Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:23 pmAnd I have to listen to you why?

Oh okay. The earlier versions are more idiotic so I thought it would be good for you to rewrite them 10 times first and then post them.

WHY do you want to make sense of the world?

Cause that's human nature? (Well, with a working right hemisphere, that is.)

What other context IS there for the word 'everywhere' you muddle-brain? Everywhere - the WHOLE known universe. We have no laws which are universal!

So far they hold for the whole known universe. Yes yes they will break down eventually. Yes yes you don't accept that there are physical laws because the definition isn't good enough.
Btw there are also more general meanings than "whole known universe" for "everywhere".

And yet they work IN PRACTICE and in the REAL WORLD. I am not sure what the purpose or rules of engagement of 'philosophical discourse' are supposed to be and nobody can tell me, so until you do - I will consider this as an appeal to purity.

Well they don't work in practice in the real world here right now.

Very good! What are YOU doing now? What are your criteria for success and failure in this quest that you are on? How do you know you are even going in the right direction? What if you are going backwards?

Don't know what you're talking about; I'm not on a quest right now.

Another appeal to purity? Or are you going to enlighten me about the context?

Everytime you misunderstand something, I use an appeal to purity?

We are talking about constructing accurate models of reality yes? Because that is all we CAN do, right? I haven't switched context yet despite accusations.

I guess so. And I'm saying that in an accurate model, information is an abstraction. Entropy of information is an abstraction of an abstraction.

Ohhh. You have a better definition for identity than Mathematical isomorphism? Well let us hear it then?
You are drawing more distinctions without a difference! All you have ARE thoughts for perceiving the world - so until you figure out a way to perceive a physical event without a mind, please stop playing this stupid game.

Not all physical events are thoughts. That's not a game.
And identity as mathematical isomorphism is totally an abstraction. It makes no sense to use it here.

Quantum computers allow machine learning algorithms to perform at 95% accuracy (compared to humans) in sorting objects into categories at 1/1000000th of the cost.

And? How does that reify information?

To piss on your parade. You don't even understand how interpretation works. Mechanically. Or as you say - ontologically! Would you like to get onto computational linguistics, natural language processing and word-sense disambiguation? I've written such algorithms too. You might even have a device or two in your household or even in your pocket which "Speak English".

What is your objective standard for determining whether an interpretation is 'good' or 'bad'? Who is the judge?

Piss on what parade? Some people with functioning right hemispheres try to make sense of the world. I don't care about your algorithms.

The notion of entropy/randomness/chance/luck/uncertainty (and the 20 other names the phenomenology has) is NOT a calculation. It is an Mathematical/statistical concept. It is like God - a label for something we don't understand. Entropy is a measure of IGNORANCE about a system.

The idealized conception we use to TEACH people about entrpopy is a coin. 50/50.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Claude_Elwood_Shannon

Nice, but statistical sill doesn't equal abstraction.

If YOU think you know what the ontology of entropy is - you are lying

Psychologically and epistemically - it is uncertainty.If I were to make a God-of-the-epistemic-gaps argument then I would equivocate it with the label God!

I don't see the arrow of time as uncertainty. It's a pretty certain direction.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:55 pm No idea what you mean. It's experimentally verified. We can't measure constantly, but we can measure frequently.
Also, all those computers work the way I say they work. You work with information all the time and don't know jackshit about what information actually is. You hallucinate.

I thought philosophers subscribe to the law of non-contradiction? That is - there are no paradoxes in reality? So since the Turing Paradox is on your radar. Have you considered the alternative hypothesis?

We, humans are making a theoretical OR empirical error? Eventually somebody will figure it out.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:25 pm HUMANS CARE. Who are you doing this for if not other humans?

What do you mean? The majority of humans don't care.

Neither am I doing this for others (doing what exactly)?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:56 pm I thought philosophers subscribe to the law of non-contradiction? That is - there are no paradoxes in reality? So since the Turing Paradox is on your radar. Have you considered the alternative hypothesis?

We, humans are making a theoretical OR empirical error? Eventually somebody will figure it out.

Nice try. It has "paradox" in its name but this is how the world works. Very hard to try to comprehend but doesn't actually go against the law of non-contradiction.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm Cause that's human nature? (Well, with a working right hemisphere, that is.)

Ad hominem

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm So far they hold for the whole known universe. Yes yes they will break down eventually. Yes yes you don't accept that there are physical laws because the definition isn't good enough.
Btw there are also more general meanings than "whole known universe" for "everywhere".

No. You missed the point. We have NO laws that hold for the "whole known universe". All our 'laws' break down at the extremities of their applicability.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm Well they don't work in practice in the real world here right now.

Is your computer/phone broken? How did you respond to this DIGITAL MESSAGE? Smoke signals?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm Don't know what you're talking about; I'm not on a quest right now.

Philosophy is an activity, yes? Normally activities have some goals/rules. All games do. Even science.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm Everytime you misunderstand something, I use an appeal to purity?

Every time you demarcate 'philosophy' in a way that puts me outside of the box - yes. I do believe I am playing the game by your objective rules (law of non-contradiction) by contradicting you all the time?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm I guess so. And I'm saying that in an accurate model, information is an abstraction. Entropy of information is an abstraction of an abstraction.

You still have not shown me what a non-abstraction looks like. I am waiting? Show me something concrete and real.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm Not all physical events are thoughts. That's not a game.

How do you assert that without thinking?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm And identity as mathematical isomorphism is totally an abstraction. It makes no sense to use it here.

It's more precise and concrete than anything you have presented so far - so I will continue in this fashion

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm And? How does that reify information?

It answers HUMAN yes/no questions.

Are computers more accurate in sorting images than humans? No!
If 10% error rate in sorting is acceptable for the task at hand are computers more efficient than humans? Yes!

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm Piss on what parade? Some people with functioning right hemispheres try to make sense of the world. I don't care about your algorithms.

Ad hominem again You haven't yet defined the criteria for 'making sense'. The answer to the life the universe and everything is 42 after all. Why don't you like that answer?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm I don't see the arrow of time as uncertainty. It's a pretty certain direction.

That's odd. Even science can't tell us if time is a scalar or a vector, but you can?

There is no law in physics which mandates an arrow in time. For all you know the Big Bang happens in the end and you are experiencing everything in reverse.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:00 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:56 pm I thought philosophers subscribe to the law of non-contradiction? That is - there are no paradoxes in reality? So since the Turing Paradox is on your radar. Have you considered the alternative hypothesis?

We, humans are making a theoretical OR empirical error? Eventually somebody will figure it out.

Nice try. It has "paradox" in its name but this is how the world works. Very hard to try to comprehend but doesn't actually go against the law of non-contradiction.

The world works paradoxically? And we also have a 'law' of non-contradiction? This is waaay too confusing!
Do paradoxes exist or don't they? How do you interpret the fact that Turing's paradox exists KNOWING the law-of non-contradiction also exists!

What do you make of this double-contradiction?

I interpret it as 'human error'. Theoretical or empirical. Lack of knowledge/understanding on our part. I guess somebody needs to find a better theory...

What do you make of it?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:57 pm What do you mean? The majority of humans don't care.

You are a mind reader now? 7.5 billion people - all sized up and measured?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:57 pm Neither am I doing this for others (doing what exactly)?

Well then if you are doing this all for yourself - you at least owe yourself the answer to this question: how do I determine if I am going backwards or forwards?

From where I am standing philosophy is 1 step forward 200 back.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm Btw there are also more general meanings than "whole known universe" for "everywhere".

Wow! Really ?!? There is some meaning of 'everywhere' that extends beyond the boundaries of the known universe?

Is THAT where God lives?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:10 pmAd hominem

It's probably a correct one and the heart of the issue, and I don't care about political correctness. Many Aspies can't use the part of their brain that gives meaning, so they don't understand the need for making sense of the world.

No. You missed the point. We have NO laws that hold for the "whole known universe". All our 'laws' break down at the extremities of their applicability.

They can still be applied everywhere in the known universe. Yes they break down at the extremities.
We already played this game once, you demand a unified theory of everything, otherwise there are no laws of physics.

Is your computer/phone broken? How did you respond to this DIGITAL MESSAGE? Smoke signals?

I mean your fantastic practices don't seem to work in philosophy.

Philosophy is an activity, yes? Normally activities have some goals/rules. All games do. Even science.

Maybe, but you aren't talking about philosophy. You are talking about instrumentalism.
Maybe my quest is to make you realize your idiocy?

Every time you demarcate 'philosophy' in a way that puts me outside of the box - yes. I do believe I am playing the game by your objective rules (law of non-contradiction) by contradicting you all the time?

You would need valid arguments to contradict.

You still have not shown me what a non-abstraction looks like. I am waiting? Show me something concrete and real.

A physical system is concrete. Information encoded in a physical system is an abstraction.

How do you assert that without thinking?

I don't, but that's again out of context.

It's more precise and concrete than anything you have presented so far - so I will continue in this fashion

Out of context

It answers HUMAN yes/no questions.

Are computers more accurate in sorting images than humans? No!
If 10% error rate in sorting is acceptable for the task at hand are computers more efficient than humans? Yes!

And? Out of context

Ad hominem again You haven't yet defined the criteria for 'making sense'. The answer to the life the universe and everything is 42 after all. Why don't you like that answer?

I already did a few days ago, if you can call them criteria

That's odd. Even science can't tell us if time is a scalar or a vector, but you can?

There is no law in physics which mandates an arrow in time. For all you know the Big Bang happens in the end and you are experiencing everything in reverse.

The arrow of time is a real physical happening, at least from our perspective. That's more than an abstraction.

So.. the fact that a paradox exist and you are busy referring to it does NOT go against the law of non-contradiction?!?!?
Do paradoxes exist or don't they? How do you interpret the fact that Turing's paradox exists KNOWING the law-of non-contradiction also exists!

What do you make of this double-contradiction?

I interpret it as 'human error'. Theoretical or empirical. Lack of knowledge/understanding on our part. I guess somebody needs to find a better theory...

What do you make of it?

As I said. It appears to go against noncontradiction but it doesn't.

You are a mind reader now? 7.5 billion people - all sized up and measured?

Yes yes you are also psychologically blind, you don't see how most people behave.

Well then if you are doing this all for yourself - you at least owe yourself the answer to this question: how do I determine if I am going backwards or forwards?

From where I am standing philosophy is 1 step forward 200 back.

Yeah yeah you don't know anything about philosophy. Most of it is bullshit, some of it is very deep insights.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:27 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 pm Btw there are also more general meanings than "whole known universe" for "everywhere".

Wow! Really ?!? There is some meaning of 'everywhere' that extends beyond the boundaries of the known universe?

Is THAT where God lives?

Yeah I use at least 3-4 more layers, none of them has anything to do with a God. Some of them are pretty mainstream in science as well. But it's ok.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm It's probably a correct one and the heart of the issue, and I don't care about political correctness. Many Aspies can't use the part of their brain that gives meaning, so they don't understand the need for making sense of the world.

That's just another ad-hominem. On average Asians are shorter than Caucasians, but if I had a 7 foot Asian standing next to me - I am sure as shit am not going to conclude he is shorter than me because 'statistics'. Inference is only useful when you can’t obtain any additional information to address your uncertainty. I am right here. Interacting with you. Providing you with more information.

I don't have Aspergers. I lied to you. Because without a plausible explanation for my 'crazy' your brain would explode given your inability to deal with uncertainty. What I do have is an IQ which is 4 standard deviations to the right of the median. You have a statistical brain, right? Work it out.

I understand the 'need', but please recognise that need as aspect of your humanity while you pursue this unattainable idea of ''objectivity'. Your NEED is purely subjective. And it is perfectly OK to have and pursue it.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm They can still be applied everywhere in the known universe. Yes they break down at the extremities.
We already played this game once, you demand a unified theory of everything, otherwise there are no laws of physics.

Ok, but what good is applying a 'law' in a situation where you know it DOESN'T WORK?!?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm I mean your fantastic practices don't seem to work in philosophy.

OK, you use the word 'work'. Can you be transparent with the utility function? What are the criteria for what 'works' and what 'doesn't work'?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm Maybe, but you aren't talking about philosophy. You are talking about instrumentalism.
Maybe my quest is to make you realize your idiocy?

Appeal to purity. How is it then I can so trivially find contradictions in every other philosophical position?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm You would need valid arguments to contradict.

Well that is one way. Another way (my preferred way) is to just leverage the law of "non-contradiction" against your arguments. That is - I am holding you to account to your own 'rules'. It is because logic is flawed in more ways than you have imagined is why It is so easy.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm A physical system is concrete. Information encoded in a physical system is an abstraction.

You don't have any concrete representations of a physical system though? All you have are incomplete descriptions?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm I don't, but that's again out of context.

Indulge me. I think it is relevant.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm Out of context

Again. Indulge me - otherwise this is special pleading. I don't know where the goal posts are for 'in' and 'out' of context.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm And? Out of context

Wait? What? Human ENQUIRY about the WORLD is out of context ?!? What the fuck is philosophy about then?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm I already did a few days ago, if you can call them criteria

Precisely. I don't. So my question remains unanswered.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm The arrow of time is a real physical happening, at least from our perspective. That's more than an abstraction.

But from OUR perspective quantum mechanics is also happening. And time behaves differently than the classical conception. So how have you CHOSEN one to be 'correct'?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm As I said. It appears to go against noncontradiction but it doesn't.

So paradoxes are different to contradictions, and paradoxes exist but contradictions don't?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm Yes yes you are also psychologically blind, you don't see how most people behave.

Interesting. You have the NEED to make sense if the world. Have you ever asked the question 'What NEEDS do other people have?'

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:36 pm Yeah yeah you don't know anything about philosophy. Most of it is bullshit, some of it is very deep insights.

Give me an example about something you found insightful?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:38 pm Yeah I use at least 3-4 more layers, none of them has anything to do with a God. Some of them are pretty mainstream in science as well. But it's ok.

Oh you do? Tell me about them!

If they are mainstream in science surely they are part of the definition of 'everything' by now? You know - they fall under the scientific notion of ''the whole universe' (with its 5 or 55555 dimensions). Scientists don't like to cut up the world into taxonomies, you know? Unless absolutely necessary. Only philosophers do that...

As our knowledge stretches so do our definitions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:49 pm

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:54 am Not according to wikipedia:

A wiki is not an authoritative source. It's an open-source place where experts and non-experts alike get their crack at contributing, and editing is often a bit spotty. A good scholarly source does either the same or better every time. But in this case, I didn't even ask you to accept my opinion, far less those of an anonymous wiki contributor. I gave you the original source itself. All you have to do is read it, and you'll know that this is a case of a Wiki not quite getting things right.

P.S. -- I'll happily get to your applied moral questions, just as soon as we've established that an objective morality is even possible. Otherwise we've got the cart before the horse here.

I have read the dialogue and it does nothing to exclude the fact that the dilemma can be applied to a monotheistic God. That my friend, is what's
known as a separate issue.The wiki article backs up what I have been saying all along. So if you don't mind, I will go with what I think and what wiki says.

We had about sixty pages of discussion and have established nothing, do you want me to wait for another sixty pages before you answer my question?

BTW nice dodge of the question.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:56 pm That's just another ad-hominem. On average Asians are shorter than Caucasians, but if I had a 7 foot Asian standing next to me - I am sure as shit am not going to conclude he is shorter than me because 'statistics'. Inference is only useful when you can’t obtain any additional information to address your uncertainty. I am right here. Interacting with you. Providing you with more information.

I don't have Aspergers. I lied to you. Because without a plausible explanation for my 'crazy' your brain would explode given your inability to deal with uncertainty. What I do have is an IQ which is 4 standard deviations to the right of the median. You have a statistical brain, right? Work it out.

I understand the 'need', but please recognise that need as aspect of your humanity while you pursue this unattainable idea of ''objectivity'. Your NEED is purely subjective. And it is perfectly OK to have and pursue it.

Hehe I don't think it was a lie. Also, people with ~160 IQ but no savant ability tipically don't see the big picture yet. Why would my brain explode when I already automatically calculate uncertainty in everything.

Ok, but what good is applying a 'law' in a situation where you know it DOESN'T WORK?!?

It's no good, but it's just how these words are used.

OK, you use the word 'work'. Can you be transparent with the utility function? What are the criteria for what 'works' and what 'doesn't work'?

I already did several times

Appeal to purity. How is it then I can so trivially find contradictions in every other philosophical position?

You don't, you just misinterpret almost everything and then find contradictions in them

Well that is one way. Another way (my preferred way) is to just leverage the law of "non-contradiction" against your arguments. That is - I am holding you to account to your own 'rules'. It is because logic is flawed in more ways than you have imagined is why It is so easy.

Except since you misinterpret almost everything, you aren't addressing my arguments.

You don't have any concrete representations of a physical system though? All you have are incomplete descriptions?

Yes, and?

But from OUR perspective quantum mechanics is also happening. And time behaves differently than the classical conception. So how have you CHOSEN one to be 'correct'?

You don't chose one to be correct, you have to merge the two.

So paradoxes are different to contradictions, and paradoxes exist but contradictions don't?

Paradox here means an apparent contradiction.

Interesting. You have the NEED to make sense if the world. Have you ever asked the question 'What NEEDS do other people have?'

Obviously

Oh you do? Tell me about them!

If they are mainstream in science surely they are part of the definition of 'everything' by now? You know - they fall under the scientific notion of ''the whole universe' (with its 5 or 55555 dimensions). Scientists don't like to cut up the world into taxonomies, you know? Unless absolutely necessary. Only philosophers do that...

As our knowledge stretches so do our definitions.

Here are 4 examples for "everything":
- observable universe
- entire universe
- all possible histories of the universe
- some type of multiverse

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:49 pm

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:54 am Not according to wikipedia:

A wiki is not an authoritative source. It's an open-source place where experts and non-experts alike get their crack at contributing, and editing is often a bit spotty. A good scholarly source does either the same or better every time. But in this case, I didn't even ask you to accept my opinion, far less those of an anonymous wiki contributor. I gave you the original source itself. All you have to do is read it, and you'll know that this is a case of a Wiki not quite getting things right.

P.S. -- I'll happily get to your applied moral questions, just as soon as we've established that an objective morality is even possible. Otherwise we've got the cart before the horse here.

I have read the dialogue and it does nothing to exclude the fact that the dilemma can be applied to a monotheistic God. That my friend, is what's
known as a separate issue.The wiki article backs up what I have been saying all along. So if you don't mind, I will go with what I think and what wiki says.

We had about sixty pages of discussion and have established nothing, do you want me to wait for another sixty pages before you answer my question?

BTW nice dodge of the question.

Sorry to butt in - but I agree with your frustration.

Except I think we have got somewhere. If someone can't honestly answer a difficult question, because to do so would demolish a deeply-held belief - so that a dodge is their only response - that can in itself be an answer, at least for the rest of us. In my opinion.

Mr Can hasn't shown how there being a god could make morality - moral value-judgements - objective - without begging the question. But he has to defend his (Christian) theism at all costs. And for some strange reason, he thinks moral objectivism is integral to theism. Hence his impersonation of jelly refusing to be nailed to the wall.