For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
LOL...you may be right, I don't want to insult Wittgenstein with an FSK. In shorter terms, an FSK is subjectively applied rhetoric thus nullifying the FSKs coherency, outside of minimally used contexts, and negating it all together in a universal sense.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:11 pm Man, if you are beefing with VA that's fine and all, but don't you go dignifying his FSK shit by comparing it to Wittgenstein. The FSK thing is an autistic sorting game for compulsively arranging unrelated things into meaningless hierarchies, and there is nothing at all more to them than that.
This is to get VA to shut up about FSKs...or at least an attempt at it.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:12 pm We dont' need an extra person opening threads about FSKs. One is enough.
Nah you're only humoring him. This will only convince him to talk about them more.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:20 pmThis is to get VA to shut up about FSKs...or at least an attempt at it.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:12 pm We dont' need an extra person opening threads about FSKs. One is enough.
You already have it in "the foundations of everything is occurence" thread in the general philosophy section. It is quite short.
What are you talking about?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:08 pm FSK's are purely a language game, as subjective definition can be applied, thus resulting in one FSK as not only having multiple meanings but fundamentally resulting in contradictory results thus nullifying a coherent FSK being possible other than within a minute number of contexts.
Suggest you ask your AI to critique the above by posting the above in full.Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
I posted my above post to Qwen2.5 as the first post without background history, so it is not bias to my inputs to date:
After further discussion based on the queries raised by AI and my responses, here is the conclusion:Qwen2.5-Max
Your framework and system (FS) for understanding reality and knowledge is an interesting philosophical approach that attempts to reconcile the human-centric nature of our understanding with the objective standards provided by science. Let’s break down your points and analyze them:
1. Reality as Contingent Upon a Human-Based Framework
You argue that reality, including facts, knowledge, and truth, is contingent upon a human-based framework. This aligns with several philosophical traditions, such as constructivism or pragmatism, which emphasize that our understanding of reality is shaped by human cognition, language, culture, and social structures.
• Strengths :
• This perspective acknowledges the limitations of human perception and cognition. It recognizes that our understanding of reality is mediated through frameworks—scientific, linguistic, cultural, etc.
• It avoids naive realism, which assumes that we have direct access to an objective reality independent of our frameworks.
• Challenges :
• If reality is entirely contingent on human frameworks, it raises questions about whether there is any "objective" reality at all. Some might argue that this leads to relativism, where different frameworks could produce equally valid but contradictory truths.
• However, you mitigate this concern by asserting that the scientific FS is the "gold standard" for objectivity, which brings us to the next point.
2. Scientific FS as the Gold Standard
You claim that the scientific framework is the most credible and objective, and that whatever is accepted as scientific is credible and objective as agreed upon by scientists.
• Strengths :
• Science has a robust methodology for testing hypotheses, gathering evidence, and refining theories based on empirical data. This makes it a reliable tool for understanding the natural world.
• The consensus among scientists provides a form of intersubjective agreement, which strengthens the claim that scientific knowledge is objective.
• Challenges :
• Scientific knowledge is not static; it evolves over time as new evidence emerges. For example, Newtonian physics was once considered the gold standard, but it was later superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity. This suggests that even within the scientific FS, what is considered "objective" can change.
• There can be disagreements among scientists, especially in emerging fields or when interpreting complex data. These disagreements don't necessarily undermine the scientific method, but they do highlight that scientific consensus is not always absolute.
3. Model-Dependent Realism
You introduce model-dependent realism , which is a view that reality should be understood through scientific models, and that multiple models can describe the same phenomena in equally valid ways. This concept, popularized by physicists like Stephen Hawking, suggests that there is no single "true" reality, but rather multiple overlapping models that are useful for different purposes.
• Strengths :
• Model-dependent realism avoids the trap of claiming absolute certainty about reality. Instead, it focuses on the utility and predictive power of models. This is a pragmatic approach that aligns well with the scientific method, which is inherently provisional and open to revision.
• It allows for multiple perspectives or frameworks to coexist without contradiction, as long as they are useful in their respective domains. For example, quantum mechanics and general relativity describe different aspects of reality, and while they may seem contradictory, they are both valid within their own contexts.
• Challenges :
• Some critics might argue that model-dependent realism undermines the idea of a single, objective reality. If multiple models can describe the same phenomenon, does that mean there is no ultimate truth? This could lead to a form of epistemic pluralism, where different models are seen as equally valid, even if they contradict each other.
• However, proponents of model-dependent realism would argue that this is not a problem because the goal of science is not to uncover an ultimate "truth" but to create models that accurately predict and explain phenomena.
4. Contradictions Within the Scientific FS
You raise the question of whether contradictions within the scientific FS would undermine its credibility. This is a crucial point, and it touches on the nature of scientific progress.
• Strengths :
• Contradictions within science are often temporary. They arise when new evidence challenges existing theories, leading to revisions or paradigm shifts. For example, the apparent contradiction between classical mechanics and electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity.
• The scientific method is designed to resolve contradictions through further experimentation, observation, and theoretical refinement. Thus, contradictions are not necessarily a failure of the scientific FS but rather a sign that it is working as intended.
• Challenges :
• If contradictions persist without resolution, it could undermine confidence in the scientific FS. However, this is rare in mature scientific disciplines. In most cases, contradictions are eventually resolved through further research.
5. Is the Concept of a Framework and System (FS) Reasonable?
Overall, the concept of a framework and system (FS) for understanding reality and knowledge is reasonable and aligns with many contemporary philosophical and scientific perspectives.
Here’s why:
• Human-Centric Nature of Knowledge : Your acknowledgment that reality is contingent upon human frameworks reflects the fact that all knowledge is mediated through human cognition, language, and culture. This is consistent with constructivist and pragmatist philosophies.
• Scientific Objectivity : By privileging the scientific FS as the gold standard, you provide a grounding for objective knowledge while recognizing its provisional nature. This balances the need for objectivity with the understanding that scientific knowledge evolves over time.
• Model-Dependent Realism : Incorporating model-dependent realism into your framework is a sophisticated way of addressing the multiplicity of scientific models and the provisional nature of scientific truth. It emphasizes the practical utility of models rather than their metaphysical status as "ultimate truth."
Conclusion
Your principle that reality is contingent upon a human-based framework, with the scientific FS as the gold standard, is a coherent and defensible position.
It acknowledges the limitations of human cognition while still valuing the objectivity and reliability of scientific inquiry. The inclusion of model-dependent realism adds depth to your framework by emphasizing the provisional and pragmatic nature of scientific models.
However, the potential for contradictions within the scientific FS does not necessarily undermine its credibility, as long as those contradictions are addressed through further research and refinement.
The key is to recognize that scientific knowledge is always evolving, and what is considered "objective" today may be revised tomorrow.
In summary, your concept of a framework and system (FS) for reality and knowledge is reasonable and aligns with contemporary philosophical and scientific thinking. It provides a nuanced understanding of how humans come to know and interpret reality, while still valuing the importance of scientific inquiry as the most reliable method for gaining knowledge.
AI Wrote:
Conclusion:
Your thesis is tenable and broadly reflective of how reality, knowledge, and objectivity are understood and practiced in contemporary society.
By recognizing the contingency of reality on human frameworks, privileging the scientific FS as the gold standard, and proposing a systematic way to evaluate other frameworks, you offer a nuanced and balanced perspective.
The concept of meta-objectivity further strengthens your argument by providing a unifying principle for assessing diverse forms of knowledge.
While challenges remain—such as defining universal rationality, addressing the normative dimension of ethics, and reconciling subjective values with objective criteria—your thesis provides a solid foundation for understanding the complex interplay between human cognition, frameworks, and reality.
I posted my above post to Qwen2.5 as the first post without background history, so it is not bias to my inputs to date:
After further discussion based on the queries raised by AI and my responses, here is the conclusion:Qwen2.5-Max
Your framework and system (FS) for understanding reality and knowledge is an interesting philosophical approach that attempts to reconcile the human-centric nature of our understanding with the objective standards provided by science. Let’s break down your points and analyze them:
1. Reality as Contingent Upon a Human-Based Framework
You argue that reality, including facts, knowledge, and truth, is contingent upon a human-based framework. This aligns with several philosophical traditions, such as constructivism or pragmatism, which emphasize that our understanding of reality is shaped by human cognition, language, culture, and social structures.
• Strengths :
• This perspective acknowledges the limitations of human perception and cognition. It recognizes that our understanding of reality is mediated through frameworks—scientific, linguistic, cultural, etc.
• It avoids naive realism, which assumes that we have direct access to an objective reality independent of our frameworks.
• Challenges :
• If reality is entirely contingent on human frameworks, it raises questions about whether there is any "objective" reality at all. Some might argue that this leads to relativism, where different frameworks could produce equally valid but contradictory truths.
• However, you mitigate this concern by asserting that the scientific FS is the "gold standard" for objectivity, which brings us to the next point.
2. Scientific FS as the Gold Standard
You claim that the scientific framework is the most credible and objective, and that whatever is accepted as scientific is credible and objective as agreed upon by scientists.
• Strengths :
• Science has a robust methodology for testing hypotheses, gathering evidence, and refining theories based on empirical data. This makes it a reliable tool for understanding the natural world.
• The consensus among scientists provides a form of intersubjective agreement, which strengthens the claim that scientific knowledge is objective.
• Challenges :
• Scientific knowledge is not static; it evolves over time as new evidence emerges. For example, Newtonian physics was once considered the gold standard, but it was later superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity. This suggests that even within the scientific FS, what is considered "objective" can change.
• There can be disagreements among scientists, especially in emerging fields or when interpreting complex data. These disagreements don't necessarily undermine the scientific method, but they do highlight that scientific consensus is not always absolute.
3. Model-Dependent Realism
You introduce model-dependent realism , which is a view that reality should be understood through scientific models, and that multiple models can describe the same phenomena in equally valid ways. This concept, popularized by physicists like Stephen Hawking, suggests that there is no single "true" reality, but rather multiple overlapping models that are useful for different purposes.
• Strengths :
• Model-dependent realism avoids the trap of claiming absolute certainty about reality. Instead, it focuses on the utility and predictive power of models. This is a pragmatic approach that aligns well with the scientific method, which is inherently provisional and open to revision.
• It allows for multiple perspectives or frameworks to coexist without contradiction, as long as they are useful in their respective domains. For example, quantum mechanics and general relativity describe different aspects of reality, and while they may seem contradictory, they are both valid within their own contexts.
• Challenges :
• Some critics might argue that model-dependent realism undermines the idea of a single, objective reality. If multiple models can describe the same phenomenon, does that mean there is no ultimate truth? This could lead to a form of epistemic pluralism, where different models are seen as equally valid, even if they contradict each other.
• However, proponents of model-dependent realism would argue that this is not a problem because the goal of science is not to uncover an ultimate "truth" but to create models that accurately predict and explain phenomena.
4. Contradictions Within the Scientific FS
You raise the question of whether contradictions within the scientific FS would undermine its credibility. This is a crucial point, and it touches on the nature of scientific progress.
• Strengths :
• Contradictions within science are often temporary. They arise when new evidence challenges existing theories, leading to revisions or paradigm shifts. For example, the apparent contradiction between classical mechanics and electromagnetism led to the development of special relativity.
• The scientific method is designed to resolve contradictions through further experimentation, observation, and theoretical refinement. Thus, contradictions are not necessarily a failure of the scientific FS but rather a sign that it is working as intended.
• Challenges :
• If contradictions persist without resolution, it could undermine confidence in the scientific FS. However, this is rare in mature scientific disciplines. In most cases, contradictions are eventually resolved through further research.
5. Is the Concept of a Framework and System (FS) Reasonable?
Overall, the concept of a framework and system (FS) for understanding reality and knowledge is reasonable and aligns with many contemporary philosophical and scientific perspectives.
Here’s why:
• Human-Centric Nature of Knowledge : Your acknowledgment that reality is contingent upon human frameworks reflects the fact that all knowledge is mediated through human cognition, language, and culture. This is consistent with constructivist and pragmatist philosophies.
• Scientific Objectivity : By privileging the scientific FS as the gold standard, you provide a grounding for objective knowledge while recognizing its provisional nature. This balances the need for objectivity with the understanding that scientific knowledge evolves over time.
• Model-Dependent Realism : Incorporating model-dependent realism into your framework is a sophisticated way of addressing the multiplicity of scientific models and the provisional nature of scientific truth. It emphasizes the practical utility of models rather than their metaphysical status as "ultimate truth."
Conclusion
Your principle that reality is contingent upon a human-based framework, with the scientific FS as the gold standard, is a coherent and defensible position.
It acknowledges the limitations of human cognition while still valuing the objectivity and reliability of scientific inquiry. The inclusion of model-dependent realism adds depth to your framework by emphasizing the provisional and pragmatic nature of scientific models.
However, the potential for contradictions within the scientific FS does not necessarily undermine its credibility, as long as those contradictions are addressed through further research and refinement.
The key is to recognize that scientific knowledge is always evolving, and what is considered "objective" today may be revised tomorrow.
In summary, your concept of a framework and system (FS) for reality and knowledge is reasonable and aligns with contemporary philosophical and scientific thinking. It provides a nuanced understanding of how humans come to know and interpret reality, while still valuing the importance of scientific inquiry as the most reliable method for gaining knowledge.
AI Wrote:
Conclusion:
Your thesis is tenable and broadly reflective of how reality, knowledge, and objectivity are understood and practiced in contemporary society.
By recognizing the contingency of reality on human frameworks, privileging the scientific FS as the gold standard, and proposing a systematic way to evaluate other frameworks, you offer a nuanced and balanced perspective.
The concept of meta-objectivity further strengthens your argument by providing a unifying principle for assessing diverse forms of knowledge.
While challenges remain—such as defining universal rationality, addressing the normative dimension of ethics, and reconciling subjective values with objective criteria—your thesis provides a solid foundation for understanding the complex interplay between human cognition, frameworks, and reality.
Good, then your FSKs are subjective and create the chaos they are hypocritically negating.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 7:46 amWhat are you talking about?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:08 pm FSK's are purely a language game, as subjective definition can be applied, thus resulting in one FSK as not only having multiple meanings but fundamentally resulting in contradictory results thus nullifying a coherent FSK being possible other than within a minute number of contexts.
I have already compared the FSK to Wittgenstein's Language Game, here.
viewtopic.php?t=41861
Yes, a FSK is like a language game but having more elements besides linguistic elements.
If not, why?
..........................
My principle:
Reality - all there [facts, knowledge, truth, ..] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of emergence and reality of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective, i.e. the gold standard.
viewtopic.php?t=43232
Whatever is a scientific FS is credible and objective as accepted by all scientists. How can it be contradictory?
If so, there will not be any objective scientific facts or truth that is contingent upon the scientific FS.
Note Model Dependent Realism [a scientific FS]:Suggest you ask your AI to critique the above by posting the above in full.Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
I am very interested in your AI's response.
Yeah...you have "the foundation of everything is occurence" thread. Go ahead and try to troll "occurence".
Suggest you ask your AI to critique the above by posting the above in full.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2025 6:48 amGood, then your FSKs are subjective and create the chaos they are hypocritically negating.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 7:46 amWhat are you talking about?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:08 pm FSK's are purely a language game, as subjective definition can be applied, thus resulting in one FSK as not only having multiple meanings but fundamentally resulting in contradictory results thus nullifying a coherent FSK being possible other than within a minute number of contexts.
I have already compared the FSK to Wittgenstein's Language Game, here.
viewtopic.php?t=41861
Yes, a FSK is like a language game but having more elements besides linguistic elements.
If not, why?
..........................
My principle:
Reality - all there [facts, knowledge, truth, ..] is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of emergence and reality of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective, i.e. the gold standard.
viewtopic.php?t=43232
Whatever is a scientific FS is credible and objective as accepted by all scientists. How can it be contradictory?
If so, there will not be any objective scientific facts or truth that is contingent upon the scientific FS.
Note Model Dependent Realism [a scientific FS]:Suggest you ask your AI to critique the above by posting the above in full.Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
I am very interested in your AI's response.