Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:38 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:10 pm The answer is all three.
That which determines everything determines nothing.

Hence computation effectively is about moving to point 0.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:41 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:37 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:26 pm Hence if ir can only do so relatively the black box is only a probable solution (as well as computation)
Yes. You are seeking deductive determinism/certainty. Sadly you need to adjust these expectations.

In this world, where time is an arrow (as far as I can tell) deduction only works a posteriori.

A priori - all you get is induction. Which is why counter-factual reasoning is paramount. Play out both scenarios: being right AND being wrong then decide whether to be pessimistic or optimistic in your prediction. Rational bias.

Rational bias can be observed in the metaphor of a glass with water.

1. Glass half full.
2. Glass half empty.
3. Glass with water in it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:26 pm and eventually computation does not work in providing a predictable model considering definition itself, the inherent link to computation, eventually leads to a singular self referencing line folding through itself like a wave function.
This is true for expert systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system ).
Once your knowledge becomes stale (your axioms no longer hold true) - you are fucked either way.

That is why machine learning is all about real-time orientation and decision-making.

Then by default computing is fundamentally grounded in adaptation and a mirror effect.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:41 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:38 pm Hence computation effectively is about moving to point 0.

But it doesn't determine everything. Most of our models suck.

We can't even predict weather patterns beyond a few days.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:44 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:41 pm 1. Glass half full.
2. Glass half empty.
3. Glass with water in it.

No. That's a posteriori. What happened in the past is out of my control - I don't care.

A priori, you can predict that the glass will be between 60% and 40% full (or 40% to 60% empty) in 30 minutes given the current rate of consumption.

Since you get upset if the glass is less than 50% full (or more than 50% empty) and in order to avoid disappointment in 30 minutes. Top up your glass now.

Prediction from past data guides current action which determines future outcome.

Choice, free will and consequences.

All you can hope for is that your inferences are not catastrophically wrong.

Everything else is philosophical bullshit! Re-describing and re-interpreting that which is right in front of you.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:35 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:41 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:38 pm Hence computation effectively is about moving to point 0.
But it doesn't determine everything. Most of our models suck.

We can't even predict weather patterns beyond a few days.

That is the point, predictive models are just contradictive by nature...anything is possible.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:40 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:35 pm That is the point, predictive models are just contradictive by nature...anything is possible.

They aren't contradictive. They are what they are. 64% of the time they predict accurately ALL the time!
It's better than a coin and that's useful. As long as you don't forget that 36% of the time they also predict inaccurately ALL the time.

On the whims of the Universe to not change in any drastic ways since we developed the model.

It seems you seek exactness and precision. In this universe you either need to lower your expectations or your uncertainty.

That's why there is no "truth" in logic. It's just a conceptual tool. Forget it at your own peril.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:41 pm 1. Glass half full.
2. Glass half empty.
3. Glass with water in it.
No. That's a posteriori. What happened in the past is out of my control - I don't care.

A priori, you can predict that the glass will be between 60% and 40% full (or 40% to 60% empty) in 30 minutes given the current rate of consumption.

Since you get upset if the glass is less than 50% full (or more than 50% empty) and in order to avoid disappointment in 30 minutes. Top up your glass now.

Prediction from past data guides current action which determines future outcome.

Choice, free will and consequences.

All you can hope for is that your inferences are not catastrophically wrong.

Everything else is philosophical bullshit! Re-describing and re-interpreting that which is right in front of you.

What happened in the past cycles to the future. The future effectively is a mirroring of the now as it adapts to chaos and variation.

Given the "current rate of consumption" cannot be predicted and exists as an assumed variable. Predictive models are always dependent upon constant variables, but if the variable is assumed not to be constant the predictive model goes out the window.

The constant variable, that which sets the standard for all the relative change around it, is strictly a localized point in time and space everything folds through. Using the glass example, evaporation exists as part of this...it is a set of movements, fundamentally, localized as a constant from which other movements are measured.

This localization is a projection of choice, and we are left with an interpretation reflective of protagoras, neitzche, a loose "Man as God/gods" through Eastern Christianity, consciousness as a focal point through Buddhism, Pythagorean Esoteric Monadology, point space in Taoist Yin/Yang, and a variety of other congruencies.

It is difficult to hope they are not wrong, when most inferences as a projection of the observer are founded on premises which may not even be right.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:55 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm What happened in the past cycles to the future. The future effectively is a mirroring of the now as it adapts to chaos and variation.

Some of it does. Some of it doesn't.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm Given the "current rate of consumption" cannot be predicted and exists as an assumed variable. Predictive models are always dependent upon constant variables, but if the variable is assumed not to be constant the predictive model goes out the window.

That depends on your definition of "constant". Constant does not mean linear.
You can describe the consumption rate as a power law, as a polynomial/function of time.

I'd venture a guess that your rate of consumption is deterministic within some error bound.
Yes. There will be outliers, but there will also be a median.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm It is difficult to hope they are not wrong, when most inferences as a projection of the observer are founded on premises which may not even be right.

Exactly. Which is wisdom like "don't put all your eggs in one basket" prevails. Hope for the best and plan for the worst. etc.

If you understand how/why your models are fallible you can manage the risk of error. After all, you know that 5% of the time your model makes errors.
So if you are going to use it 20 times to day... expect failure at least once.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:35 pm That is the point, predictive models are just contradictive by nature...anything is possible.
They aren't contradictive. They are what they are. 64% of the time they predict accurately ALL the time!
It's better than a coin and that's useful. As long as you don't forget that 36% of the time they also predict inaccurately ALL the time.

On the whims of the Universe to not change in any drastic ways since we developed the model.

It seems you seek exactness and precision. In this universe you either need to lower your expectations or your uncertainty.

That's why there is no "truth" in logic. It's just a conceptual tool. Forget it at your own peril.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

Predictive models are relations of actualities and potentialities by nature, thus are dualistic and expressed through this dualism by fractions/fractals as a tension between parts through an inherent opposition.

There is no model that observes a constant state of prediction all the time, because time itself is probabilistic...we dont know what the future holds, we can just understand the nature of things by inherent symmetry which effectively replicates as a course of movement in itself.

Logic as a conceptual tools is logic as an act of perception thus causing cycle where logic strictly is just a way of seeing things. Even to argue it is just conceptual is to well use logic.

Whims of the universe changing drastically since the model? What about before the model? Or if there is an after the model? Even the model itself is a localization in time as a set of movements itself through the respective observers.

Exactness and precision? If randomness is a law, then by default logic is not only inevitable but really just a science of "possibility" more than anything.

I am not seeing anything restraining about arguing about possibilities.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:07 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm There is no model that observes a constant state of prediction all the time, because time itself is probabilistic...we dont know what the future holds, we can just understand the nature of things by inherent symmetry which effectively replicates as a course of movement in itself.

OK. So what do you propose? Got any better alternatives?

We are sitting ducks...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm Logic as a conceptual tools is logic as an act of perception thus causing cycle where logic strictly is just a way of seeing things. Even to argue it is just conceptual is to well use logic.

Well, yes! Logic is built on one pre-supposition and one pre-supposition alone. The universe has structure.

There is no way to determine if that's true.

It looks to be true so far. But. we could also be Bertrand Russell's Inductivist Turkey. It could all vanish in a flash.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm Whims of the universe changing drastically since the model? What about before the model? Or if there is an after the model? Even the model itself is a localization in time as a set of movements itself through the respective observers.

There is no foundation. Pragmatism reigns. Got any better ideas ?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm Exactness and precision? If randomness is a law, then by default logic is not only inevitable but really just a science of "possibility" more than anything.

Exactly! Science never claimed anything else. It promises prediction and (some) control. Not "truth".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm I am not seeing anything restraining about arguing about possibilities.

We are just patten-matching monkeys. Signal vs noise.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:55 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm What happened in the past cycles to the future. The future effectively is a mirroring of the now as it adapts to chaos and variation.
Some of it does. Some of it doesn't.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm Given the "current rate of consumption" cannot be predicted and exists as an assumed variable. Predictive models are always dependent upon constant variables, but if the variable is assumed not to be constant the predictive model goes out the window.
That depends on your definition of "constant". Constant does not mean linear.
You can describe the consumption rate as a power law, as a polynomial/function of time.

I'd venture a guess that your rate of consumption is deterministic within some error bound.
Yes. There will be outliers, but there will also be a median.

Actually constant does necessitate linear as linear is a base foundation for movement. Even that polynomial/function of time still necessitates a movement from point A timezone to point B time zone.

I can argue all day and all night about how everything stems from space through a point, line and circle and observe this triad as an absolute truth...it still doesnt mean I can predict things or "know all". However it doesn't make it any less true though either.

One can know absolute truth without really knowing anything.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm It is difficult to hope they are not wrong, when most inferences as a projection of the observer are founded on premises which may not even be right.
Exactly. Which is wisdom like "don't put all your eggs in one basket" prevails. Hope for the best and plan for the worst. etc.

If you understand how/why your models are fallible you can manage the risk of error. After all, you know that 5% of the time your model makes errors.
So if you are going to use it 20 times to day... expect failure at least once.

And the process of adaption and evolution takes on a linear form because of time.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:17 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 pm Actually constant does necessitate linear as linear is a base foundation for movement. Even that polynomial/function of time still necessitates a movement from point A timezone to point B time zone.

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 pm I can argue all day and all night about how everything stems from space through a point, line and circle and observe this triad as an absolute truth...it still doesnt mean I can predict things or "know all". However it doesn't make it any less true though either.

Depending on your criterion for "truth". Mine is predictive utility.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 pm One can know absolute truth without really knowing anything.

They can. And it wouldn't be useful in practice.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm And the process of adaption and evolution takes on a linear form because of time.

That's not quite accurate.

100 plants in a field evolve concurrently and yet they diverge concurrently also.
If they didn't diversify within the cohort they would go extinct pretty quickly.

Herd immunity requires entropy.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:21 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:07 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm There is no model that observes a constant state of prediction all the time, because time itself is probabilistic...we dont know what the future holds, we can just understand the nature of things by inherent symmetry which effectively replicates as a course of movement in itself.
OK. So what do you propose? Got any better alternatives?

We are sitting ducks...

Actually we may not be sitting ducks at all. If consciousness stems from space and through space, evidenced by "⊙" as a symbol, the human soul may in fact be immortal. Suffering may just be a form of growth by inverting nothingness into being.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm Logic as a conceptual tools is logic as an act of perception thus causing cycle where logic strictly is just a way of seeing things. Even to argue it is just conceptual is to well use logic.
Well, yes! Logic is built on one pre-supposition and one pre-supposition alone. The universe has structure.

There is no way to determine if that's true.

Determinism, as cause and effect resulting in structure is truth as all truth is structure.

It looks to be true so far. But. we could also be Bertrand Russell's Inductivist Turkey. It could all vanish in a flash.

Yes...I suppose it could all be gone in a flash, but it really doesn't stop a flash from restarting it all now does it?

Russel contradict's himself on his own terms. Same with Godel. They are two sides of the same coin.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm Whims of the universe changing drastically since the model? What about before the model? Or if there is an after the model? Even the model itself is a localization in time as a set of movements itself through the respective observers.
There is no foundation. Pragmatism reigns. Got any better ideas ?

Yes, get rid of idea.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm Exactness and precision? If randomness is a law, then by default logic is not only inevitable but really just a science of "possibility" more than anything.
Exactly! Science never claimed anything else. It promises prediction and (some) control. Not "truth".

Actually science is just a perpetual cycle of observation, subject not just to the fallacy of circularity but effectively contradictory proving everything exists through cycles within cycles with cycles.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm I am not seeing anything restraining about arguing about possibilities.
We are just patten-matching monkeys. Signal vs noise.

Maybe so...but even monkeys stair into the stars.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:32 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:17 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 pm Actually constant does necessitate linear as linear is a base foundation for movement. Even that polynomial/function of time still necessitates a movement from point A timezone to point B time zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting

Look at the graph...lines folding into further lines with the curve/frequency itself given a long enough distance relative to not just time but another larger frequency...and it appears as a line.

Lines, angles and frequencies are 1 in three and 3 in 1.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 pm I can argue all day and all night about how everything stems from space through a point, line and circle and observe this triad as an absolute truth...it still doesnt mean I can predict things or "know all". However it doesn't make it any less true though either.
Depending on your criterion for "truth". Mine is predictive utility.

My criterion for truth? Truth. And I don't really know what it means.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 pm One can know absolute truth without really knowing anything.
They can. And it wouldn't be useful in practice.

Actually it gives a standard to form oneself too considering the self is not really known. People use standards all the time to form and fashion themselves towards, we are our own judgements.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:49 pm And the process of adaption and evolution takes on a linear form because of time.
That's not quite accurate.

100 plants in a field evolve concurrently and yet they diverge concurrently also.
If they didn't diversify within the cohort they would go extinct pretty quickly.

Herd immunity requires entropy.

Entropy is a movement towards point 0 in respect to time and can be observed from a simple number line where 1 approaches 0 in a series of fractions/fractals and infintesimals...all of which when inverted result in whole numbers and infinite series as numbers in themselves.

Convergence, when phenomena are directed towards eachother into a joining state, and divergence when phenomena are directed away from eachother, still necessitates a basic movement from point A to point B in space/time.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:36 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:21 pm Actually we may not be sitting ducks at all. If consciousness stems from space and through space, evidenced by "⊙" as a symbol, the human soul may in fact be immortal. Suffering may just be a form of growth by inverting nothingness into being.

There's zero empirical evidence for this. I wouldn't bet my ass on the off-chance that got the symbol-manipulation right.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:21 pm Yes...I suppose it could all be gone in a flash, but it really doesn't stop a flash from restarting it all now does it?

Sure. But as long as we are here, assuming that the world has structure, and assuming that we can model it. It's useful!

We are having some success with that stupid idea.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:21 pm Russel contradict's himself on his own terms. Same with Godel. They are two sides of the same coin.

You still seek non-contradiction in this mad universe? Perfect is the enemy of good enough!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:01 pm Yes, get rid of idea.

And replace it with what?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:21 pm
Maybe so...but even monkeys stair into the stars.

Keep on lookin' up! But if you want to get there you are going to have figure out how to live a tad longer than 65 years...

Philosophy Now Forum

Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing