Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12354
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:02 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:20 pm
Yes...and those perspectives? They originate from what exactly?
It is your problem when you use the term 'originate' in this case which denote 'origin' and thus leading to a conundrum of seeking for an unconditional absolute-origin within an infinite regression leading to nowhere.
You should just give up this false-starting and never ending impossible 'jumping ahead' conclusion.

We should focus on the fact that perspectives exist and they emerge from the human conditions. Note non-humans do not have perspectives like humans do.
Is infinite regression the origin?
Surprise you do not understand infinite regression and its impossibility of arriving at an absolute origin.

Note I stated,
"a conundrum of ... an infinite regression leading to nowhere."
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:02 am
It is your problem when you use the term 'originate' in this case which denote 'origin' and thus leading to a conundrum of seeking for an unconditional absolute-origin within an infinite regression leading to nowhere.
You should just give up this false-starting and never ending impossible 'jumping ahead' conclusion.

We should focus on the fact that perspectives exist and they emerge from the human conditions. Note non-humans do not have perspectives like humans do.
Is infinite regression the origin?
Surprise you do not understand infinite regression and its impossibility of arriving at an absolute origin.

Note I stated,
"a conundrum of ... an infinite regression leading to nowhere."
Infinite regression is an origin, composed of and composing further infinite regressions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12354
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:53 am

Is infinite regression the origin?
Surprise you do not understand infinite regression and its impossibility of arriving at an absolute origin.

Note I stated,
"a conundrum of ... an infinite regression leading to nowhere."
Infinite regression is an origin, composed of and composing further infinite regressions.
Image
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Logik »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:47 am Surprise you do not understand infinite regression....
I am surprised you make such a statement. Would you say that you understand infinite regression?
Share your understanding with us!

Image
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:47 am Surprise you do not understand infinite regression....
I am surprised you make such a statement. Would you say that you understand infinite regression?
Share your understanding with us!

Image
Already covered it.....the death of philosophy thread under the "prime triad".

If I used infinite regression, through infinite regression I would effectively be making a progressive statement as one infinite necessitates another. The dualism between infinite progress and regress necessitates a dualism surmised under "linearism" as "infinitism".

I prefer the facepalm with Captain Picard from Star Trek, if I can be frank.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:09 am Already covered it.....the death of philosophy thread under the "prime triad".

If I used infinite regression, through infinite regression I would effectively be making a progressive statement as one infinite necessitates another.
You are describing calculus. Change over time.
Such a function could converge, diverge or remain in flux.

We have many ways of describing the behavior of such functions.

The general name for any function which describes a progression through time is a world line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:09 am The dualism between infinite progress and regress necessitates a dualism surmised under "linearism" as "infinitism".
Yes. No. Almost.

This is the is-ought gap.

Is is what you have today. Your axioms. Truth (or whatever you want to call it).
Ought is infinite progression through time (for as long as time is infinite).

We can conceptualize a mathematical function which describes the behaviour of humans/society/etc through time and reason about convergence, divergence or equilibria of any sort.

This is ergodic theory. And it touches on your "symmetry in time" thread.

This is how I define objective morality: What should be symmetrical in infinite time is that at any point in time humans (or the observer, or consciousness, whatever label we give it) should exist.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:09 am Already covered it.....the death of philosophy thread under the "prime triad".

If I used infinite regression, through infinite regression I would effectively be making a progressive statement as one infinite necessitates another.
You are describing calculus. Change over time.
Such a function could converge, diverge or remain in flux.

We have many ways of describing the behavior of such functions.

The general name for any function which describes a progression through time is a world line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:09 am The dualism between infinite progress and regress necessitates a dualism surmised under "linearism" as "infinitism".
Yes. No. Almost.

This is the is-ought gap.

Is is what you have today. Your axioms. Truth (or whatever you want to call it).
Ought is infinite progression through time (for as long as time is infinite).

We can conceptualize a mathematical function which describes the behaviour of humans/society/etc through time and reason about convergence, divergence or equilibria of any sort.

This is ergodic theory. And it touches on your "symmetry in time" thread.

This is how I define objective morality: What should be symmetrical in infinite time is that at any point in time humans (or the observer, or consciousness, whatever label we give it) should exist.
The "is-ought" gap is an axiom in itself and is subject to the "is-ought" gap as "ought" becomes a temporal occurance in the respect it observes potentiality. All time lines composed of further time lines necessitate the time line as having an inherent potentialistic state within an actual state similar to a form of pre socratic atomism where the "locality" (synonymous to an atom) is composed of further localities which have potential states.

"Ought" eveffectively is void as potential movement and "is" fundamentally is actualization (in an aristotelian sense) synonymous to individuation.


Change over time still require time to be composed of and composing further time, hence all axioms premised in time observe a triadic state of "true/false/neutral".

1. All localized axioms are true and exist as a whole as an extension of the whole through the whole.

2. All localized axioms are false and exist as a gradation of the whole as an approximation of the whole.

3. All axioms are simultaneously holistic and atoms (reflected in some works of the Buddhist logician nagarjuna) and effectively neutral.


Axioms are triadic in nature.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:37 am The "is-ought" gap is an axiom in itself and is subject to the "is-ought" gap as "ought" becomes a temporal occurance in the respect it observes potentiality.
Yes. That is the direction of movement.

Arrow of time (conceptualized as a vector): axiom.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:37 am All time lines composed of further time lines necessitate the time line as having an inherent potentialistic state within an actual state similar to a form of pre socratic atomism where the "locality" (synonymous to an atom) is composed of further localities which have potential states.
Micro-state and macro-state distinction from statistical mechanics helps here.

Precision at the micro-scale is far too complex. We will settle for precision at the macro scale.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:37 am Change over time still require time to be composed of and composing further time, hence all axioms premised in time observe a triadic state of "true/false/neutral".
Yes. This is precisely the consequence of Hilbert's decision problem. Isomorphic to the "everything is relative to the observer'.

The answer to every yes/no question you can ever ask is: yes/no/I don't know.

And so to the question: what is the self?

That which decides: yes/no/I don't know.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Logik »

This is the 'self' as best as science understands it today.

The Oracle machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine
In complexity theory and computability theory, an oracle machine is an abstract machine used to study decision problems. It can be visualized as a Turing machine with a black box, called an oracle, which is able to solve certain decision problems in a single operation. The problem can be of any complexity class. Even undecidable problems, such as the halting problem, can be used.
It's an idealized model, but it sure works! Go ahead and test it, just make sure you ask it only yes/no questions...

It is the only machine which can solve this problem: Is murder wrong?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:37 am The "is-ought" gap is an axiom in itself and is subject to the "is-ought" gap as "ought" becomes a temporal occurance in the respect it observes potentiality.
Yes. That is the direction of movement.

Arrow of time (conceptualized as a vector): axiom.

Time of arrow is also an axiom.



Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:37 am All time lines composed of further time lines necessitate the time line as having an inherent potentialistic state within an actual state similar to a form of pre socratic atomism where the "locality" (synonymous to an atom) is composed of further localities which have potential states.
Micro-state and macro-state distinction from statistical mechanics helps here.

Precision at the micro-scale is far too complex. We will settle for precision at the macro scale.

Complexity is variation, and macro/micro are statements of relation. What is one micro state is another macro state, what is one macro state is another micro state. The macro/micro state is subject to variation in measurement as evidence with before and after plank measurement.


Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:37 am Change over time still require time to be composed of and composing further time, hence all axioms premised in time observe a triadic state of "true/false/neutral".
Yes. This is precisely the consequence of Hilbert's decision problem. Isomorphic to the "everything is relative to the observer'.

A paradox occurs when the observer observes the observer and we are left with a constant.

The true/false/possible true false dichotomy can be reflected anonymously in absolute/relativistic/sythetic (neutral) truth.



The answer to every yes/no question you can ever ask is: yes/no/I don't know.

And so to the question: what is the self?

That which decides: yes/no/I don't know.

The answer is all three.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:01 pm This is the 'self' as best as science understands it today.

The Oracle machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine
In complexity theory and computability theory, an oracle machine is an abstract machine used to study decision problems. It can be visualized as a Turing machine with a black box, called an oracle, which is able to solve certain decision problems in a single operation. The problem can be of any complexity class. Even undecidable problems, such as the halting problem, can be used.
It's an idealized model, but it sure works! Go ahead and test it, just make sure you ask it only yes/no questions...

It is the only machine which can solve this problem: Is murder wrong?
Can the black box determine is the black box is right or wrong?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:10 pm The answer is all three.
That which determines everything determines nothing.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:11 pm Can the black box determine is the black box is right or wrong?
Not absolutely and in any particular instance, but relatively and in general it can.

The baseline is a coin. 50% error rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy

You can check yourself a posteriori.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:11 pm Can the black box determine is the black box is right or wrong?
Not absolutely and in any particular instance, but relatively and in general it can.

The baseline is a coin. 50% error rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy

You can check yourself a posteriori.
Hence if ir can only do so relatively the black box is only a probable solution (as well as computation) and eventually computation does not work in providing a predictable model considering definition itself, the inherent link to computation, eventually leads to a singular self referencing line folding through itself like a wave function.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:26 pm Hence if ir can only do so relatively the black box is only a probable solution (as well as computation)
Yes. You are seeking deductive determinism/certainty. Sadly you need to adjust these expectations.

In this world, where time is an arrow (as far as I can tell) deduction only works a posteriori.

A priori - all you get is induction. Which is why counter-factual reasoning is paramount. Play out both scenarios: being right AND being wrong then decide whether to be pessimistic or optimistic in your prediction. Rational bias.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:26 pm and eventually computation does not work in providing a predictable model considering definition itself, the inherent link to computation, eventually leads to a singular self referencing line folding through itself like a wave function.
This is true for expert systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system ).
Once your knowledge becomes stale (your axioms no longer hold true) - you are fucked either way.

That is why machine learning is all about real-time orientation and decision-making.
Post Reply