Epistemology, Propositions

[Skepdick]

No doubt, but where do you draw that inference from?

Gut feel.

Thank you for the advice, but I can draw my own conclusions.

Oh you can? Then determine my "beliefs" empirically. Why do you keep asking me questions?

Ah well, this is where you and I disagree. Call me old fashioned, but there are many ideas that we know are not true, Newton's law of universal gravitation springs to mind, but it's still useful.

Call me even more old-fashioned then. All models are wrong - some are useful. To call any scientific model "true" is a misnomer.

Or as Christians say "None of you are righteous, none! Not one". But lets not stretch the interpretation too far. Least you get triggered.

Right, and the mistake you are making is that you believe you are the only person contributing to this forum who understands that.

And the mistake you are making is that you believe I believe that.

Perhaps I am simply more committed to remaining in-character while playing the dumb philosophical games?

You compound that cock-up by getting into silly arguments with people who fully appreciate what you mean, but with whom you are apparently compelled to disagree, even when they agree with you, because some of us know you are not nearly as smart as you can't bear not to be.

I never said I was smart, but if you think so... who am I to stop you?

My game is avoiding stupidity, I'll let others seek "brilliance". Whatever that is.

And there ya go. You have never seen me be triggered by 'naughtiness'.

I've seen you triggered by "everyone is a sinner". I believe you called it something like a "despicable idea"? Maybe you aren't smart enough to interpret it as "nobody is perfect"? Or maybe you are, and you were just choosing your words for your audience? How you say it... getting into silly arguments with people.

Well, in the current context, I suppose a reasonable description of me would be 'occasionally giving a fuck what you think, to see if you are still a total twat.' I can see some movement there, which is encouraging, but there's still a way to go.

I know you said you can draw your own conclusions, but here's a tip anyway. Ponder on "What's different?" whenever I am not a twat to any of my interlocutors. You might even find some answers in game theory...

Funny you should say that. Have I mentioned the books and articles I have written?

You have, actually. Is there a "donate" link where I can disable the adverts?

[uwot]

No doubt, but where do you draw that inference from?

Gut feel.

Fair enough.

Thank you for the advice, but I can draw my own conclusions.

Oh you can? Then determine my "beliefs" empirically. Why do you keep asking me questions?

To determine your "beliefs" empirically.

Ah well, this is where you and I disagree. Call me old fashioned, but there are many ideas that we know are not true, Newton's law of universal gravitation springs to mind, but it's still useful.

Call me even more old-fashioned then. All models are wrong - some are useful. To call any scientific model "true" is a misnomer.

That's not how underdetermination works. We cannot infer that "All models are wrong", we simply don't know if any of the ones not demonstrably false are actually false.

Or as Christians say "None of you are righteous, none! Not one". But lets not stretch the interpretation too far. Least you get triggered.

What's the worst that could happen?

Right, and the mistake you are making is that you believe you are the only person contributing to this forum who understands that.

And the mistake you are making is that you believe I believe that.

Gut feel.

Perhaps I am simply more committed to remaining in-character while playing the dumb philosophical games?

Congratulations for playing dumb with such commitment.

You compound that cock-up by getting into silly arguments with people who fully appreciate what you mean, but with whom you are apparently compelled to disagree, even when they agree with you, because some of us know you are not nearly as smart as you can't bear not to be.

I never said I was smart, but if you think so... who am I to stop you?

I didn't actually say I think you are smart.

My game is avoiding stupidity, I'll let others seek "brilliance". Whatever that is.

Why the quotation marks around "brilliance"? I haven't used the word.

And there ya go. You have never seen me be triggered by 'naughtiness'.

I've seen you triggered by "everyone is a sinner". I believe you called it something like a "despicable idea"?

Yep, in my view it is a despicable idea.

Maybe you aren't smart enough to interpret it as "nobody is perfect"?

Bit off topic, but yeah, maybe. I don't have a problem with anyone who interprets the torah, bible, koran or any holy book you care to mention in such a way, so...

Or maybe you are, and you were just choosing your words for your audience? How you say it... getting into silly arguments with people.

...I don't get into silly arguments with them.

I know you said you can draw your own conclusions, but here's a tip anyway. Ponder on "What's different?" whenever I am not a twat to any of my interlocutors. You might even find some answers in game theory...

And here's my tip for you: be a twat less frequently and who knows? Maybe your interlocutors will show you some respect and learn something.

You have, actually. Is there a "donate" link where I can disable the adverts?

Nah, just buy the book.

[Skepdick]

To determine your "beliefs" empirically.

If beliefs are behaviour you aren't going to learn much about with language, you are much better off asking my wife.

My perspective has blind-spots.

That's not how underdetermination works. We cannot infer that "All models are wrong", we simply don't know if any of the ones not demonstrably false are actually false.

We can infer it.

That's the literal, mathematical definition of a model. Projecting a domain (our concepts) onto the subset of the co-domain (reality).

That's why scientific theories have "domains of applicability" e.g contextual - none of them are universal.

We project GR onto phenomena at large scale.
We project QFT onto phenomena at small scale.

Recent papers on superdeterminism (which brings us right back to computer science's Oracle Machine; or God - depending on your view) cover this very problem. We also know that Mathematics can't be consistent AND complete, so for as long as we are using Mathematics to describe reality our theories will forever be inconsistent OR incomplete.

Choose one.

What's the worst that could happen?

A pointless argument with people who agree with you?

Congratulations for playing dumb with such commitment.

Congratulations on entertaining it.

I didn't actually say I think you are smart.

You are using the word... According to you use is meaning?

Why the quotation marks around "brilliance"? I haven't used the word.

It's the notation I use to distinguish between use and mention.

Yep, in my view it is a despicable idea.

Even if it's just another way of saying "Nobody is perfect"?

Bit off topic, but yeah, maybe. I don't have a problem with anyone who interprets the torah, bible, koran or any holy book you care to mention in such a way, so...

So which interpretations of "everyone is a sinner" do you consider despicable?

...I don't get into silly arguments with them.

You sure have a habit of punching up at IC and Nick_A.....

And here's my tip for you: be a twat less frequently and who knows? Maybe your interlocutors will show you some respect and learn something.

That is sage advice! If you practiced it more - I would be less of a twat

Nah, just buy the book.

Would you like a proof-of-purchase?

[uwot]

If beliefs are behaviour you aren't going to learn much about with language, you are much better off asking my wife.

My guess is she wouldn't thank you for involving her.

My perspective has blind-spots.

Whaddya know? Maybe we do have something in common.

That's not how underdetermination works. We cannot infer that "All models are wrong", we simply don't know if any of the ones not demonstrably false are actually false.

We can infer it.

Yeah, but we can't demonstrate it.

That's the literal, mathematical definition of a model. Projecting a domain (our concepts) onto the subset of the co-domain (reality).

That'll be the reality we don't understand.

That's why scientific theories have "domains of applicability" e.g contextual - none of them are universal.

We don't know that until it is demonstrated. It doesn't follow from the fact that we don't know a theory is true, that it isn't true.

We project GR onto phenomena at large scale.
We project QFT onto phenomena at small scale.

Because we don't yet have a model that can do both. Although I grant that even if we did, it would be underdetermined.

Recent papers on superdeterminism (which brings us right back to computer science's Oracle Machine; or God - depending on your view) cover this very problem.

If those are the only options, I'll go for Oracle Machine.

We also know that Mathematics can't be consistent AND complete, so for as long as we are using Mathematics to describe reality our theories will forever be inconsistent OR incomplete.

Choose one.

Or don't rely on mathematical models to "describe reality".

What's the worst that could happen?

A pointless argument with people who agree with you?

So why do it?

You are using the word... According to you use is meaning?

Yeah, but I didn't apply it to you.

It's the notation I use to distinguish between use and mention.

Who used or mentioned "brilliance"?

Even if it's just another way of saying "Nobody is perfect"?
So which interpretations of "everyone is a sinner" do you consider despicable?
You sure have a habit of punching up at IC and Nick_A.....

Indeed I do, but neither of those two interpret "everyone is a sinner" as "Nobody is perfect".

That is sage advice! If you practiced it more - I would be less of a twat

Well, to be charitable I might suppose that it's chicken and egg. Frankly though, I doubt your being a twat is anything to do with me.

Would you like a proof-of-purchase?

I very much doubt that would be anything you will ever be in a position to provide, but fuck it, yeah, show me the receipt.

[Skepdick]

My guess is she wouldn't thank you for involving her.

Which is somewhat detrimental to your information-acquisition quest...

Whaddya know? Maybe we do have something in common.

Obviously. That's the human condition.

Yeah, but we can't demonstrate it.

Sure, but the limits of the scientific method are not the limits of epistemology.

That'll be the reality we don't understand.

And that very limit (of language) is also the limit of (communicable) understanding.

We don't know that until it is demonstrated. It doesn't follow from the fact that we don't know a theory is true, that it isn't true.

It very much depends on your conception of "truth".

If truth has the properties of "consistency" and "completeness", then it cannot be expressed in language.

The limits of language are the limits of (communicable) understanding.

Because we don't yet have a model that can do both. Although I grant that even if we did, it would be underdetermined.

Wrong. If we had a model that could do both, a model that is universally applicable with no considerations of "operating parameters" (e.g domain of applicability), a model from which you can derive both QFT and GR - it implies superdeterminism!

All sorts of spooky shit and time-paradoxes begin to happen if we could perfectly-predict the future (but lets worry about it when we get there?).

Here's some reading you might find interesting: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/1 ... -take.html

Or the paper the blog post introduces: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462.pdf

If those are the only options, I'll go for Oracle Machine.

Why? Does the God-language trigger you? "God" and "Oracle Machines" are isomorphic. Functionally equivalent. Synonymous. Two words for the same concept.

Perhaps it's prudent to choose your language for your audience after all? I probably can't explain God (e.g Oracle Machines) to my grandmother...

Or don't rely on mathematical models to "describe reality".

That's a great idea! You must have a better instrument then? One compatible with structuralism?

If you don't - the limits of Mathematics/Language are the limits of your understanding...

So why do it?

You tell me? You constantly pick fights with theists, rather than defaulting to a charitable interpretation of seemingly bad ideas.

Yeah, but I didn't apply it to you.

It would've been much simpler to just call me stupid. I would've agreed.

Who used or mentioned "brilliance"?

Nobody in this conversation? It's was an adage I was expressing.

Indeed I do, but neither of those two interpret "everyone is a sinner" as "Nobody is perfect".

Methinks you are going a little too far (and way beyond the principle of charity) to be making any claims about people's interpretations...

Well, to be charitable I might suppose that it's chicken and egg. Frankly though, I doubt your being a twat is anything to do with me.

And you would be 100% correct. Me being a twat has nothing to do with you. But it may have something to do with your behaviour...

I very much doubt that would be anything you will ever be in a position to provide, but fuck it, yeah, show me the receipt.

And you would be right, receipts are risk to anonimity. But when the book arrives, I am happy to oblige a zero-knowledge proof of sorts.

[attofishpi]

Y = LOGIC - and English has ample room for such discourse with reason to good standing.

Y/Why is not logic. All logic is declarative - the notion of a "question" is meaningless in logic/mathematics.

But you inferred using logic that Y is a homophone to WHY? I wasn't implying that WHY=LOGIC, rather pointing out the quirk of the homophone for that letter 'Y'. It's also the symbol Christ made when he was pinned up to some would.

If English was 'nihilistic' then certainly the 3rd party entity that rendered its key components must be considered in the same vain.

An external (scientific) pursuit of "Why?" question leads to nihilism.

What about 'how'?

What language would satisfy you? C++?

Whatever language we develop interactively through shared experience and within the context of our shared objective?

The grammar/notation doesn't matter. English, Russian, Afrikaans, Zulu, Mathematics, C++

Sure, I doubt you'll find me venturing beyond English, although I still intend to learn French one day. Oui!

[Skepdick]

But you inferred using logic that Y is a homophone to WHY?

I did make an inference, but it could be an incorrect one...

I wasn't implying that WHY=LOGIC

And indeed - I was wrong. Clearly I misunderstood your meaning.

, rather pointing out the quirk of the homophone for that letter 'Y'

OK... then you tricked me. Not very conducive to communication though.

What about 'how'?

Science can answer "how?" questions. It can't answer "why?" questions.

Sure, I doubt you'll find me venturing beyond English, although I still intend to learn French one day. Oui!

English it is...

[attofishpi]

What about 'how'?

Science can answer "how?" questions. It can't answer "why?" questions.

This is an interesting perspective. I think when dealing with matters questioning wo\man themselves, indeed their consciousness, 'why?' is going to remain more prevalent, for a very long time.

[Skepdick]

This is an interesting perspective. I think when dealing with matters questioning wo\man themselves, indeed their consciousness, 'why?' is going to remain more prevalent, for a very long time.

“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche