The Wrong God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8118
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:08 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:08 pm
I'll just reword my question so my intention as to the information I am looking for is clear:

Absolutist perspective: Either you understand the universe or you don't
Relativist perspective: Either you maximally understand the universe or you don't.
That's not per se Relativist, though.

The Relativist option would be to say, "There's no possibility of 'maximally' understanding anything, because everything is merely perspectival." What you've got there is some different view -- perhaps a probabilistic (?) model? I'm not sure, and will let you decide how you wish to characterize it.
If you deem yourself an absolutist then define "understanding".
I don't.
if you deem yourself a relativist then define "maximum understanding"
But it's your term, not mine. So I can't know how you are defining it. Personally, I wouldn't even put it that way, because "maximally" has to be explained in some fashion before one can reasonably assent to it.
Either way - I am trying to understand what the concept of "understanding" means to you.
Fair enough. My view is a probabilistic model -- we know by degrees, not absolutely. But 99.5% certainty about something is really good, and 50% certainty is really shaky. So I would argue that we go for the higher-percentage kinds of knowing, and stay softer on less probable conclusions. Our challenge is to correctly discern what percentage of credence we should allow to each particular proposition or bit of "knowledge," not to say we know absolutely or will not know anything.
What "understanding" means to me is: What I cannot create - I do not understand.
Well, by that definition, you couldn't understand even yourself. You did not, and cannot create yourself. But do you understand yourself at all? I think you might..at least in part, no?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:08 pm
The Relativist option would be to say, "There's no possibility of 'maximally' understanding anything, because everything is merely perspectival." What you've got there is some different view -- perhaps a probabilistic (?) model? I'm not sure, and will let you decide how you wish to characterize it.
You don't understand relativism. Everything is perspectival in RELATION TO something. Hence relativism.
Perspectivism's one claim is that "Man is themeasure of all things". For the sake of argument I accept and agree with that.

Probabilistic understanding is still relativistic because you still need to decide what certainty/uncertaity ratios are is "sufficient" for you to call something understanding.

The decibel scale is just fine for measuring such things. And so maximum understanding would mean "inifnite certainty".
Of course - infinite certainty is impossible (we are aware of that) but the point is that more certainty means more knowledge.

So no - you are just dodging the question.

If you have a scale (decibel) and a direction (higher decibel ration) that is sufficient to define "understanding".

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:08 pm
But it's your term, not mine. So I can't know how you are defining it. Personally, I wouldn't even put it that way, because "maximally" has to be explained in some fashion before one can reasonably assent to it.
"Understanding" is your term. You refused to define it in absolutist terms. You refuse to define it in relative terms.

Choose your terms. Convey to us what you mean by "understanding". What would satisfy your need for "understanding"?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:08 pm
Fair enough. My view is a probabilistic model -- we know by degrees, not absolutely. But 99.5% certainty about something is really good, and 50% certainty is really shaky.
Ahhh! Great. So we can stick to the Decibel scale then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

50% certainty is 0 decibels. Flip a coin.
99.5% certainty is about 1 in 199 odds. Give or take 45 decibels.

But there is a gap in your statistical understanding.

You aren't taking confidence intervals into account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

A probability without a confidence range is hit&miss.

Second problem. A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

So if you are 100% certain and 100% confidedt that "God did it". That tells you NOTHING about the universe.

Information REQUIRES uncertainty. Counter-intuitive fact.

Third problem: Because you are talking about past events there is absolutely no way for you to calibrate yourself. e.g no way to verify/test if your "understanding" is 5%, 50% or 100%

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:08 pm
Well, by that definition, you couldn't understand even yourself. You did not, and cannot create yourself. But do you understand yourself at all? I think you might..at least in part, no?
And? Do you understand yourself? I understand small parts of myself, but the whole thing? Not a fuck!

I understand parts of my mind. The parts I understand - I can re-create. That's what I use logic/programming for. Expressing my thoughts in a way that a computer can understand them thereby re-creating (parts) of my own thinking.
Do I understand my brain? Hell no. Nobody understands the brain!

I understand some of my behaviours, but do I understand the inner workings of my body as an entire system? No! I don't.

Do I want to? Sure - but only BECAUSE I want to create AI and so understanding brains may provide valuable insights.

Which is simply "What I cannot create I do not understand" reiterated. A rather backward way to look at creationism :)

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1638
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:03 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:13 am

Scott,
Discussing the respective contributions of politics vs. religion vs. general agreement systems is off point and a waste of time. Get on point, please, or get off this thread. Discuss the points of the OP, not your personal bullshit. Thank you.
GL
Yes, I will leave. I reflected what I thought you meant and you confirmed I understood from the first post. I was contributing with sincerity and on topic. But NOW you've just resorted to blatant insults for contributing 'bullshit'!? If you want any respect for your views, you can't BULLY those you want to appeal to.

I won't be contributing to anything you write without an explanation of your justification to offend me and IN RESPECT. Thank you.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8118
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:06 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:03 pm
Yes, I will leave. I reflected what I thought you meant and you confirmed I understood from the first post. I was contributing with sincerity and on topic. But NOW you've just resorted to blatant insults for contributing 'bullshit'!? If you want any respect for your views, you can't BULLY those you want to appeal to.

I won't be contributing to anything you write without an explanation of your justification to offend me and IN RESPECT. Thank you.
Well, you're okay with me, Scott.

This is a public forum, and disagreement is welcome, I say. I'd agree with what Voltaire is often alleged to have said: namely, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." And I suspect that many people on the site would say the same.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8118
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:08 pm
The Relativist option would be to say, "There's no possibility of 'maximally' understanding anything, because everything is merely perspectival." What you've got there is some different view -- perhaps a probabilistic (?) model? I'm not sure, and will let you decide how you wish to characterize it.
You don't understand relativism.
Yeah, I do, actually.
Perspectivism's one claim is that "Man is the measure of all things".
Actually, that's an old axiom, more Humanist than anything, though it dates all the way back to Protagoras. It's not Relativism, because the "measure" is fixed by a general human standard, not by the individual.
Of course - infinite certainty is impossible (we are aware of that) but the point is that more certainty means more knowledge.
We're agreed on that.
"Understanding" is your term. You refused to define it in absolutist terms. You refuse to define it in relative terms.

I did define it, actually: it was in my last message. And you just agreed to it above.
A probability without a confidence range is hit&miss.
No problem. Specify your confidence range.
Second problem. A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

Actually, that's not true: "a theory that explains everything," by definition "explains everything."

But I'm not offering one of those. What I'm offering is not a theory, and does not propose to cover every possible question that could come later. Rather, it's a mathematical-logical demonstration of what must necessarily follow if certain obvious facts are as we observe them; and they are facts of such a kind that we can only doubt them by doubting the very possibility of science itself.
Third problem: Because you are talking about past events there is absolutely no way for you to calibrate yourself. e.g no way to verify/test if your "understanding" is 5%, 50% or 100%
The need to "test" is only for matters open to empirical experiment, as you say. But I'm not offering an empirical experiment, but a mathematical-logical deduction here.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1638
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:37 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:06 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:03 pm
Yes, I will leave. I reflected what I thought you meant and you confirmed I understood from the first post. I was contributing with sincerity and on topic. But NOW you've just resorted to blatant insults for contributing 'bullshit'!? If you want any respect for your views, you can't BULLY those you want to appeal to.

I won't be contributing to anything you write without an explanation of your justification to offend me and IN RESPECT. Thank you.
Well, you're okay with me, Scott.

This is a public forum, and disagreement is welcome, I say. I'd agree with what Voltaire is often alleged to have said: namely, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." And I suspect that many people on the site would say the same.
Thank you. I recognize this. I just felt he was being absurdly rude and disrespectful when I or others don't intend to NOT understand his intention of the topic. But if it is his thread, I'd rather rediscuss this with others elsewhere. I don't believe in ignoring him but prefer to respect his bias and will avoid his threads rather than be insulted. I'll meet you guys elsewhere.

Belinda
Posts: 3279
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Belinda » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
From the point of view of eternity there may be order which is characterised by causality. You or I cannot know.
Since you refer to epistemology, we'll have to establish what you mean by "know" in the above sentence. Do you mean "know" experientially, deductively, absolutely, probabilistically, or precisely what?
I wrote "characterised by causality " so obviously I meant inductive logic and empirical knowledge. You know perfectly well that empirical knowledge is not absolute or deductive but is probabilistic.

You also know that some philosophers have tried to prove God by means of deduction. Deductive 'knowledge' is absolute as you also well know.

It's a shame that you wont use your facility with language to write about a reasonable version of God.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8118
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:21 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:01 pm
I wrote "characterised by causality " so obviously I meant inductive logic and empirical knowledge. You know perfectly well that empirical knowledge is not absolute or deductive but is probabilistic.
Yes, I do. Which makes it different from logic. Deductive reasoning occurs within a closed system of symbols, one with its own defined parameters.

However, you'll note that my own argument is not dependent on the empirical, at least not beyond the point where one recognizes the existence of causal chains. After that, it's straight deduction...maths, really. So if you recognize causal chains, which one has to do in order to believe in science or to do any form of argumentation at all (since an argument is an attempt to cause something), then the rest follows deductively.

In short, belief in causal chains can be shown to be empirically plausible AND rationally necessary for purposes of reasoning. That's pretty good, I would say. And the rest is clear.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:23 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:27 pm
Immanuel Can, I am not a good illustration of eternal order. When I copy David Hume and claim that all we can inductively know is constant conjunction of events I 'm making an epistemological , not an ontological, claim .

From the point of view of eternity there may be order which is characterised by causality. You or I cannot know.

We cannot know, yet you apparently have faith that there be eternal order. I respect that belief. However a claim that eternal order has been revealed to men is not credible and it's not a respectable belief when it morphs into a claim that only one of those sets of revelations is true.

Many people prefer one mythology over all the rest. This is respectable. What cannot be respectable is the claim that any mythology is historically true.

Religions are basically art forms not sciences.
I'm not I.C. I"m Greylorn Ell who wrote the OP from which this and a plethora of other bullshit has been derived.

You seemed to have your head screwed on straight here until the "religion as an art form" bullshit. Firstly, what if it is? Since when is art relevant to philosophy or physics or anything I'm writing about?

Secondly, religion is most intelligently seen as a political system which a gaggle of high mucky-mucks use to manipulate whatever passes for minds in most human beings to obtain wealth and political power for the mucky-mucks. You are too intelligent to conflate manipulation with art-- unless you voted for B.O.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:26 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:37 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:06 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:03 pm
Yes, I will leave. I reflected what I thought you meant and you confirmed I understood from the first post. I was contributing with sincerity and on topic. But NOW you've just resorted to blatant insults for contributing 'bullshit'!? If you want any respect for your views, you can't BULLY those you want to appeal to.

I won't be contributing to anything you write without an explanation of your justification to offend me and IN RESPECT. Thank you.
Well, you're okay with me, Scott.

This is a public forum, and disagreement is welcome, I say. I'd agree with what Voltaire is often alleged to have said: namely, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." And I suspect that many people on the site would say the same.
Thank you. I recognize this. I just felt he was being absurdly rude and disrespectful when I or others don't intend to NOT understand his intention of the topic. But if it is his thread, I'd rather rediscuss this with others elsewhere. I don't believe in ignoring him but prefer to respect his bias and will avoid his threads rather than be insulted. I'll meet you guys elsewhere.
Scott,
Please regard that as a promise, and keep it. Thank you. GL

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:36 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
From the point of view of eternity there may be order which is characterised by causality. You or I cannot know.
Since you refer to epistemology, we'll have to establish what you mean by "know" in the above sentence. Do you mean "know" experientially, deductively, absolutely, probabilistically, or precisely what?
I wrote "characterised by causality " so obviously I meant inductive logic and empirical knowledge. You know perfectly well that empirical knowledge is not absolute or deductive but is probabilistic.

You also know that some philosophers have tried to prove God by means of deduction. Deductive 'knowledge' is absolute as you also well know.

It's a shame that you wont use your facility with language to write about a reasonable version of God.
Belinda,
Your's is a curious comment, given that I've used my limited linguistic skills to try to write about a reasonable version of God, but cannot get it done because of the sandbaggers like yourself, whom you seem to cherish.

What do you think? Should I continue, or move elsewhere? GL

Dubious
Posts: 2417
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Dubious » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:00 am

Get rid of this stupid god concept because that's all it is leading to nothing but stupid conclusions and half of the absurdity in the world will vanish. There should be enough in the remaining half to keep the human race in jeopardy.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
Yeah, I do, actually.
As per your own admission. You only "understand" it 99.5%.
What a shame in those 0.5% you made an error.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
It's not Relativism, because the "measure" is fixed by a general human standard, not by the individual.
"General human standard" is an appeal to authority.
Whatever the average/median human standard is - my standards are higher.

I am in the risk/harm game. I can't afford errors.
Those in the story-telling game can afford errors.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
I did define it, actually: it was in my last message. And you just agreed to it above.
I agreed to your definition, not to your bar for sufficiency. Your standards are piss-poor. 0.5% margin for error. means 1 error in 199 attempts.
In my field of work this results in 4 million errors a day.

Such mediocrity is intolerable.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
No problem. Specify your confidence range.
It's a function of ethics. No harm. Not going into that rabbit hole..

If 0.5% certainty results in 4 million errors and I expect zero errors - do the math yourself.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
Actually, that's not true: "a theory that explains everything," by definition "explains everything."
Your mind is trapped in a silly language-game. Focus. A theory that explains everything conveys zero bits of information.
What's 1 bit? The CORRECT answer to a yes/no question.

So let me give you a hypothesis: people don't care about truth. People care about information.

If your theory answers "God did it" to all possible questions, it's less useful in practice than toilet paper.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
But I'm not offering one of those. What I'm offering is not a theory, and does not propose to cover every possible question that could come later.
If you choose "God did it" as First Cause, unfortunately "God did it" is an answer to every question that has been or will ever come.
Every question EXCEPT: Where did God come from.

That's the lunacy of the "origin" question. If you explain everything - you've explained nothing.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
Rather, it's a mathematical-logical demonstration of what must necessarily follow if certain obvious facts are as we observe them; and they are facts of such a kind that we can only doubt them by doubting the very possibility of science itself.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
All of your "facts" about the beginning of the universe are untestable AND unfalsifiable.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
The need to "test" is only for matters open to empirical experiment, as you say. But I'm not offering an empirical experiment, but a mathematical-logical deduction here.
No! It matters to any an all explanations.

If you bothered to do an undergraduate statistics class you would quickly learn that given a finite set of datapoints, there exist an infinite set of mathematical functions to satisfy them. Translated into Simpleton: finite datasets have infinite explanations.

It's called Curve-fitting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting

And for as long as you keep looking for an "origin", using present-day observations, trying to retro-fit them into past events without the ability to test/falsify any of your hypotheses all those pitfalls of human reasoning stand before you.

So. Good luck with the "origin" story ;)

The way I solved it? Don't care where we come from - where we are going is more important.

Prediction is important. Explanations are not.

Belinda
Posts: 3279
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Belinda » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:32 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Belinda,
Your's is a curious comment, given that I've used my limited linguistic skills to try to write about a reasonable version of God, but cannot get it done because of the sandbaggers like yourself, whom you seem to cherish.

What do you think? Should I continue, or move elsewhere? GL
Your use of English is okay. I read your OP again and again I felt discouraged by one or two claims that you made. Would you prefer that I dissected these claims?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8118
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:31 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:45 am
What a shame in those 0.5% you made an error.
It was only an example. But if you have a .5 % error margin, it does not mean you made the error. It means you had a very small chance of having made it. And that's certainly far, far better than having a 99.5% chance of being wrong, as I'm sure you agree.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:18 pm
It's not Relativism, because the "measure" is fixed by a general human standard, not by the individual.
"General human standard" is an appeal to authority.
Whatever the average/median human standard is - my standards are higher. [/quote]
I agree that Humanist enthusiasms of that sort are arbitrary and unjustifiable. But the point was that they are different from Relativism.
I am in the risk/harm game. I can't afford errors.
Well, living in the world of the empirical means that a person is going to have to live with an error margin.
So let me give you a hypothesis: people don't care about truth. People care about information.
If true, tragic for them. They should read Boorstin on the difference between "information" and "information for you."
If your theory answers "God did it" to all possible questions...
It doesn't.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: VVilliam and 4 guests