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

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:11 pm

Skepdick wrote:
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!
What is a clock at the scale where QFT applies?
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:44 pm
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"?
As they are only 'facts' within their own domain, why are you claiming they are incompatible?
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 9:44 pm
According to you does Hafele-Keating demonstrate that QFT is factually wrong about time?
Which part of QFT states that if you fly an atomic clock around the world, it will not register a different time than if had stayed in one location?

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

FT

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:16 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm
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 doesn't matter, moron! You and every human that ever lived acts out their opinions. Opinions have real-world testable, factual consequences.

Society BECAME better over thousands of years BECAUSE people acted out their opinions.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm
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.
Conflict doesn't preclude factuality! Which is precisely what I am busy demonstrating re: conflict between GR and QFT.

If billions of people living over thousands of years didn't hold the opinion (like you hold the opinion) that things need improving then society today would be the same kind of shithole it was thousands of years ago.

The improvement of society is an objective fact! That improvement requires a causal explanation. Unless you think it was by accident.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm
None of this bullshit backs up your claim....
I am not making any claims. I am stating the obvious.

But you have some overly-sophisticated conception of how hypothesis-testing works that are too dumb to see it.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm
Which is still stupid.
What? Not good enough for you? Sounds like you think it needs IMPROVEMENT.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:18 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:11 pm
What is a clock at the scale where QFT applies?
That's precisely the problem! A "clock" is a measurement device for time!

At GR scale a "clock" is a mechanical device.
At QFT scale anything that oscillates will do!
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:11 pm
Which part of QFT states that if you fly an atomic clock around the world, it will not register a different time than if had stayed in one location?
Am I supposed to pretend that I didn't notice you attempt to shift the discussion away from time towards the different instruments we use to measure it with?

P.S It's it the part of QFT which assumes time as universal and absolute!
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:27 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:18 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:11 pm
What is a clock at the scale where QFT applies?
That's precisely the problem! A "clock" is an abstract idea.
Well yeah, so's 'table'.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:18 pm
At GR scale a "clock" is a mechanical device.
At QFT scale anything that oscillates will do!
So what does QFT say about how gravity and velocity affect oscillation?
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:18 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:11 pm
Which part of QFT states that if you fly an atomic clock around the world, it will not register a different time than if had stayed in one location?
Am I supposed to pretend that I didn't notice you attempt to shift the discussion away from "time is relative" to clocks?
How else do you think 'time' can be measured?

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:32 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:27 pm
So what does QFT say about how gravity and velocity affect oscillation?
QFT doesn't say ANYTHING about gravity. Maybe you aren't paying attention.

Apparently you are a philosopher of science? Is it new information to you that quantum gravity is a mystery?
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:27 pm
How else do you think 'time' can be measured?
You don't need to "measure" time in QFT. You exploit naturally-occurring oscillation of particles.

But hey... it sure sounds to me as if you are insisting that QFT is wrong. Are you going to let quantum physicists know?

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

Re: FT

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:16 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm
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 doesn't matter, moron! You and every human that ever lived acts out their opinions. Opinions have real-world testable, factual consequences.

Society BECAME better over thousands of years BECAUSE people acted out their opinions.
In your opinion.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:16 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm
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.
Conflict doesn't preclude factuality! Which is precisely what I am busy demonstrating re: conflict between GR and QFT.
Really? Because tht clock thing you wrote seems to imply they are sort of compatible.
I fail to see how Vertable Aquarium's MORAL FACT BUT ONLY FOR A GUIDE that it is always wrong to kill a human being is compatible in any way with Henry's moral fact that revenge killings are justified. Their shared moral fact that moral concern cannot extgend to animals is outright detestable, so if I were in the game of concocting moral fact, I would have incompatible facts with the both of them anyway.

What is the point of using this Fact word in this context? It doesn't mean anything more than opinion means unless it comes with an expectation of resolving conflicts.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:16 pm
If billions of people living over thousands of years didn't hold the opinion (like you hold the opinion) that things need improving then society today would be the same kind of shithole it was thousands of years ago.

The improvement of society is an objective fact! That improvement requires a causal explanation. Unless you think it was by accident.
That's clearly not an objective fact. Infant mortality rates are objective data, you can cite such objective data to support your belief that the world has improved. It's still a matter of opinion.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:16 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm
None of this bullshit backs up your claim....
I am not making any claims. I am stating the obvious.
So you claim.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:16 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:05 pm
Which is still stupid.
What? Not good enough for you? Sounds like you think it needs IMPROVEMENT.
No, it needs aborting.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: FT

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:56 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
In your opinion.
My opinion has nothing to do with this. Billions of empiricists/scientists (humans!) agree.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
Really? Because tht clock thing you wrote seems to imply they are sort of compatible.
I am implying precisely the opposite! They are incompatible. I have given you an example of incompatible yet tolerable facts.

What I am pointing my finger at is that the facts of GR don't demonstrate QFT to be "wrong".
And the facts of QFT don't demonstrate that GR is "wrong".

Even though you keep insisting that's how facts are supposed to work.

Your entire framework of thought is a colossal, ideologically-driven fuckup that can achieve nothing in practice.

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
I fail to see how Vertable Aquarium's MORAL FACT BUT ONLY FOR A GUIDE that it is always wrong to kill a human being is compatible in any way with Henry's moral fact that revenge killings are justified.
One or both of them are wrong! Exactly like QFT and GR!

But guess what? It's OK to have mutually-contradictory facts. It's. just a contradiction/paradox - nothing bad actually happens.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
Their shared moral fact that moral concern cannot extgend to animals is outright detestable, so if I were in the game of concocting moral fact, I would have incompatible facts with the both of them anyway.
And then? You'll have two opposing views. You want me to tell you how this will play out? In a few hundred years where synthetic meat is as economically viable as real meat (or when real meat becomes unsustainable to produce) it would be morally unacceptable to kill animals for food.

And that would be a moral fact. And it would be inconceivable and socially unacceptable to kill for food when the option to NOT kill is available to you at no cost.

Exactly the same shit that is happening with renewable energy. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean you have the power to stop the bus, at which point you get to fit into the new "normal" or fuck off.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
What is the point of using this Fact word in this context? It doesn't mean anything more than opinion means unless it comes with an expectation of resolving conflicts.
I don't know dude. It's your word. I am mirroring your use. I could just as easily function in the world without the fact/opinion distinction.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
That's clearly not an objective fact. Infant mortality rates are objective data, you can cite such objective data to support your belief that the world has improved. It's still a matter of opinion.
Can you even tell the difference between me and you? I am not reporting that the world has improved.

I am reporting that YOU are reporting that the world has "improved"; or that you think the world is "better" (I happen to share that view, but whatever).

You are a relativist, right? Tell me how you tested for "betterness". And if you didn't test for it then tell me how you know it's "better"?
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
So you claim.
Now look who's trying to play the "control the narrative" game.

Fuck your language/protocol/framework dude - I don't care for it ;)

I am not "claiming" anything that you can't read for yourself in a history book; or you can't find on Google. Either society has improved or it hasn't.
Either you like modern medicine, air travel, the internet; or you'd prefer to hunt buffalo wearing a loin cloth and dying of sepsis at 35.

If you would prefer to live in a pre-modern shithole - say so.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
No, it needs aborting.
Are you saying the world would be a better place if you abort it? If not - why are you wasting of your precious energy on it?

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:16 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:32 pm
QFT doesn't say ANYTHING about gravity.
So what are the facts of QFT that are incompatible with GR?
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:32 pm
You don't need to "measure" time in QFT. You exploit naturally-occurring oscillation of particles.
To do what?

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:20 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:16 pm
So what are the facts of QFT that are incompatible with GR?
You man other than QFT stating that time is absolute/universal?
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:16 pm
To do what?
To generate a wave. You know what a clock generator, is yes?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: FT

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:22 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:56 pm
But guess what? It's OK to have mutually-contradictory facts. It's. just a contradiction/paradox - nothing bad actually happens.
Well that's as far as I need to bother going with you Skepdick. Whatever you are doing, obviously I am not wrong for disagreeing with you even if you are right, so the rest is moot.

Henry and Veritas will have to decide for themselves whether they want their 'moral facts' to be true in that boring old sense where contradictory claims are untrue becasue, well because of facts and stuff.
Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:56 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
What is the point of using this Fact word in this context? It doesn't mean anything more than opinion means unless it comes with an expectation of resolving conflicts.
I don't know dude. It's your word. I am mirroring your use. I could just as easily function in the world without the fact/opinion distinction.
I honestly suspect you are actually stupid enough to think you can mean that when you say it.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: FT

Post by Skepdick » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:24 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:22 pm
Well that's as far as I need to bother going with you Skepdick. Whatever you are doing, obviously I am not wrong for disagreeing with you even if you are right, so the rest is moot.
I didn't ask you to go EVEN that far.

I simply asked you to explain to me the mechanism by which one fact demonstrates that another facts is "wrong" (it's also hilarious to me because you can't define "wrongness" yet you keep asserting it, so I am amused even if you aren't).

Perhaps you believe in the stupid idea of universal truth? I don't know...
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:22 pm
I honestly suspect you are actually stupid enough to think you can mean that when you say it.
Well, at least one of us is stupid. If being smart means I have to "think" like you - I prefer my stupidity to your intellect.

"Stupid" certainly works better.

Don't take my word for it though. The entire world of practitioners thinks Philosophers are morons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:47 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:20 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:16 pm
So what are the facts of QFT that are incompatible with GR?
You man other than QFT stating that time is absolute/universal?
Right; that is a fact of QFT; Newtonian and Aristotelian physics too as it happens. It is not a fact of GR and crucially it is not a fact of macroscopic experimental results.

Skepdick
Posts: 4345
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick » Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:05 am

uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:47 pm
Right; that is a fact of QFT; Newtonian and Aristotelian physics too as it happens. It is not a fact of GR and crucially it is not a fact of macroscopic experimental results.
Precisely my point. The facts of GR and QFT (and Newtonian/Aristotelian mechanics) with respect to time are mutually incompatible.

So if GR agrees with experiment, then surely you must be implying that GR has successfully demonstrated that the facts of QFT are wrong? Because FlashDangerdork insists that is how facts work - the real fact is supposed demonstrate that the other fact is an impostor.

Something tells me that idea isn't working as well as intended in practice...

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4135
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: uwot

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:58 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:29 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:13 am
So when you describe Vestibule Aquafresh's version as just a little misplaced because of intersubjectivity, what I see is a blundering fucknut attempting to create the new Stalinism where a collection of "experts" defines what moral fact is, and then everybody who does not agree needs re-educating. Presumably he thinks typing "TO BE USED AS A GUIDE ONLY!!!" in all caps a lot makes some sort of difference to that.
Noises and Strawman as usual.

Note the main justified true moral facts to be used as a standard and GUIDE ONLY, i.e.
-"no human ought to kill another human"
-"no human ought to enslave [as chattel] another human"
surely will not fit into any 'Stalinistic' ideology.

I claimed my Framework and System of Morality & Ethics will rely on the above justified moral standards to GUIDE continual and progressive improvements towards the ideal moral standards.
Your science of ethics, to be used as GUID to reeducation of the morally defective, in exactly the same Stalin used the bolshevik science of history as a GUIDE to the reeductaion of the politically deffective.

You aren't engaged in a pluralist effort here, you are aiming to fix everyone who doesn't agree with your orthodoxy. You're a totalitarian.
Strawman again.
Standards as GUIDES are used everywhere.
How come you are so stupid to think only Stalin used GUIDES.

In any case, my good moral maxims as standards are in opposites of all of Stalin's evil ideology.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:29 am
On the other hand, your 'morality' without any justified moral objectives will permit you and others to kill and enslave another human since there is no ceiling standard to guide/steer them.
Well, actual messy human morality allowed that, I don't own it, I just noticed it. My morality doesn't allow me to kill or enslave.

Yours allows you to have sex with your own dead grandma just as soon as she's dead though and then to make her dog lick your genitals clean afterwards, becasue you have no ceiling for that. So your point isn't looking impressive.
Nope!
As I had stated morality is confined to the human species, but there must be moral consideration where it has a interests to human beings.
You fucking your dead grandma and allowing her dog to lick your genitals is potential deadly with diseases. Thus has a negative effect on human beings and the human species.

Note humans has an inherent 'disgust' function, whilst it is not 'morality' humans should avoid whatever is sensed as disgusting. There are perverts to go against what is disgusting, they should be deal with by psychiatry.

There are also other non-moral issues where we have to give considerations and extend obligations to living non-humans where I have not got into the details yet.

On the other hand, your moral approach [with no ceiling limit of moral standards] permit you to kill your wife, mother, father, enslave and rape your daughters, and doing the same to others.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:29 am
If your facts don't demonstrate that Vertical Octopus is clearly wrong, then we have a problem because that's pretty much what facts are for, showing what we should hold as true and false. If your appeal to "fact" is only there to make you feel that your opinion on Visible Inkytits' mistakes is justified by something, that's kind of a misuse of the F word. our collection of moral realists has been reluctant thus far to aknowledge that we have a use for facts, and anything that cannot be used in such manner is not actually a fact.
I had argued you had bastardized the term 'fact' and 'factual' via Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical [unrealistic] Realism.

Prove to me there is an absolute referent-in-itself that is representing your supposedly 'fact' or rather 'fart'?
And I ignored that as a supid and pointless escapade.
Nope!
It is not stupid and pointless, rather it is a very critical issue.
I am very serious on this as it is pertinent and necessary for the present debate.
You can do it in this,

What is Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
You and Henry both claim to be weilding moral fact, but your comments on each others facts is just that you don't agree with them. Which is opinion. Why is your fact not able to demonstrate that his is mistaken?
Strawman again.
Henry and me agreed on the 'No Chattel Slavery', where he based his theory on the Principle of Own_ness.
My justified moral fact on the same point re Chattel Slavery agree with Henry's but,
I noted Henry's belief is intuitive in alignment with his natural and inherent moral faculty [moral compass] without extensive justifications within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Where we disagree on other specific moral issues, then we have to debate about it and each [Henry or others] will have to provide the necessary justifications.

There is no issue of 'opinion'. As far as all moral facts that I've proposed, they are all justified based on empirical evidences and supported by philosophical reasoning within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot » Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:05 am
uwot wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:47 pm
Right; that is a fact of QFT; Newtonian and Aristotelian physics too as it happens. It is not a fact of GR and crucially it is not a fact of macroscopic experimental results.
Precisely my point. The facts of GR and QFT (and Newtonian/Aristotelian mechanics) with respect to time are mutually incompatible.
The facts of GR and QFT are only facts in their own context. There is no consensus among physicists about what time is - no context independent fact. Get more than a couple together and they are wont to argue about what shape time is.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:05 am
So if GR agrees with experiment, then surely you must be implying that GR has successfully demonstrated that the facts of QFT are wrong? Because FlashDangerdork insists that is how facts work - the real fact is supposed demonstrate that the other fact is an impostor.
Well, if QFT was to say that clocks don’t slow down the faster they are going and the stronger the gravity, then “the real fact” that they do would demonstrate QFT is wrong. That clocks run slower is not the same as 'time slows down', it's just sloppy reasoning to believe it is. The thing with QFT is that the phenomena you are interested in occur on such minute scales that they are inevitably in the same inertial frame and at the same gravitational potential. You can therefore safely ignore relativistic effects like time dilation - malleable spacetime serves no purpose. That is not the same as “the real fact” is that time is absolute.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:05 am
Something tells me that idea isn't working as well as intended in practice..
Dunno what FlashDangerpants’ intention is, but It looks to me as though he is being consistent in his use of ‘fact’. Thanks to which, his argument is easy to follow and coherent. You though flip between ‘fact’ of a given context and “real fact” as though they were interchangeable so casually that what you are saying becomes an incontinent stream of gibberish.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests