Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am 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.

Because you keep forgetting to include "I fucked up" in the list of hypotheses you are testing, and so you never interpret the evidence in front of you as being in support of the "I fucked up" hypothesis. It makes you oblivious to your own Black Swans. You have absolutely no idea what evidence you require to prove yourself wrong! And so you don't even bother looking for it.

Let me show you....

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am Hehe I don't think it was a lie.

How do you make this assertion? There is more INFORMATION about me in my head than in your head. Therefore you are operating under opacity.
So by definition the only tool at your disposal is abductive reasoning - inference to best explanation.

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

This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it.

So you can neither verify my Aspergers, nor have you tried to falsify it (which is what any good scientist would do).
So there is a non-zero probability of you making a mistake?

And since I am the authoritative source of truth on whether I have Aspergers or not I am telling you that I don't.
Therefore, this is your Black Swan. Your falsifier. And so the alternative hypothesis becomes live: YOU FUCKED UP.

But but but, of course - there ALWAYS is an alternative hypothesis we may have omitted:
* All three shrinks who determined that I DON'T have Aspergers were mistaken, so I have Aspergers and don't know it.
OR
* YOU FUCKED UP

If "information isn't real" why is it that you keep falling victim to information asymmetry?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am It's no good, but it's just how these words are used.

Bandwagon fallacy? Used by whom? Why do you use words in a way that is clearly erroneous? Can you not think for yourself?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am I already did several times

Wasn't anything testable/verifiable/transparent.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am You don't, you just misinterpret almost everything and then find contradictions in them

Ad hominem. I interpret things against my knowledge-base. Which may or may not be the same as your knowledge base.
To say that I mis-interpret things is to forget the alternative hypothesis again. YOU fucked up!
I didn't misinterpret anything. You explained it poorly.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am Except since you misinterpret almost everything, you aren't addressing my arguments.

See above.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am Yes, and?

And. Epistemology. If you don't care about epistemology then - is there any point in doing Philosophy?
Entropy is a measure of ignorance!

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am You don't chose one to be correct, you have to merge the two.

That is an ought-claim. At present they stand unmerged. So a choice exists. How do you make that choice?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am Paradox here means an apparent contradiction.

Distinction without a difference. The Barber paradox too was an apparent contradiction. We have a workaround e.g we SOLVED it .
Point me to a workaround (e.g SOLUTION) for the Turing paradox.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:56 am Here are 4 examples for "everything":
- observable universe
- entire universe
- all possible histories of the universe
- some type of multiverse

Equivocation. All of the above fall under the testability/falsifiability criterion of the scientific epistemology.

Because falsification IS a universal law of epistemology For somebody who operates from the paradigm of physical information.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:48 amWell, you don't! Or as least - you certainly don't do it as well as I do it. Because you keep forgetting to include "I fucked up" in the list of hypotheses you are testing. I've worked with a whole lot of smart people in my lifetime and I have not seen any evidence of 'big picture' thinking from you yet. Only egocentrism.

Let me show you....

Wrong again, "I fucked up" is always considered

How do you make this assertion? There is more INFORMATION about me in my head than in your head. Therefore you are operating under opacity.
So by definition the only tool at your disposal is abductive reasoning - inference to best explanation.

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

So you can neither verify my Aspergers, nor have you tried to falsify it (which is what any good scientist would do).
So there is a non-zero probability of you making a mistake?

And since I am the authoritative source of truth on whether I have Aspergers or not I am telling you that I don't.
Therefore, this is your Black Swan. And the alternative hypothesis becomes very plausible: YOU FUCKED UP.

But but but, of course - there ALWAYS is an alternative hypothesis.
* All three shrinks who determined that I DON'T have Aspergers were wrong
OR
* YOU FUCKED UP

Wrong again. Of course it's quite possible that I fucked up here, but right now it seems to me that you show the same pattern of cognitive strengths and deficiencies I've already encountered 5-10 times before with other people. And you yourself talked several times about being an Aspie. Now you say you lied, too late for that.

Bandwagon fallacy? Used by whom? Why do you use words in a way that is clearly erroneous? Can you not think for yourself?

Yes yes there are no laws of physics. Everyone except you is using the word wrong.

And. Epistemology. If you don't care about epistemology then - is there any point in doing Philosophy?

If you keep going out of context in epistemology, then there isn't much.

That is an ought-claim. At present they stand unmerged. So a choice exists. How do you make that choice?

No choice exists. The question is what's the correct way to merge them, and perhaps merge both with other layers.

Distinction without a difference. The Barber paradox too was an apparent contradiction. We have a workaround e.g we SOLVED it .
Point me to a workaround (e.g SOLUTION) for the Turing paradox.

See above, it is currently unknown how to merge them. As I said before, I think the best candidate is that classical behaviour is one "manifestation" of quantum behaviour, plus there is an apparent arrow of time in our part of the universe but that doesn't apply to the entire universe.
But whatever the correct solution is, the turing paradox is a way how the world works, so it's an apparent contradiction.

Equivocation. All of the above fall under the testability/falsifiability criterion of the scientific epistemology.

Well not really, for example right now there is no way to test a multiverse.

Because falsification IS a universal law of epistemology For somebody who operates from the paradigm of physical information.

Wasn't falsification a law of physics last time? And you don't operate from the paradigm of physical information. You operate from the paradigm of reified dimensionless information, which is a fallacy.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:08 am Wrong again. Of course it's quite possible that I fucked up here, but right now it seems to me that you show the same pattern of cognitive strengths and deficiencies I've already encountered 5-10 times before with other people. And you yourself talked several times about being an Aspie. Now you say you lied, too late for that.

Too late to update your beliefs based on NEW INFORMATION?
That's why we don't let you 'big picture' thinking anywhere near important decision-making.

When new information proves me wrong - I change my mind. What do you do?

That IS evidence that you DON'T consider "I fucked up"

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:08 am Yes yes there are no laws of physics. Everyone except you is using the word wrong.

Right and wrong are your words. In my paradigm there are only interpretations and validations thereof.

I am an epistemological anarchist

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:08 am If you keep going out of context in epistemology, then there isn't much.

Ad hominem. again. All I care about IS epistemology! That is my context. You are the one beating around the bush.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:08 am No choice exists. The question is what's the correct way to merge them, and perhaps merge both with other layers.

Ah. So when you claimed the arrow of time is evident to you, that wasn't commitment to one interpretation?!?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:08 am Well not really, for example right now there is no way to test a multiverse.

That's your own fault. You haven't come up with a testable definition for it. What if it turns out that our universe is a black hole? What if it turns out that black holes in our universe ARE other universes?

That WOULD be Multiverse, hey? In which case - it was right in front of you, all along

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:08 am Wasn't falsification a law of physics last time? And you don't operate from the paradigm of physical information. You operate from the paradigm of reified dimensionless information, which is a fallacy.

Well you can go ahead and show me me a physicist without an epistemology and you can "win" this argument.

Yet you provide non-fallacious alternatives, thus committing the fallacy of gray!

Philosophers are not transparent (or aware) of their own Black Swans. That is why their commitment to epistemology is only lip service.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:19 amToo late to update your beliefs based on NEW INFORMATION?
That's why we don't let you 'big picture' thinking anywhere near important decision-making.

Or maybe this "new information" is the lie, huh. And I genuinely hope you aren't let anywhere near important decision-making.

Right and wrong are your words. In my paradigm there are only interpretations.

An interpretation that can't be communicated properly, can't be communicated properly.

Ad hominem. again. All I care about IS epistemology!

And yet you keep going on about your heroic encounters with reality, your important decision-making, utility. )

Ah. So when you claimed the arrow of time is evident to you, that wasn't commitment to one interpretation?!?

The arrow of time is pretty evident based on the world we see around us. But maybe there is no arrow of time here, and entropy isn't going to kill us after all?

That's your own fault. You haven't come up with a testable definition for it. What if it turns out that our universe is a black hole? What if it turns out that black holes are other universes?

If there is no scientific way to test the multiverse hypotheses, let's change the definiton of "multiverse" to something testable, thus completely defeating the purpose?
That was a gem

Well you can go ahead and show me me a physicist without an epistemology and you can "win" this argument.

Yet you provide non-fallacious alternatives, thus committing the fallacy of gray!

Physical information is a description of physical systems.
Shannon information is a dimensionless construct unrelated to the physical world.
Which is something they quickly realized when they built the first computers.

You can't just mix the two together.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:30 am Or maybe this "new information" is the lie, huh. And I genuinely hope you aren't let anywhere near important decision-making.

Your hopes are dashed. Sorry. The free market has spoken.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:30 am An interpretation that can't be communicated properly, can't be communicated properly.

Well. It is usually easy to communicate with people who have shared background/knowledge. Otherwise you have to get people to unlearn things.
And that is hard.

Q.E.D

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:30 am And yet you keep going on about your heroic encounters with reality, your important decision-making, utility. )

Yes. It is a standard of truth that is judged by 'objective reality', not by fallible humans

So you know - I am doxastically commited to this objectivity thing. Unlike philosophers.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:30 am The arrow of time is pretty evident based on the world we see around us. But maybe there is no arrow of time here, and entropy isn't going to kill us after all?

Maybe! But first we have to gain control of time Which necessarily means we have to figure out a conception of it which is not dualistic!

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:30 am If there is no scientific way to test the multiverse hypotheses, let's change the definiton of "multiverse" to something testable, thus completely defeating the purpose?
That was a gem

That is how science works Unfortunately.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:30 am Physical information is a description of physical systems.
Shannon information is a dimensionless construct unrelated to the physical world.

And they are mathematically isomorphic. So any claim to the contrary is a distinction without a difference.

Mathematics is more precise than English for describing the world.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:30 am Which is something they quickly realized when they built the first computers.

You can't just mix the two together.

And yet - here I am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:36 am Your hopes are dashed. Sorry. The free market has spoken.

Yeah I'm not surprised.

Maybe! But first we have to gain control of time Whatever the hell that is!

Yes yes we can control all the variables in a computer simulation. So controlling the arrow of time in the known universe shouldn't be too difficult either.

That is how science works Unfortunately.

It certainly isn't how it works with the multiverse hypothesis.

And they are mathematically isomorphic. So any claim to the contrary is a distinction without a difference.

Not when we talk about ontology.

Mathemathics is similar. We can say that there are 2 apples, and that there is the number 2. That doesn't make the number 2 a real physical "component".

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:47 am Yes yes we can control all the variables in a computer simulation. So controlling the arrow of time in the known universe shouldn't be too difficult either.

Yep. Just as soon as you step "outside" this universe. And sit right next to God.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:47 am It certainly isn't how it works with the multiverse hypothesis.

That is why it is a stupid hypothesis. Because somebody has conceptualized our Universe as a closed system. By definition a closed system does not interact with anything beyond its own boundaries. And so if other universes exist and they don't interact with our universe it is as good as believing in God.

A discretized multiverse is unscientific. If universes interact - then we can measure it. Dark matter?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:47 am Not when we talk about ontology.

Yeah, but that is a made up taxonomy in a universe without any.

What is the ontology of Dark matter?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:47 am Mathemathics is similar. We can say that there are 2 apples, and that there is the number 2. That doesn't make the number 2 a real physical "component".

And yet - there is a number 2 on my screen. In real, physical pixels.

You are all boggled in semantics. English is a language. Mathematics is a language. Mathematics is a more precise language than English.
Because it contains more INFORMATION about behavioral properties e.g system dynamics.

I am sure you are familiar with systems theory. You know - big picture stuff...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:54 amYep. Just as soon as you step "outside" this universe. And sit right next to God.

And how do you plan to accomplish that?

That is why it is a stupid hypothesis. Because somebody has conceptualized our Universe as a closed system. By definition a closed system does not interact with the "outside world". And so if other universes exist and they don't interact with our universe it is as good as believing in God.

A discretized multiverse is unscientific. If universes interact - then we can measure it. Dark matter?

A discretized multiverse is something I tend to reject too. But I don't think non-discretized universes "interact" since they are already one continuous structure. So in that case we are already looking at such a multiverse, and there is probably no way to measure it.
If dark matter has to do with other universes, they are a multiverse in a different and more limited sense though, probably. More like they are yet undiscovered parts of our own universe.

Yeah, but that is a made up taxonomy in a universe without any.

? Again we can play that game, but then everything is made up and there is no point in saying anything about anything.

And yet - there is a number 2 on my screen. In real, physical pixels.

Lol no there isn't. There are just the pixels and you make an arbitrary abstraction out of them.
Also, you could for example also count the pixels and arrive at a number larger than 2. Or make an abstraction about the gravity of those pixels or any other abstraction.

You are all boggled in semantics. English is a language. Mathematics is a language. Mathematics is a more precise language than English.
Because it contains more INFORMATION about behavioral properties e.g system dynamics.

Yes but then again we are just dealing with models. Which isn't what philosophy is mainly about.

Do you slowly realize that your main beef with philosophy is a strawman?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:08 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:54 amYep. Just as soon as you step "outside" this universe. And sit right next to God.

And how do you plan to accomplish that?

I don't know. You tell me. It was your claim that "controlling all variables should't be too difficult". Tell us HOW to control time?
We don't even understand its ontology?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:08 am A discretized multiverse is something I tend to reject too. But I don't think non-discretized universes "interact" since they are already one continuous structure. So in that case we are already looking at such a multiverse, and there is probably no way to measure it.
If dark matter has to do with other universes, they are a multiverse in a different and more limited sense though, probably. More like they are yet undiscovered parts of our own universe.

That is a self-contradicting argument. Non-interacting universes ARE discretized. By virtue of non-interaction. If they are one continuous structure then they are a single system and they are interacting. Therefore it is plausble that black holes are universes.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:08 am ? Again we can play that game, but then everything is made up and there is no point in saying anything about anything.

It is not a game? Taxonomies are tools. We use taxonomies to DISCRETIZE reality into boxes we can reason about. It is an error, but it is an error born out of pragmatic necessity. Because our brains suck at dealing with complexity.
So do you see how you are a pragmatist in performance even if not in narrative by your INSTRUMENTAL USE of taxonomies?

WHY do you discretize the universe? TELEOLOGY.
WHY do you want to figure out this place? TELEOLOGY.

Because "most people do" is a bandwagon fallacy. Why do YOU want to figure out the universe? TELEOLOGY

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:08 am Lol no there isn't. There are just the pixels and you make an arbitrary abstraction out of them.
Also, you could for example also count the pixels and arrive at a number larger than 2. Or make an abstraction about the gravity of those pixels or any other abstraction.

I could. But I did't. Why? TELEOLOGY!

I interpreted it in the way that is useful to communication.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:08 am Do you slowly realize that your main beef with philosophy is a strawman?

Is it? Those are your words. Not mine.

My main beef with philosophy is that without a TELEOLOGY there is no way to determine what we can or can't say about the world.

The grobmunf keke rump. There I said it!

But you did bring up the point about communicating and being understood by others.

WHY do you want to communicate and be understood by others? TELEOLOGY

It is rather ironic to call me an instrumentalist when you are clearly USING language for a PURPOSE.

What is your PURPOSE for doing philosophy?
What is Philosophy instrumental for?

My beef with Philosophy is that it has no teleology. If you provide me with one - that is my Black Swan. My falsifier.

The evidence I need to admit that I am wrong.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:44 amI don't know. You tell me. It was your claim that "controlling all variables should't be too difficult". Tell us HOW to control time?
We don't even understand its ontology?

It was irony. You seem to think that we could some day control time in this region of the universe / the entire universe.

That is a self-contradicting argument. Non-interacting universes ARE discretized. By virtue of non-interaction. If they are one continuous structure then they are interacting. Therefore it is plausble that black holes are universes.

How can something that is continuous interact with itself? It's continuous. Okay maybe we mean something else by interaction.
I see no reason to believe that black holes are universes.

It is not a game? Taxonomies are tools. We use taxonomies to DISCRETIZE reality into boxes we can reason about. It is an error, but it is an error born out of pragmatic necessity. Because our brains suck at dealing with complexity.
So do you see how you are a pragmatist in performance even if not in narrative by your INSTRUMENTAL USE of taxonomies?

WHY do you discretize the universe? TELEOLOGY.
WHY do you want to figure out this place? TELEOLOGY.

Because "most people do" is a bandwagon fallacy. Why do YOU want to figure out the universe? TELEOLOGY

I want to figure it out out of curiosity. But when we play the game that there is no point in saying anything about anything, then why talk? Sort of self-contradictory.

Is it? Those are your words. Not mine.

My main beef with philosophy is that without a TELEOLOGY there is no way to determine what we can or can't say about the world.

The grobmunf keke rump.

There I said it!

But you did bring up the point about communicating and being understood by others.

WHY do you want to communicate and be understood by others? TELEOLOGY

It is rather ironic to call me an instrumentalist when you are USING language for a PURPOSE.

What is your PURPOSE?

Are you looking for some kind of objective teleology or what are you trying to say?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:53 am My beef with Philosophy is that it has no teleology. If you provide me with one - that is my Black Swan. My falsifier.

The evidence I need to admit that I am wrong.

Philosophy mainly deals with interpretation, so it can't have teleology. That's why it's philosophy. Why do you have a problem with that?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:59 am It was irony. You seem to think that we could some day control time in this region of the universe / the entire universe.

Another fallacy of gray. If we control things in OUR portion of the universe we can adjust the experience of time. That is what computer simulations do - they allow us to CREATE time.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:59 am How can something that is continuous interact with itself?

The same way your muscles interact with your bones to make you type on a keyboard.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:59 am It's continuous. Okay maybe we mean something else by interaction.
I see no reason to believe that black holes are universes.

And I see no reason not to. The 'expansion' of our universe could be an illusion as we accelerate towards the singularity.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:59 am I want to figure it out out of curiosity. But when we play the game that there is no point in saying anything about anything, then why talk? Sort of self-contradictory.

I see. So you are just looking for that dopamine fix of Eureka? We have pharmaceuticals for that?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:59 am Are you looking for some kind of objective teleology or what are you trying to say?

That is an oxymoron. Teleology is subjective. I am looking for your teleology in doing philosophy.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:03 am Philosophy mainly deals with interpretation, so it can't have teleology. That's why it's philosophy. Why do you have a problem with that?

Because I understand the ontology of interpretation. Linguistic computation and algorithms. And words contain infinite meaning.

As postmodern philosophers have shown.

Without some objective/agreed-upon/imposed by authority criteria for 'valid interpretation'. It is not meaningless. It's worse. It is objectively meaningful always and to everyone!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:08 amAnother fallacy of gray. If we control things in OUR portion of the universe we can adjust the experience of time. That is what computer simulations do - they allow us to CREATE time.

Have you compared the size of a man-made computer simulation to the size of the universe?
Or are you convinced that our universe is a computer simulation?

The same way your muscles interact with your bones to make you type on a keyboard.

Which in the case of multiverse hypothesis would make it probably undetectable since everything we see is already a slice of the multiverse.

And I see no reason not to. The 'expansion' of our universe could be an illusion as we accelerate to the singularity.

I agree, but wouldn't that further confirm that black holes are parts of our own universe?

I see. So you are just looking for that dopamine fix of Eureka? We have pharmaceuticals for that?

Even if I figure out as much as I can, I probably won't be able to put it to much practical use. Does it have to have an utility?

Because I understand the ontology of interpretation. Linguistic computation and algorithms. And words contain infinite meaning.

As postmodern philosophers have shown.

Without some objective/agreed-upon/imposed by authority criteria for 'valid interpretation'. It is not meaningless. It's worse. It is objectively meaningful always and to everyone!

No language can have objective interpretation, so what's your point?