find our resonances and similarities surprising.
This is really obvious logic. I cannot see how (or why) you can argue against it.

It is assumed that everyone has a doppelganger, assumed but not proven, therefore not logical.

Dubious wrote:

Greta wrote:At this stage it doesn't make much more sense than Windows error messages or dispensing machines

Based on your "dialog" with it, admittedly dispatched in short sentences many perfectly apropos in response, it's clear there is no 'real mind' behind it...yet. The greater quandary is how much of a mind it takes to write something like this:

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true

Two philosophers walk into a bar - one says nothing is true, the other says everything is true - who is telling the truth?

A philosopher claims that truth does not exist - and his statement is considered to be true.

Truth is a philosophers' plaything, seeming because so many people can't be bothered adding the necessary adjective "relative" in their heads every time they hear the word "truth"?

Of course everything is relative. Maybe on some level reality is all one thing with no environment, but it remains relative in every other respect, and certainly in respect to anything humans do.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote:. For instance, I suspect there'd be someone in India or China who, if we met, we would find our resonances and similarities surprising.
This is really obvious logic. I cannot see how (or why) you can argue against it.

It is assumed that everyone has a doppelganger, assumed but not proven, therefore not logical.

I am sure I made it clear not long ago that I was not referring to doppelgängers.

Greta wrote: I am sure I made it clear not long ago that I was not referring to doppelgängers.

Apparently you are thinking of a doppelgänger in strictly the physical sense, but the wikipedia article includes 2 senses of the word.
From the article,

"The word 'doppelgänger' is often used in a more general sense to describe any person who physically or behaviorally resembles another person."

So it could be a person who acts like you do.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote: I am sure I made it clear not long ago that I was not referring to doppelgängers.

Apparently you are thinking of a doppelgänger in strictly the physical sense, but the wikipedia article includes 2 senses of the word.
From the article,

"The word 'doppelgänger' is often used in a more general sense to describe any person who physically or behaviorally resembles another person."

So it could be a person who acts like you do.

Okay. Then it depends on how finely we want to define "resembles".

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

Jesus was sacrificed, slaughtered, as an example to the other folks, so that they hear, and know. Folks are accustomed to endless talking and listening without hearing. Accustomed to keeping what fits, rejecting what doesn’t. Even with the brutal and cruel death of Christ, folks don’t hear God. But, more do hear than otherwise would have. Why? Because we all face death. All can imagine facing Christ’s situation as a human being in terms of one's own unknown future constantly revealing. Even with this, the significance of one’s own death causes every rational person to doubt their divinity.

Just imagine yourself being physically and mentally tortured. You have a spontaneous reaction. Without choice, you must act. What is your action? You cry out for the forgiveness of those who are torturing you.

Why in the world would you do that? For the purposes of contemplation without belief in order to understand, figure it out. Compare it to what folks say in the sects to see which got it right, if any.

Greta wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Greta wrote:At this stage it doesn't make much more sense than Windows error messages or dispensing machines

Based on your "dialog" with it, admittedly dispatched in short sentences many perfectly apropos in response, it's clear there is no 'real mind' behind it...yet. The greater quandary is how much of a mind it takes to write something like this:

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true

Two philosophers walk into a bar - one says nothing is true, the other says everything is true - who is telling the truth?

A philosopher claims that truth does not exist - and his statement is considered to be true.

Truth is a philosophers' plaything, seeming because so many people can't be bothered adding the necessary adjective "relative" in their heads every time they hear the word "truth"?

Of course everything is relative. Maybe on some level reality is all one thing with no environment, but it remains relative in every other respect, and certainly in respect to anything humans do.

Yes, I agree! That's the reason I wrote as I did in this post:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=21708&start=300#p306942

I was certain you may have read it since one of yours immediately follows but now I'm not certain. The upshot is that generic terms like Truth, Something, Nothing, have no relevance to relativism. The universe itself and everything in it emerges from and is built upon relationships and where such rule Relativism applies.

Anyways, no point in continuing. I seem to be writing in a manner people find difficult to understand and often misunderstand. Hobbes response is perfect example when I'm actually "mostly" agreeing with him. The best reason for me to stick around is to collect on the Philosophy Now articles. That's the only thing left here which doesn't bore me to death.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Greta wrote: It's improved a bit since last time but remains hard work to produce sensible "conversation". It ignores most of what is said and misinterprets most of the rest unless extremely simple or happens to be a pre-programmed response. At this stage it doesn't make much more sense than Windows error messages or dispensing machines

Based on your "dialog" with it, admittedly dispatched in short sentences many perfectly apropos in response, it's clear there is no 'real mind' behind it...yet. The greater quandary is how much of a mind it takes to write something like this:

If nothing is true,
Then Relativism is not true.
If something is true,
Then Relativism is not true

We have different interpretations of it but to me it comes across like this:

Hogamous higamous man is polygamous
Higamous hogamous man is monogamous.

It begs the question to what extend is human intelligence in collusion with stupidity.

Relativism does not claim that 'nothing is true'. You are just being silly building a straw man.
If something is true then something is true in relation to it's premises. Thus a thing can ONLY be true, if relativism is true.
There is no doubt that what passes for human intelligence in your case has made a fatal collision with stupidity, never mind collusion.
Black is dark relies on a relation of meaning with the constituents of the definitions and in relation to, in this case the absence of light. The statement has no meaning without light, sight, or relations with these concepts. Thus the truth of this statement is relies on the relativism of the conditions.
Killing is Bad: DEPENDS.
Thus relativism is true.

Yes Relativism is true; one can even claim it to be "absolutely" true.

I merely quoted IC on his conclusions of whether something is true or nothing is true, which I found ludicrous since they both yield the same result that Relativism is not true...an oxymoron considering the terms used besides being obviously false. Instead of concluding that it was my fatal collision with stupidity you should have fought it out with your other troll partner who in a super simplistic announcement decided that Relativism is not true.

If what I write keeps going infra-red in your head, instead of replying, just shut up!

Greta wrote: I am unwilling to go beyond what I know.

What I do know...

Actually, you deny your first statement with your second above. For you may THINK that's what will happen, but it can hardly be "knowing." Moreover, you must be assured of its incorrectness when it contravenes basic maths.

But I see I've been unable to explain this. So let me try to break it down small, if I may: in a universe of infinite possibilities, the possibilities are always infinite. Now, really, the truth in this case is just that simple.

...somewhere on Earth will be people who are the very most similar to me in most obvious respects and attributes. There will be someone whose DNA is most similar to mine, despite being (relatively) unrelated. Someone who is more like me than any others. For instance, I suspect there'd be someone in India or China who, if we met, we would find our resonances and similarities surprising.

Since all human being share most of their DNA, that's hardly a surprising statement, and has nothing to do with an infinite universe. But any such person will NOT be you, nor a "reasonable facsimile" of you. That's what human uniqueness entails: you are the only real "you" there is. Even were you an identical twin, you would not BE your twin,now, would you?

And why should we think this will happen, as you say, "on Earth." Earth is a very limited sphere, with a relatively minuscule amount of the energy and matter in the universe on it? Moreover, we know the Earth is not infinite, either in time past or in time future. Planetary destruction will come first, as will solar cooling, eventually; but eventually the entire universe will be enveloped in heat death -- if no God intervenes to change that. So any hopes for infinite possibilities calculated on the hypothesis of an infinite universe are just bound to prove dusty.

But then, nobody would be around to care, would they?

So what it the whole story here? What's the point of our existence, if only to wink out in eternal heat dissipation, and then remain still forever?