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

Skepdick
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am 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.
Perfectly well understood.

If you have been paying attention to anything I type the Chomsky hierarchy of languages makes reference to context-sensitive and context-free grammars. Context-independent facts don't exist because meaning is holistic. Or as Quine says "the unit of measure of empirical meaning is all of science in its globality."

With all that said, it's trivial to get people to argue about anything. In a room of 10 people you will have 10 different opinions on the "nature of harm". But offer to punch everybody in the face and observe consensus emerge.

Sophistry disappears when the stakes are real.
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am 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's probably because QFT doesn't admit "gravity" into its context? And if there's no gravity then there's nothing to be said about the effects of it on anything?

Perhaps you aren't aware that quantum gravity is the elephant in the physics world nowadays?
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am That clocks run slower is not the same as 'time slows down', it's just sloppy reasoning to believe it is.
Well, you are going to have a hard time saying anything coherent about entanglement if the clocks of two "entangled" particles ran at different speeds.

Here ya go
We find that there exist fundamental limitations to the joint measurability of time along neighboring space–time trajectories, arising from the interplay between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Because any quantum clock must be in a superposition of energy eigenstates, the mass–energy equivalence leads to a trade-off between the possibilities for an observer to define time intervals at the location of the clock and in its vicinity. This effect is fundamental, in the sense that it does not depend on the particular constitution of the clock, and is a necessary consequence of the superposition principle and the mass–energy equivalence. We show how the notion of time in general relativity emerges from this situation in the classical limit.
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am 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.
Well, you can't really make that argument when entanglement maintains across distances significantly greater than the scale of any localised experiment.

While the most sensitive atomic clocks can detect relativistic effects at room scale. You can literally use atomic clocks at altimeters even at distances of 1 meter or less.

uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am 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.
You think the above paragraph is coherent? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I am the one willing to default to "there are no facts, only interpretations". Remember?

If there are no such things as context-independent facts, then which context is The Context in which all facts are "real facts"?

I am only mirroring your use of the word "facts" (pretending that context-independence is a thing). You can see that it's incoherent bullshit when I am doing it, but you can't see that it's incoherent bullshit when you are doing it.

Quite ironic that you can see I am being inconsistent in doing what you do. And that's precisely why I am mirroring you.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: uwot

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:58 am
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.
I would just like to give a moment of appreciation for the fact that you gave moral equivalence to incestuous necrophilia and animal sexual abuse on the one hand, and the five second rule for dropped food on the other.

As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.
Skepdick
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:58 pm As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.
Do you have an objective standard for "absurdity" and "stupidity" or are you just venting your opinions?

Also... apparently there is no point to Philosophy (none that any philosopher has ever been able to argue successfully) but you still do it.

Here's a snippet that I think aptly describes you (from where I am looking).

The Intellectual Yet Idiot pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: uwot

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:03 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:58 pm As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.
Do you have an objective standard for "absurdity" and "stupidity" or are you just venting your opinions?
As the subject is morality, then it is necessarily a matter of opinion. Absurdity is usually considered a know-it-when-i-see-it sort of thing, and I beleive I saw it. You left out what I was saying is absurd because you agree. But your intent is to troll me, uwot, pete and all the other competent philsopher types who are disrespecting your extravagances. It was never to help Veritas or Henry at all.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:03 pm Also... apparently there is no point to Philosophy (none that any philosopher has ever been able to argue successfully) but you still do it.
I've already explained to you what sort of point there is ot philsoophy in my view (borrowed from Isiah Berlin). You didn't like it because you think some other purpose borrowed from science should be the point.

Why you aren't on a science forum annoying them is disputable, although I assume your behaviour earns you a rapid ban everywhere but here.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:03 pm Here's a snippet that I think aptly describes you (from where I am looking).

The Intellectual Yet Idiot pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited.
I don't care about you and your pseud friend or the superiority you assign to yourselves. This is a philosophy forum and unless you are providing better answers to philosophical questions than the standard modes of inquiry do, your fear and loathing of philosophy is beside the point. You have never provided a useful answer to such a question, you appear to lack the talent, so you are just a noise.
Skepdick
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:29 pm I don't care about you and your pseud friend or the superiority you assign to yourselves. This is a philosophy forum and unless you are providing BETTER answers
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:02 pm Better isn't objective. That's just fucking stupid.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I do, really, I fucking insist, that if you are going to pretend to be a relativist; and if you are going to pretend that you have any respect for consistency then please surrender the word "better" from your vocabulary.

For as long as you think you are the judge of "betterness" you are playing power games Mr Superior.

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:29 pm Absurdity is usually considered a know-it-when-i-see-it sort of thing, and I beleive I saw it. You left out what I was saying is absurd because you agree. But your intent is to troll me, uwot, pete and all the other competent philsopher types who are disrespecting your extravagances. It was never to help Veritas or Henry at all.
How are you "helping" anybody exactly by dragging them into the Philsoophical whirlpool of undecidability?

I am the one on Team Decision Theory. Remember?

I am the asshole who keeps asking you "How did you decide what 'better' means?"
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: uwot

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:42 pm Is the intellectual idiot merely Dunning Kruger by another name ?
No. Et's even worse. It's the over-educated asshole who thinks his education makes him superior to the rest.

So basically It's FlashDangerpants. He accuses me of being the self-important asshole, but he misses the part where I troll myself all the time, and I acknowledge my lack of formal education.

My opinion doesn't matter one bit. The fact that I CAN troll him is the evidence that the game is fucked up.

Don't hate the player - hate the game.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 »


I see the name of Nassim Nicholas Taleb there whose book Black Swan is absolutely brilliant in my humble opinion
Skepdick
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:45 pm
I see the name of Nassim Nicholas Taleb there whose book Black Swan is absolutely brilliant in my humble opinion
Same guy. He's also a bullshit artist so take his bravado with a pinch of salt (he has to sell books) but much of what he says is relatable by people who are in touch with complexity science.

But the point stands. He may be an asshole, but he is right a lot. He spews far less bullshit than your typical academics.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: uwot

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:36 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:29 pm I don't care about you and your pseud friend or the superiority you assign to yourselves. This is a philosophy forum and unless you are providing BETTER answers
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:02 pm Better isn't objective. That's just fucking stupid.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Where did I say 'objectively better'?

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:36 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:29 pm Absurdity is usually considered a know-it-when-i-see-it sort of thing, and I beleive I saw it. You left out what I was saying is absurd because you agree. But your intent is to troll me, uwot, pete and all the other competent philsopher types who are disrespecting your extravagances. It was never to help Veritas or Henry at all.
How are you "helping" anybody exactly by dragging them into the Philsoophical whirlpool of undecidability?

I am the one on Team Decision Theory. Remember?
I am not dragging you into anything. You hate philosophy, you should leave.

Philosophy is a toolkit for looking at questions that are philosophical only if they are not clearly answerable or serve no other purpose at all. In all other circumstances they belong to a more specific field of enquiry. You may as well complain about chisels and hammers not helping you to decide what pizza toppings to order.
Skepdick
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:53 pm Where did I say 'objectively better'?
You didn't!

You are asking for "better" answers. It's because you claim (and I don't feel like disagreeing with you) that "betterness" is subjective is why I am asking you to tell me what you mean by "better".

When you tell me what you mean by "better philosophical answers" THEN I may consider attempting jumping as high as you want me to jump.

I can't give you what you want if you can't tell me what you want.

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:53 pm Philosophy is a toolkit for looking at questions that are philosophical only if they are not clearly answerable or serve no other purpose at all.
It sounds like you are saying that the answers to philosophical questions have no utility outside of philosophy.

That's like vacuous. Or something.

It seems irrational (from where I am looking anyway) to participate in an activity with zero utility-value. Even if you told me there's psychological utility (like religion) it's better than zero utility.

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:53 pm In all other circumstances they belong to a more specific field of enquiry. You may as well complain about chisels and hammers not helping you to decide what pizza toppings to order.
Well no. I am just struggling to figure out why you might ever bother asking questions the answers to which doesn't matter.

Like. If the answer doesn't matter then I want a hammer as a pizza toping.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: uwot

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:57 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:53 pm Philosophy is a toolkit for looking at questions that are philosophical only if they are not clearly answerable or serve no other purpose at all.
It sounds like you are saying that the answers to philosophical questions have no utility outside of philosophy.

That's like vacuous. Or something.

It seems irrational (from where I am looking anyway) to participate in an activity with zero utility-value.
Bye then.
Skepdick
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:02 pm Bye then.
So you can't even tell me why YOU do philosophy?

I can certainly tell you why I don't!
uwot
Posts: 4973
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: uwot

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:44 amPerfectly well understood.
Well Skepdick, that's because what you are saying isn't original or difficult.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:44 am
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:31 am 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's probably because QFT doesn't admit "gravity" into its context? And if there's no gravity then there's nothing to be said about the effects of it on anything?
Uh-huh. So you post a link to an paper titled: 'Entanglement of quantum clocks through gravity'.
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:44 am...you are going to have a hard time saying anything coherent about entanglement if the clocks of two "entangled" particles ran at different speeds.

Here ya go
Did you read it? Did you even get as far as "Our intention, as is the case for gedanken experiments, is to take distinctive features from known physical theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity, in this case) and explore their mutual consistency in a particular physical scenario. We believe, based on the role gedanken experiments played in the early days of quantum mechanics and relativity, that such considerations can shed light on regimes for which there is no complete physical theory and can provide useful insights into the physical effects to be expected at regimes that are not within the reach of current experimental capabilities."
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:44 amI am the one willing to default to "there are no facts, only interpretations". Remember?
And I'm the one who keeps quoting Michael Faraday: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true..."
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 10:44 amIf there are no such things as context-independent facts, then which context is The Context in which all facts are "real facts"?
Well you can insist that truth is simply a function of language, while I am perfectly well aware any interpretation of phenomena is underdetermined, it is reasonable to infer that some state of affairs that produces the phenomena obtains.
Skepdick
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: uwot

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:09 pm Well Skepdick, that's because what you are saying isn't original or difficult.
I know that. What is unoriginal or difficult is when you agree with me in one sentence (context-free facts don't exist) and then in the very next you insist that they do...

I mean. You are welcome to be inconsistent, but then why pretend otherwise?
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:09 pm Uh-huh. So you post a link to an paper titled: 'Entanglement of quantum clocks through gravity'.
And? Would it make difference to the empirical implications if it was titled "Entanglement via divine intervention"?

uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:09 pm Did you read it? Did you even get as far as "Our intention, as is the case for gedanken experiments, is to take distinctive features from known physical theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity, in this case) and explore their mutual consistency in a particular physical scenario. We believe, based on the role gedanken experiments played in the early days of quantum mechanics and relativity, that such considerations can shed light on regimes for which there is no complete physical theory and can provide useful insights into the physical effects to be expected at regimes that are not within the reach of current experimental capabilities."
I did read it. Exactly on-point!

Incompatible facts outside of the reach of experimental capabilities are NOT problematic!
If it can be CONCEPTUALLY resolved it needs not be EMPIRICALLY resolved.

I am sure this will disappoint FlashDangerdork, because that's now how facts are supposed to work!!!

uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:09 pm And I'm the one who keeps quoting Michael Faraday: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true..."
Such as incompatible facts coexisting?

Indeed!
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:09 pm Well you can insist that truth is simply a function of language, while I am perfectly well aware any interpretation of phenomena is underdetermined, it is reasonable to infer that some state of affairs that produces the phenomena obtains.
I insist that I have no idea what "truth" is. "Some state of affairs that produces the phenomena obtains".

That doesn't sound underdetermined to me. That sounds undetermined.
Post Reply