Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scrdest]

Oh don't worry, if you haven't broken it you'll break it soon in this thread.

I can't help but wonder WHAT is the wordcount record.

[Helgoland]

Oh don't worry, if you haven't broken it you'll break it soon in this thread.

I can't help but wonder WHAT is the wordcount record.

Easiest way would be setting a new one. 10^23 words schould do


Again, I'm a bit short on time, but if you reread your post, you'll find that you strayed quite far from axiomatic deduction. ("It is I1, but I1 that appears to be I2, depending on what level you're looking at.") What you say is fine by the standards of sane everyday reasoning, and a very valid concept of how the world works (I use something very similar, too) - it just isn't all clear from your first two axioms.

Hell, maybe tonight I'll do a tract on axiomatic moral philosophy and you can whale on me for a while, eh? I feel kind of bad for constantly critizising without doing stuff on my own...

[Il Palazzo]

(Those work for closed systems. It seems that the universe is not a closed system and does not follow those laws as a whole, but you'll have to ask a physicist for details.) Even without the stuff in the brackets, they only follow if you use I1 - with I2, stuff could slowly disappear. Yet you seem to imply I2 in the second sentence... Or you have to take it as a third axiom, which would be... controversial.

I never heard anything about this. Like, at all.

Energy is not a well-defined quantity in General Relativity. It is well defined in static and asymptotically flat spacetimes(so, locally). In any other case one cannot talk about conservation of energy. This includes the expanding universe.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/#.UiXAWn-npkg

Which brings me to

-To think outside the box, you don't need to be smart. You just have to realize there is no box, and there never was.

with which I disagree with a passion. Sure, you don't need to be smart, but you do need to know where the box is, and what are its contents. Otherwise you might just find yourself talking bollocks.

Or, in the words of the Great Philosophilopher Tim Minchin: "If you open you mind too much, your brain will fall out".

[scrdest]

Oh don't worry, if you haven't broken it you'll break it soon in this thread.

I can't help but wonder WHAT is the wordcount record.

Easiest way would be setting a new one. 10^23 words schould do


Again, I'm a bit short on time, but if you reread your post, you'll find that you strayed quite far from axiomatic deduction. ("It is I1, but I1 that appears to be I2, depending on what level you're looking at.") What you say is fine by the standards of sane everyday reasoning, and a very valid concept of how the world works (I use something very similar, too) - it just isn't all clear from your first two axioms.

Hell, maybe tonight I'll do a tract on axiomatic moral philosophy and you can whale on me for a while, eh? I feel kind of bad for constantly critizising without doing stuff on my own...

That's the cool things about discussions in philosophy - if you have someone to criticize you, you can refine your argument to patch the problematic parts. And flipping the tables should be pretty fun, although my arsenal is not nearly as extensive as yours. I do know some things about philosophy, but my knowledge is fragmentary and unsystematic, since I never properly studied it outside of amateur-level reading here and there. I found your reference to Hume particularly difficuly to take on, since I had a hard time of finding good summaries of his beliefs in the matter we were discussing, due to that.

Also, a bit of self-critique, Axiom of Objectivity can be broken down further to a simpler, less specific, and less controversial axiom that, however, has similar implications. Namely: 'Contradictions don't exist'. It is a simple, basic prerequisite for logic to be useable, and does interesting things to solipsism. The formulation in the last post showed my bias against solipsism, since it was explicitly targeted against it (I count Berkeley's metaphysics or sci-fi 'AI in a box' and the like as a subtype of solipsism, just in case it's not clear).

Now, the current (Third? I think by now it's third) formulation does very interesting things to solipsism, since it technically allows it, with a caveat that the world created by a solipsist's mind is logically consistent. And the requirement of logical consistency means, among other things, that in a hypothetical solipsist universe the reality (a set of all objects everywhere) created by a solipsist's mind cannot be willed out of existence. So with that formulation, you can have solipsist metaphysics, but logic forces you to behave the same way as though you were using non-solipsist metaphysics. Meaning that even if I had only that single axiom, there is no essential difference between solipsist and non-solipsist metaphysics, as long as there is logic.

And the thing about logic is that it's undeniable. If you deny existence of logic, you've just performed a smash and grab of a concept of denial. And that has implications that I cannot even formulate without getting a headache, and I'm suspecting inspecting logic is like trying to divide by zero on a pocket calculator.

But, back to responding. The sentence you quoted was supposed to convey that while intuitively it appears to be I2, I2 behavior is a macro-level emergent behavior while at the object/atomos level, the only thing that changes is the dimensional configuration of I1-following objects/atomoi (I think that's how the plural would look).

I'm having a creeping suspicion that universe runs on math, but I resist it since it seems like a nasty, nasty reification.

[BoboJack]

I'd like to add something to your soliphist discussion.
If one believes that perception is all one gets (maybe from reality if you like),
can't I say that only perception matters to him? If reality changed, but perception didn't, not now, not in the future,
how would one realise that something importand has changed?
In this light reality does only seem to matter as a theory for tying together perception.

I'd like to tell of something else,too.
When you make philosophical arguments, you probably decide by mesuring which sentences sound believable and which do not.
While doing so you probably use the language skills you've acquired in your life.
I can imagine sentences being learned by relating spoken sentences to things happening.
And I think we are taking these learned language patterns and play around with them to see what kind of things we can predict/knowledge we can create.

I also feel like popular philosophy is very old, so maybe I can interest you in something more recent.
Just throwing in something I liked, Ludwig Wittgensteins books Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations.
The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus does the kind of discussion in this thread in a very smart way, imho.
And Philosophical Investigations is something completly different, focusing on the relation between language and philosophy.

[scrdest]

I'd like to add something to your soliphist discussion.
If one believes that perception is all one gets (maybe from reality if you like),
can't I say that only perception matters to him? If reality changed, but perception didn't, not now, not in the future,
how would one realise that something importand has changed?
In this light reality does only seem to matter as a theory for tying together perception.

That's not really solipsism discussion, but general epistemology discussion, although it did on occasion touch on metaphysics, but that's only because epistemology requires a foundation in metaphysics.

Anyway, the concept of reality is entirely superfluous in solipsism, perception needs not be tied together at all, since in this view, perception is completely detached from reality and perception does not need to be consistent.

I'd like to tell of something else,too.
When you make philosophical arguments, you probably decide by mesuring which sentences sound believable and which do not.
While doing so you probably use the language skills you've acquired in your life.
I can imagine sentences being learned by relating spoken sentences to things happening.
And I think we are taking these learned language patterns and play around with them to see what kind of things we can predict/knowledge we can create.

What you are trying to argue here implies Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to be true, and given that you're bringing up Wittgenstein, it's hardly surprising that this appeared here. While it is obvious that language influences thought, equating one with the other is generally accepted to to be wrong.

[BoboJack]

Anyway, the concept of reality is entirely superfluous in solipsism, perception needs not be tied together at all, since in this view, perception is completely detached from reality and perception does not need to be consistent.

I tried to say that you don't necessarily need the word reality, even if you're not a solipsist. As long as you agree that perception is all you have.
You don't have to agree that your perception is all that is.

While it is obvious that language influences thought, equating one with the other is generally accepted to to be wrong.

I'd guess thought may be in another language than spoken language, if one applies a broad definition of language. Language being patterns one can see.
I was more keen on pointing out that we have language constructs which can predict the behavior of the world and that we are often using them without testing them.

[scrdest]

Anyway, the concept of reality is entirely superfluous in solipsism, perception needs not be tied together at all, since in this view, perception is completely detached from reality and perception does not need to be consistent.

I tried to say that you don't necessarily need the word reality, even if you're not a solipsist. As long as you agree that perception is all you have.
You don't have to agree that your perception is all that is.

You need the concept, not the word, and you need it because it's an essential concept in determining what's true and what is not.

While it is obvious that language influences thought, equating one with the other is generally accepted to to be wrong.

I'd guess thought may be in another language than spoken language, if one applies a broad definition of language. Language being patterns one can see.
I was more keen on pointing out that we have language constructs which can predict the behavior of the world and that we are often using them without testing them.

Polka dot is a pattern you can see, and yet it is not a language. A string of alternating ones and zeros is a pattern, but is not a language. Patterns are not meaningful in themselves.

If anything, language is a codec - it encodes a concept formed in one mind into a form that can be received by another mind and decoded using common decoding rules. The pattern itself is not meaningful, since another decoding algorithm - another language - might decode the same pattern in a completely different way. For example, there's a word that means 'to seek' in Polish and is a vulgarism in Czech (in this case, the words are spelled differently but pronounced the same way, but make no mistake - written and spoken language are two separate codecs!)

I cannot really see what language constructs can predict the behavior of the world that aren't encodings of concepts onto a vocal/graphical medium. Please provide examples.

[Tiruin]

Philosophy..

* Tiruin rubs hands.

I'll be watching this.

[BoboJack]

You need the concept, not the word, and you need it because it's an essential concept in determining what's true and what is not.

You can code programs which just do statistical correlation of perception, where true and false are just other words for 100% expected and 0% expected.
These programs can already understand language to some extend.

Polka dot is a pattern you can see, and yet it is not a language. A string of alternating ones and zeros is a pattern, but is not a language. Patterns are not meaningful in themselves.

I agree partially. Patterns that do nothing are not interesting, but patterns which cause something, like physical behavior, the wiring of the brain, are languages for me even without a human understanding them.

I cannot really see what language constructs can predict the behavior of the world that aren't encodings of concepts onto a vocal/graphical medium. Please provide examples.

Mathematics, Physics, since here it is apparent that the rules of the language, force some other rules. Sure they were and are made from something else in peoples head too, but only the starting points are diffuse, everything that follows are patterns in their language,which do predict things.
If there were patterns in natural language we'd like so much, we'd never neglect them, these patterns would always have influence on what we think of sensible.

[scrdest]

You need the concept, not the word, and you need it because it's an essential concept in determining what's true and what is not.

You can code programs which just do statistical correlation of perception, where true and false are just other words for 100% expected and 0% expected.
These programs can already understand language to some extend.

Expected based on what? And in what? Expected in perception? If I suddenly shot you in the head with a disintegrator ray, destroying the possibility of you perceiving anything, would it still be 100% expected? And understand what language?

Polka dot is a pattern you can see, and yet it is not a language. A string of alternating ones and zeros is a pattern, but is not a language. Patterns are not meaningful in themselves.

I agree partially. Patterns that do nothing are not interesting, but patterns which cause something, like physical behavior, the wiring of the brain, are languages for me even without a human understanding them.

You broadened your definition of language so much it became redundant, then. FLASHBACK TIME!

When you make philosophical arguments, you probably decide by mesuring which sentences sound believable and which do not.
While doing so you probably use the language skills you've acquired in your life.
I can imagine sentences being learned by relating spoken sentences to things happening.
And I think we are taking these learned language patterns and play around with them to see what kind of things we can predict/knowledge we can create.

You have just conceded defeat. Your definition of language as it is right now is entirely disconnected from both communication and human understanding. Your examples treat patternguages, if you excuse the portmanteau, as possessing irreducible existence, instead of being useful conceptualizations.

I cannot really see what language constructs can predict the behavior of the world that aren't encodings of concepts onto a vocal/graphical medium. Please provide examples.

Mathematics, Physics, since here it is apparent that the rules of the language, force some other rules. Sure they were and are made from something else in peoples head too, but only the starting points are diffuse, everything that follows are patterns in their language,which do predict things.
If there were patterns in natural language we'd like so much, we'd never neglect them, these patterns would always have influence on what we think of sensible.

I still cannot see that. If the rules of Math would force some other rules, they would need to force the rules outside the realm of Math itself, which is an entirely ungrounded reification, otherwise you're claiming that the rules of Math need to be be consistent with the rules of Math, which is quite a bit tautological.

Your final sentence once again veers towards Sapir-Whorf and the idea that if erase a word, you erase the underlying concept, which ignores how words were formed in the first place.

[GlyphGryph]

You can't trust science without trusting empiricism, and you have no defense of empiricism that isn't philosophical.

Nope, this is just out and out false. You can defend empiricism perfectly fine from a pragmatic point of view as well.

Science is to philosophy as physics is to math. One is an application of the other.

One could just as easily argue that philosophy is to physics as alchemy is to chemistry - the one arose out of the other, and took from it that which was of value, but is no longer dependent on it. Except, of course, that physics isn't the only thing that arose out of philosophy - plenty of other stuff did as well. But this isn't to say that philosophy is required for these other fields to continue existing, or that these other fields are "applications" of philosophy. Honestly, the concept doesn't make any sense. In what way is physics an application of philosophy?

I see it as more like programming a new computer language - to begin with, you will usually use a previously existing language to implement the new one. Eventually, however, you will have designed a language of sufficient complexity that you can sever ties with the previous language and use the new language to handle its own implementation. You may include many of the concepts and conceits of the old language in the new, and as the old language develops it may inspire similar developments in the new, but that does not mean the new language is dependent any longer on the old one.

All the precepts of science are philosophical arguments. All of them.

Clarify.

[scrdest]

You can't trust science without trusting empiricism, and you have no defense of empiricism that isn't philosophical.

Nope, this is just out and out false. You can defend empiricism perfectly fine from a pragmatic point of view as well.

Clarify. If you mean what I think you mean, then the answer is that defending empiricism form a pragmatic point of view is a philosophical defense in itself.

Science is to philosophy as physics is to math. One is an application of the other.

One could just as easily argue that philosophy is to physics as alchemy is to chemistry - the one arose out of the other, and took from it that which was of value, but is no longer dependent on it. Except, of course, that physics isn't the only thing that arose out of philosophy - plenty of other stuff did as well. But this isn't to say that philosophy is required for these other fields to continue existing, or that these other fields are "applications" of philosophy. Honestly, the concept doesn't make any sense. In what way is physics an application of philosophy?

I see it as more like programming a new computer language - to begin with, you will usually use a previously existing language to implement the new one. Eventually, however, you will have designed a language of sufficient complexity that you can sever ties with the previous language and use the new language to handle its own implementation. You may include many of the concepts and conceits of the old language in the new, and as the old language develops it may inspire similar developments in the new, but that does not mean the new language is dependent any longer on the old one.

You skipped a step. It's philosophy -> science in general -> physics. I think there is no doubt that physics uses scientific method and all other basic tools of science along with the specialized ones it developed for its own purposes. And science, in turn, is dependent on a set of philosophical assumptions and tools.

Scientific method is useless in a universe that doesn't run on fixed rules. Scientific method is useless if the universe does not exist. Scientific method is useless if logic doesn't work. You need to assume that the universe exists, that you can comprehend it, that logic works - and all those are philosophical positions. You don't need to have good arguments for them, but you do need to assume them.

All the precepts of science are philosophical arguments. All of them.

Clarify.

See above.

[GlyphGryph]

Clarify. If you mean what I think you mean, then the answer is that defending empiricism form a pragmatic point of view is a philosophical defense in itself.

Yes, if you are going to argue that every defense is philosophical by definition, it's obviously true that there can be no defense. But it ceases to matter that there is no defense.

You know, I'm not even sure what you consider to be philosophy. Either your claims are baseless, or you're defining it so widely the term is useless as a descriptive tool.

You're also making assumptions that seem on the face of them outright false - that axioms are inherently philosophical, or that the sort of logic used in science was exclusively a tool of philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that there is a branch of Philosophy called Logic, but it is called such because it uses logic as it's primary tool, not because it owns the concept). Even such baseless assumptions such as "the scientific method is useless if the universe does not exist" - as if that actually means anything, forget whether or not its true.

And this is why I fucking hate philosophy, despite having loved it for years and eventually becoming embittered - every argument in it comes down to a worthless matter of semantics and language abuse. Modern philosophy is nothing more than communicating without standards so people can communicate poorly and act like it makes them clever.

[Pnx]

You're also making assumptions that seem on the face of them outright false - that axioms are inherently philosophical, or that the sort of logic used in science was exclusively a tool of philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that there is a branch of Philosophy called Logic, but it is called such because it uses logic as it's primary tool, not because it owns the concept). Even such baseless assumptions such as "the scientific method is useless if the universe does not exist" - as if that actually means anything, forget whether or not its true.

To some extent I think it does own logic. I mean Philosophy is in essence the study of reasoning and thought, like asking questions like "how do you know something".

Essentially I consider philosophy the art of thinking about thinking and reasoning.

I'd also like to say that, science meanwhile is based around empirical knowledge, which is where some bright spark went "hey, the universe seems like it follows set rules of cause and effect, if I run experiments where I try to change one parameter at a time, and study the effects, I may gain valuable insight into the rules the universe follows", and if you don't think thinking this was an act of philosophy, then I think that your definition of philosophy may be too narrow to be useful as a descriptive tool.