Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7723
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: flash

Post by henry quirk » Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:30 pm

Your opening post doesn't express any actual facts,

Yeah, that's not right.

Mebbe I'll throw you a bone later and point out the fact, the moral fact (and the reasonin' and means of falsifyin').

It's a lazy Saturday here and my kid has his PS4 fired up, so: don't hold your breath waitin'.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: flash

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:17 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:02 pm
Better isn't objective. That's just fucking stupid.
And now I have to explain to your ignorant ass why me observing you asserting "betterness" is evidence for decidability which suggests that there is at least 1 bit of EVIDENCE in the system, otherwise the decider (YOU!) wouldn't be able to answer the question. The "decider" (YOU!) would've said - "they are different, but I can't tell if one is better."

That is what "testability" means in a statistical context. The answer to 1 yes/no question is 1 bit of MEASURED evidence. It is a unit and all. This trivial experiment is testable and reproducible (even though my sample size is 1 - you. You are welcome to go increase the scope/sample size on your own time.) which renders it "objective" in the scientific framework. It's so trivial in fact I am struggling to comprehend what it is that you don't understand.

Perhaps the "fucking stupidity" arrises from the fact that you don't understand how science works and what "testability" and "objectivity" means?

Obviously, there's only so many times I can try and explain to you that you are epistemically challenged - at some point I have to be content that I can't convince you of that fact.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

uwot
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:33 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:19 pm
Why is Quantum Physics not able to demonstrate that the facts of General relativity are mistaken?
What, in your view, are the facts of general relativity?

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:35 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:33 pm
What, in your view, are the facts of general relativity?
Oh, lets go with an easy one.

According to GR time is maleable/relative.
According to QFT time is universal/absolute.

I'd venture a guess that if you subscribe to Aristotelian non-contradiction then one of those is wrong.

uwot
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:47 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:35 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:33 pm
What, in your view, are the facts of general relativity?
Oh, lets go with an easy one.

According to GR time is maleable/relative.
According to QFT time is universal/absolute.

I'd venture a guess that if you subscribe to Aristotelian non-contradiction then one of those is wrong.
Again, what, in your view, are the facts of general relativity?

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:48 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:47 pm
Again, what, in your view, are the facts of general relativity?
Which part of "time is relative" did you not understand?

uwot
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:58 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:48 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:47 pm
Again, what, in your view, are the facts of general relativity?
Which part of "time is relative" did you not understand?
Okie-dokie, so a fact is just some part of a narrative, and needn't bear any relation to anything outside that narrative.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:01 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:58 pm
Okie-dokie, so a fact is just some part of a narrative, and needn't bear any relation to anything outside that narrative.
Well, what is "time" outside of the narratives of GR and QFT?

Because apparently observers (which aren't narratives, right? Observers exist, right?!?) experience "it" (time) differently at the quantum scale than they do at the classical scale.

It's really no biggie though. If time is a problem for you lets go with another one. How about quantum gravity?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: flash

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:03 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:17 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:02 pm
Better isn't objective.
The "decider" (YOU!)
Indeed, that would be the thing that makes it opinion.

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: flash

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:04 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:03 pm
Indeed, that would be the thing that makes it opinion.
But me observing YOU make a DECISION is not an opinion. That is a fact!

According to me (the scientist!) there exists a naturally-occurring system which can answer the question "Is 2020AD better than 2000BC?"

That system is you!

You insist that you are a relativist, but then you are NOT saying "They are different, but I can't decide which is better".

Were you lying to to both of us or just to yourself when you (a self-professed relativist) decided on an undecidable matter?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uwot
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:07 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:01 pm
Well, what is "time" outside of the narratives of GR and QFT?
Whatever it is in other narratives. What was time before 1915?
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:01 pm
Because apparently observers (which aren't narratives, right?) experience "it" (time) diferently.
That's a 'fact' of GR. Does it follow that QFT is wrong?

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:15 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:07 pm
Whatever it is in other narratives. What was time before 1915?
"Whatever" is not an answer - that's why I am asking you!

Was time relative or absolute before 1915? Was it even conceived as an arrow before the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Maybe it was spiral-shaped in other narratives? Or maybe it was a unicorn!
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:07 pm
That's a 'fact' of GR. Does it follow that QFT is wrong?
They are BOTH factual within the framework/context you default to! That doesn't mean either is wrong - it simply means that they have a domain of applicability.

But Mr FlashDangerdork insist that one "fact" must be able to demonstrate that another "fact" is mistaken.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:34 pm
Why is your fact not able to demonstrate that his is mistaken?.
So go ahead and demonstrate. Either QFT or GR has the "facts" about time all wrong.

uwot
Posts: 4889
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:39 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:15 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:07 pm
Whatever it is in other narratives. What was time before 1915?
"Whatever" is not an answer - that's why I am asking you!
That's selective editing on your part again, Skepdick.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:15 pm
They are BOTH factual within the framework/context you default to! That doesn't mean either is wrong - it simply means that they have a domain of applicability.
So:
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:07 pm
Whatever it is in other narratives.
is not an answer, but it is the answer you give.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:15 pm
But Mr FlashDangerdork insist that one "fact" must be able to demonstrate that another "fact" is mistaken.
Well yeah; did Hafele-Keating and every experiment since show that gravity and velocity affect clocks or not?

Skepdick
Posts: 4429
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:44 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:39 pm
Well yeah; did Hafele-Keating and every experiment since show that gravity and velocity affect clocks or not?
At the scale where GR applies - they do!
At the scale where QFT applies - they don't!

So quit skirting around the problem and address it.

GR says: time is relative.
QFT says: time is not relative.

I mean - I don't give a fuck about contradictions, but apparently Philosophers do so how do you reconcile these incompatible "facts"?

According to you does Hafele-Keating demonstrate that QFT is factually wrong about time?

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: flash

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:04 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:03 pm
Indeed, that would be the thing that makes it opinion.
But me observing YOU make a DECISION is not an opinion. That is a fact!
You only observe me having an opinion. It has zero beearing on any fact to do with society being better than it used to be. It's easy to find people with differnt opinions to mine, and then you have facts about opinions which are in direct conflict. These facts are not in conflict specifically because they are not about the object under consideration.

None of this bullshit backs up your claim....
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 4:57 pm
I've told you, over and over again how to test the objectivity of moral facts.

Society is better in 2020 AD than it was in 2000 BC. If you can make that determination then morality is objective.
Which is still stupid.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests