The ontological error of Philosophy

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:35 am
Age wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:40 am How do 'you' know how 'i' am using it "right now"?

Without first clarifying you could be totally wrong.
I could ask you the exact same question about THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework.
But why would you ask me the exact same question about THE UNIVERSAL clarifying framework? Unlike you I have never claimed that I have any idea how you use any word nor phrase you have used.

Even after I ask you for clarification about how you define the words you use I still have no clue at all. This is because you do not clarify.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:35 am
Age wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:40 am When did I say that?
The search function could help you remember. 13 pages of evidence where you keep saying "you, human beings" instead of "we, human beings"
If, from that, you made the assumption that I am saying that I am not a human being, then do be it, and considering you even believe it to be true, then why did you say I am a 'brilliant philosopher'? Are you suggesting that human beings are, and/or could, not be 'brilliant philosophers'?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Univalence wrote: Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:33 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:20 pm Prove why falsifiability is correct...and why it is "not" the munchausseen trillema which negates your premise axiom of "computing" as the foundation for your perspective.
That depends on what you accept as valid proof.

That is a fallacy as we are left with bandwagon/authority fallacy considering subjective interpretation (many/one respectively to each fallacy) as the foundation for truth...and by default all stances as assumed and accepted are valid even if they disagree with yours.


The answer you are looking for is the Bayes theorem. And in this book.

"In probability theory and statistics, Bayes' theorem (alternatively Bayes' law or Bayes' rule) describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event. For example, if cancer is related to age, then, using Bayes' theorem, a person's age can be used to more accurately assess the probability that they have cancer, compared to the assessment of the probability of cancer made without knowledge of the person's age."

Those conditions are localized assumed events that are grounded in assumption. Probability theory is grounded fundamentally in the localization of phenomena (empirical or abstract) that must be assumed as starting points in determining a phenomena. Hence probability theory is subject to its own change when the grounding assumptions are changed.





Falsification then is nothing more than a Bayes factor.

"In statistics, the use of Bayes factors is a Bayesian alternative to classical hypothesis testing.[1][2] Bayesian model comparison is a method of model selection based on Bayes factors"

Again Bayes factors, as a localization of abstract concepts (with Bayesian Abstractions being one of many interpretations) is a reflection of the above. What you do not take into account is applying how probable Bayesian Abstractions are applied as forms of measurements not just in groups (as a means of interpreting reality) but how long over the course of time these abstractions will maintain their grounding as a boundary of interpretation before they entropy.

Probability Theory is applied probabilisitically as its theoretical nature necessitates as a certain hegelian dialectic where certain groups apply it and other's do not, thus necessitating an underlying tension in "assumptions" that sets the foundation for "probabilities" considering probabilities are strictly fractions as the relation of parts.

In simpler terms, if we take the "whole" of all abstractions that form the "continuum" of abstractions Bayesian Theory not only is a "part" or localization of this continuum (hence a fraction), but is also a continuum in and of itself that requires a continually progressive nature that necessitates it as undefined unless it continually progresses and/or is self-referencing.

If I observe 1/7 of x contains y then 6/7 of x contains z ∨ (z+a) with "z" as the remainder and "a" as variable of change where the remainder is incomplete relative to change in time. This applies to all abstractions, where bayesian theory is strictly a localization.






You can read about it here, and here.

Or just google "Bayes and falsification".

Or start with Bayesian epistemology
Probability is relativity as the relation of parts, synonymous to "finiteness", thus setting the grounding for "time" considering time is change and change is particulation or "atomism" in objective scientific sense or "paganism" in an anthropomorphic subjective religious sense (where the "I" is viewed through multiple entities representing different aspects of the psyche as they transition through time).

Thus probability, through relativity, as dual objective/subjective grounds considering its grounding in "change through time" and has a "universal" element as a form of "approximation" of the "one whole". Probability as approximation is fundamentally assumed under a foundation of randomness in these respects thus further assuming an incompleteness in itself.
User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by VVilliam »

Logik wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:11 pm I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"
What are 'wise philosophers'?

How does X behave? Why does X behave that way?

What is X?

xx
PeteJ
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by PeteJ »

Logik wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:11 pm So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"
Absolutely not. The two questions belong in different spheres. The latter question is scientific and can be answered by sensory empiricism. The former question is fundamental and can only be answered by exploring beyond sensory data. This is why the natural sciences cannot ask or answer the former question.

I suspect the only reason ontology is treated so lightly by scholastic philosophers is that they can get nowhere with it. The discovery of the mystics is that (by reduction) nothing really exists or ever really happens, Phenomena that exhibit behaviour would be literally non-existent except as appearances. Kant arrives at the same conclusion just by using his reason.

The question 'What exists' is far more useful because if we know this we know who we are and are-not. Thus the advice of the Oracle to 'Know Thyself'' could be re-written as 'Study Ontology'.



,
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

HexHammer wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:41 ambut everybody are glaringly ignorant and will always ask others to provide them some half assed answers and explanations, so it ends up blind leading blind.
Yes! You can tell when they are totally ignorant of English grammar.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:37 am Go ahead and clarify what "global warming", or what a "photon" is without using any verbs.
Well, "global warming," is BS!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

PeteJ wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:49 pm
Logik wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:11 pm So I pose a question to all which deem themselves wise philosophers: Do you recognize that the question "How does X behave?" is infinitely more useful than the question "What is X?"
Absolutely not. The two questions belong in different spheres. The latter question is scientific and can be answered by sensory empiricism. The former question is fundamental and can only be answered by exploring beyond sensory data. This is why the natural sciences cannot ask or answer the former question.
Almost the entirety of chemistry is the answer to the question, "what is this ..." substance, material, liquid, gas, etc. Knowing what a chemical element is, that is, what its nature, is knowing how it will behave. One attribute that identifies any existent is an its behavior. What a thing does cannot be separated from what it does.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:53 am
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:37 am Go ahead and clarify what "global warming", or what a "photon" is without using any verbs.
Well, "global warming," is BS!
"is" is a verb.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:51 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:53 am
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:37 am Go ahead and clarify what "global warming", or what a "photon" is without using any verbs.
Well, "global warming," is BS!
"is" is a verb.
BS!
PeteJ
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by PeteJ »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:04 am Almost the entirety of chemistry is the answer to the question, "what is this ..." substance, material, liquid, gas, etc. Knowing what a chemical element is, that is, what its nature, is knowing how it will behave. One attribute that identifies any existent is an its behavior. What a thing does cannot be separated from what it does.
Chemistry doesn't come close to asking this question. Physics comes closer but still cannot address it. This is why ontology is metaphysics.

The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:30 am
Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:51 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:53 am
Well, "global warming," is BS!
"is" is a verb.
BS!
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/is
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

PeteJ wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:32 pm The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists.
Sorry you have that problem.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:41 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:30 am
Skepdick wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:51 am
"is" is a verb.
BS!
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/is
"More BS!" My answer without a verb.

The political scam, global warming. (Explanation by apposition.)
Last edited by RCSaunders on Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:14 pm More BS!
I can't navigate around your cognitive dissonance for you.

If you disagree that "is" is a verb, you gotta say why.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The ontological error of Philosophy

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:05 pm
PeteJ wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:32 pm The unfalsifiability of solipsism is dependent on the inability of sensory data to determine what exists.
Sorry you have that problem.
If you have solved it, you should tell us how?
Post Reply