Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

[uwot]

All I am pointing out is that the English sentence "X obtains" is a determination...

Whaddya think it says about you that it took this fucking long for you to accept that "X obtains" is an English sentence?

...and it is you who has argued (and agreed) that ALL theories are always underdetermined.

That's kinda what 'theory' means. If ya know it's true, it's not a theory.

Now you are also outright admitting that ontology and "obtainment" are not just underdetermined, they are indeterminate.

What is this meaning to indeterminate that you are prescribing?

So how then does an epistemologist ever come to determine the curvature of an indeterminate ontology?

You're the epistemologist; you tell me.

[Skepdick]

Whaddya think it says about you that it took this fucking long for you to accept that "X obtains" is an English sentence?

Every sentence on this forum is an English sentence. Not sure what your point is?

That's kinda what 'theory' means. If ya know it's true, it's not a theory.

I have no idea what 'truth' is. Do you?

What is this meaning to indeterminate that you are prescribing?

It's hardly a prescription - it's common sense to a Bayesian.

You can determine that X is definitely the case. Positive determination.
You can determine that X is definitely not the case. Negative determination.
You can determine that X is probably the case. Positive underdetermination.
You can determine that X is probably not the case. Negative underdetermination.

Indetermination is where you can neither determine that X is the case, nor that X is not the case.

Zero decibels belief
Direct application of Principle of maximum entropy.

You're the epistemologist; you tell me.

And you are the ontologist who claims spacetime s just an ontology, hence it cannot be known. So it kinda leaves you hanging...

Can the curvature of spacetime be determined or not?

[uwot]

Whaddya think it says about you that it took this fucking long for you to accept that "X obtains" is an English sentence?

Every sentence on this forum is an English sentence. Not sure what your point is?

Here's a recent example of you whingeing that not every string of English words creates an English sentence :

So you use truth/knowledge for "obtaining"? Obtaining what?

That's kinda what 'theory' means. If ya know it's true, it's not a theory.

I have no idea what 'truth' is. Do you?

Yup. As I said:

It is true that there are thoughts. What they are about is all theory-laden and underdetermined. Ergo no one knows if anything obtains.

Indetermination is where you can neither determine that X is the case, nor that X is not the case.

That's lack of data in my book. I think you can determine that "X is not the case". Phlogiston. Phrenology. Flat Earth. I'll stick my neck out and say none of that is true.

Can the curvature of spacetime be determined or not?

It's what Einstein's field equations do.

[Skepdick]

Here's a recent example of you whingeing that not every string of English words creates an English sentence:

So you use truth/knowledge for "obtaining"? Obtaining what?

If there's a great mis-interpretation, this is a great example. Language is implicit, not explicit.

Whatever it is that you are trying to "obtain" - that's the missing but between implicit and explicit language. That which I call 'intent'.

Yup. As I said:

It is true that there are thoughts. What they are about is all theory-laden and underdetermined. Ergo no one knows if anything obtains.

Obviously. You keep saying that. But to re-visit the implicit/explicit distinction - we are ending up back on the turf of epistemology.

What would say is necessary; or sufficient for any particular theory to "obtain"? What would suffice for QFT or GR to obtain?

Indetermination is where you can neither determine that X is the case, nor that X is not the case.

That's lack of data in my book.

Not necessarily. Zero decibels can mean one of two things.

1. Lack of data.
2. All the available data equally supports all the available hypotheses. Observational equivalence.

Where you are tackling observational equivalence, you don't know which of the theories under consideration is NOT the case.

Flat Earth. I'll stick my neck out and say none of that is true.

It depends on how you interpret the meaning of 'flatness'. What context/reference frame are you pre-supposing in order to assert 'truth' ?

It's entirely possible to interpret/project the a high-dimensional (e.g >4 ) shape of Earth onto anEuclidian geometry. All of this was covered in Flatland.

Can the curvature of spacetime be determined or not?

It's what Einstein's field equations do.

So the field equations describe a property of the spacetime ontology (its curvature), yet you insist that 'ontological knowledge' is impossible?

[uwot]

What would say is necessary; or sufficient for any particular theory to "obtain"? What would suffice for QFT or GR to obtain?

The existence of theories isn't in question. You do get some philosophers that wonder what it means for a theory to obtain, but all it takes for a theory to exist is for someone to think it. QFT and GR for practical purposes are a bunch of equations that enable physicists to map what happens, predict what will happen and build stuff that actually works. To the shut up and calculate brigade, that is all that matters and as far as they are concerned, everything can be "Spooky action at a distance". To some physicists, notably Einstein, quantum fields and spacetime are more than mathematical tools; they are real, physical things with mechanical properties*. In other words QFT and GR are epistemological, obviously exist and are very useful. Quantum fields and spacetime are ontological, some version of them probably exists, and they are useful only in as far as they stimulate further research that results in more mathematics that makes stuff work.

*"according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"
"according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether"
http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Ex ... ether.html

Zero decibels can mean one of two things.

1. Lack of data.
2. All the available data equally supports all the available hypotheses.

That's one of your distinctions without a difference; "All the available data" is just a lack of all future data.

Flat Earth. I'll stick my neck out and say none of that is true.

It depends on how you interpret the meaning of 'flatness'.

It's not a fucking disc with an ice wall holding the water in.

So the field equations describe a property of the spacetime ontology (its curvature), yet you insist that 'ontological knowledge' is impossible?

Well Skepdick, if you can find some way to demonstrate that spacetime exists (I shan't say obtains again, it clearly distresses you), I shall take my hat off to you.

[Skepdick]

What would say is necessary; or sufficient for any particular theory to "obtain"? What would suffice for QFT or GR to obtain?

The existence of theories isn't in question.

Which is precisely why I didn't as ask questions pertaining to the existence of theories. Why bring it up?

I asked you about your sufficiency criterion for the "obtainment" of any particular theory.

You do get some philosophers that wonder what it means for a theory to obtain,

Are you not one of those philosophers? You insist that "use is meaning". You are using the word "obtains", so what does it mean to you?

but all it takes for a theory to exist is for someone to think it.

So, all it takes for a theory to exist is for a thinker to exist. And all that it takes for a thinker to exist is for existence to exists.
In computer science that's called a dependency graph.

Whether the existence of theories is the same kind of existence as the existence of thinkers; or the existence of existence in general - is another deep rabbit hole. Lets stay out of it...

That's one of your distinctions without a difference; "All the available data" is just a lack of all future data.

Present data and future data is still data.

But you know what's a distinction without a difference? The data/ontology distinction.

Data is ontology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... n_science)

It's not a fucking disc with an ice wall holding the water in.

Mathematically - it could be. Is the distinction between grammar and semantics....

Well Skepdick, if you can find some way to demonstrate that spacetime exists (I shan't say obtains again, it clearly distresses you), I shall take my hat off to you.

It's hardly a matter of "distress". Nor is this problem particular to spacetime. It's a problem generic to all ontology and your use of the meaningless word 'obtains'.

Does existence obtain?
Does reality obtain?
Does The Universe obtain?

All three of the above are examples of one and the same problem. Vagueness of an epistemic criterion.

What demonstration would suffice for you that The universe/existence/reality obtains?

[uwot]

...I didn't as ask questions pertaining to the existence of theories. Why bring it up?

Because it's Quantum Field Theory and the Theory of General Relativity.

I asked you about your sufficiency criterion for the "obtainment" of any particular theory.

Obtainment, as I use it, doesn't apply to theories.

You are using the word "obtains", so what does it mean to you?

That something exists in some physical realm in the way that horses almost certainly do and unicorns almost certainly don't.

So, all it takes for a theory to exist is for a thinker to exist.

That was Descartes' error. It doesn't necessarily follow from the absolute fact that thinking exists that a thinker has to. As Berkeley pointed out, it is conceivable that everything is just thoughts that some god is having, but then, as an atheist I have no problem dispensing with god and accepting that it is conceivable that it is only the thoughts which really, really exist.

And all that it takes for a thinker to exist is for existence to exists.
In computer science that's called a dependency graph.

And in philosophy it's called an unsound argument.

Whether the existence of theories is the same kind of existence as the existence of thinkers; or the existence of existence in general - is another deep rabbit hole. Lets stay out of it...

It is precisely the rabbit hole we are already in.

That's one of your distinctions without a difference; "All the available data" is just a lack of all future data.

Present data and future data is still data.

But it is not currently available.

But you know what's a distinction without a difference? The data/ontology distinction.

Data is ontology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... n_science)

If that's the definition you find most useful, stick to it, but as someone 100% committed to Feyerabend, you will appreciate that it is not your business to insist I adopt it. That is the prescription you claim to oppose.

It's not a fucking disc with an ice wall holding the water in.

Mathematically - it could be. Is the distinction between grammar and semantics....

It's the distinction between the world being a fucking disc with an ice wall holding the water in and an oblate sphere.

What demonstration would suffice for you that The universe/existence/reality obtains?

The overwhelming evidence that suggests that universe/existence/reality obtains. As I have said though, that is all theory laden and underdetermined and I am quite happy to get by with hypotheses and assumptions.

[bahman]

1. Man is the measure of all things.

Man just obeys, as Christ did. God is the measure of all things. He/Father wills and the rest obey.

2. Man is made in the image of Divine Reason through the capacity of measuring phenomenon, with this measuring capacity existing through the recursion and isomorphism from the source (ie the capacity to measure is inverted into another capacity to measure and repeated).

I cannot understand what you are saying here.

3. The first born of man would be Jesus Christ, as both the center point of reason, where all men and women in their capacity to reason are variations of this one source. Christ is God synthesizing with his own image.

The picture of Christ is contradictory, a Divine being obeying another divine being.

4. All men and women are co-creators through the one source with creation being the measuring of phenomenon by the seperation and connection of phenomenon. God synthesizes to his creation where creation is a recursion of God. The source joins to its image as a means of measurement.

The act of creation is impossible. I have an argument for that.

[Skepdick]

The overwhelming evidence that suggests that universe/existence/reality obtains.

Well ̶S̶k̶e̶p̶d̶i̶c̶k̶ uwot , if you can find some way to demonstrate that ̶s̶p̶a̶c̶e̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ universe/existence/reality ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ obtains, I shall take my hat off to you.

I think you have yourself, what I might call, a double epistemic standard.

Still waiting for you to tell me how you might test for "obtainment".

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Man is the measure of all things.

Man just obeys, as Christ did. God is the measure of all things. He/Father wills and the rest obey.

2. Man is made in the image of Divine Reason through the capacity of measuring phenomenon, with this measuring capacity existing through the recursion and isomorphism from the source (ie the capacity to measure is inverted into another capacity to measure and repeated).

I cannot understand what you are saying here.

Man measures reality. Measurement is the application of boundaries.

3. The first born of man would be Jesus Christ, as both the center point of reason, where all men and women in their capacity to reason are variations of this one source. Christ is God synthesizing with his own image.

The picture of Christ is contradictory, a Divine being obeying another divine being.

That Divine Being reflects itself.

4. All men and women are co-creators through the one source with creation being the measuring of phenomenon by the seperation and connection of phenomenon. God synthesizes to his creation where creation is a recursion of God. The source joins to its image as a means of measurement.

The act of creation is impossible. I have an argument for that.

Creation is the change of one state into another, creation and measurement are synonyms.

[uwot]

The overwhelming evidence that suggests that universe/existence/reality obtains.

Well ̶S̶k̶e̶p̶d̶i̶c̶k̶ uwot , if you can find some way to demonstrate that ̶s̶p̶a̶c̶e̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ universe/existence/reality ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ obtains, I shall take my hat off to you.

I think you have yourself, what I might call, a double epistemic standard.

That is because you are too dishonest to include, or too stupid to understand this:

I am quite happy to get by with hypotheses and assumptions.

Still waiting for you to tell me how you might test for "obtainment".

There is a limit to charity. With the best bleeding heart will in the world, it is becoming increasingly hard to imagine that the reason you appear to be a fucking idiot is something other than you being a fucking idiot.

[Skepdick]

That is because you are too dishonest to include, or too stupid to understand this:

The ad-hominem aren't really helping your case. I understand it just fine to challenge it.

I am quite happy to get by with hypotheses and assumptions.

I'll happily grant you the above and demote everything to hypotheses/assumption so I can help you see your own double-standard.

Spacetime is an assumption. According to you it may not obtain.
Reality/existence/universe is an assumption. According to you it obtains.

It is obvious to me that you can tell the difference between an assumption which obtains and an assumption which doesn't obtain. Even though you claim that all theories are under-determined. Seems some theories are less underdetermined than others.

So I'll throw your epistemic question right back at you: How do you that reality/existence/the universe obtains?

There is a limit to charity.

No. There isn't. Charity goes all the way up to (and including) contradiction.

Alas, you decided to hurl insults at me than to laugh at the inconsistency of your belief-system.

With the best bleeding heart will in the world, it is becoming increasingly hard to imagine that the reason you appear to be a fucking idiot is something other than you being a fucking idiot.

The reason I appear to be a "fucking idiot" is probably because I am giving you a taste of your own, Socratic medicine, no?

These are your words too: "Without challenge, dogma and stupidity wins."

[uwot]

I am quite happy to get by with hypotheses and assumptions.

I'll happily grant you the above and demote everything to hypotheses/assumption so I can help you see your own double-standard.

Spacetime is an assumption. According to you it may not obtain.
Reality/existence/universe is an assumption. According to you it obtains.

As I said back in September 2018:

I'm an empiricist. I accept that any 'axiom' that I include in an argument is underdetermined. I know perfectly well that all axioms are theory-laden. The only exceptions being Parmenides' 'Being is' and a slightly strangled version of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am', which reduces to 'there is experience'.

Descartes was wrong.

Well, yes he was, but his fundamental insight has been tidied up since.

It is obvious to me that you can tell the difference between an assumption which obtains and an assumption which doesn't obtain. Even though you claim that all theories are under-determined. Seems some theories are less underdetermined than others.

It is not a theory, nor hypothesis, nor assumption that experience/thinking exists. It is true every time anyone has any experience/thought.

So I'll throw your epistemic question right back at you: How do you that reality/existence/the universe obtains?

Again:

...I have no problem dispensing with god and accepting that it is conceivable that it is only the thoughts which really, really exist.

The point being that if that's all that reality/existence/the universe is, then that's what it is.

There is a limit to charity.

No. There isn't. Charity goes all the way up to (and including) contradiction.

Fair enough, I shall qualify that by saying there is a limit to my charity.

Alas, you decided to hurl insults at me than to laugh at the inconsistency of your belief-system.

It seemed appropriate for someone who keeps saying "Dumb philosopher".

With the best bleeding heart will in the world, it is becoming increasingly hard to imagine that the reason you appear to be a fucking idiot is something other than you being a fucking idiot.

The reason I appear to be a "fucking idiot" is probably because I am giving you a taste of your own, Socratic medicine, no?

No. I suspect that you have the capacity to understand that 'Thinking exists' cannot be thought without being true and that 'obtain' as used in ontology means that some, usually physical, state of affairs is the case, but you appear to be so hell bent on proving philosophers dumb, that you pay no attention to what they are saying. It is for that reason that you appear to be a fucking idiot. If I am wrong and you are in fact too stupid to understand the above, then I will apologise and retract the fucking idiot bit.

These are your words too: "Without challenge, dogma and stupidity wins."

Quite right too. Unlike you congratulating yourself for Planck's work and comparing yourself to Socrates, I take no credit for Parmenides' 'Being is' nor Descartes' Cogito, but I think they were right, albeit with the tweaking various philosophers have done over the centuries.

[Skepdick]

As I said back in September 2018:

I'm an empiricist. I accept that any 'axiom' that I include in an argument is underdetermined.

This is why I can't take you, or any Philosopher seriously.

You cant even utter one sentence without contradicting yourself, but you are adamant that you can't navigate around other people's contradictions.

You keep claiming (over and over) that all theories are underdetermined, but when it comes to the theories of empiricism and rationalism you have clearly overdetermined one: empiricism.

It is not a theory, nor hypothesis, nor assumption that experience/thinking exists. It is true every time anyone has any experience/thought.

So you have over-determined truth over falsity. Gotcha.

Alas, you decided to hurl insults at me than to laugh at the inconsistency of your belief-system.

It seemed appropriate for someone who keeps saying "Dumb philosopher".

I am using it endearingly. VA knows that. He has almost worked his way out of the Philosophical swamp...

No. I suspect that you have the capacity to understand that 'Thinking exists' cannot be thought without being true and that 'obtain' as used in ontology means that some, usually physical, state of affairs is the case, but you appear to be so hell bent on proving philosophers dumb, that you pay no attention to what they are saying.

And I think you have the capacity to understand that, in order to utter the sentence/make the assertion ' "Thinking exists" is true ', first you have to know what 'thinking', 'existence' and 'truth' are.

Please show me how you start with "I think therefore I am" and you arrive at "existence", truth" and "obtainment" without overdeterminism.

It is for that reason that you appear to be a fucking idiot. If I am wrong and you are in fact too stupid to understand the above, then I will apologise and retract the fucking idiot bit.

Well, I don't know. You contradict yourself (again). You have also said that you are unable to understand me when I make self-contradictory statements.

So if being unable to understand self-contradictory positions makes one an idiot, then at least one of us is an idiot.

I imagine, it's the one whose charity doesn't extend as far as contradiction?

Quite right too. Unlike you congratulating yourself for Planck's work and comparing yourself to Socrates, I take no credit for Parmenides' 'Being is' nor Descartes' Cogito, but I think they were right, albeit with the tweaking various philosophers have done over the centuries.

We'll just ignore the subtle ad-hominem here and go for the relevant part.

They were either right or wrong.

If you were really an underdetrminist, you wouldn't have been able to over-determine their rightness.

[uwot]

You keep claiming (over and over) that all theories are underdetermined, but when it comes to the theories of empiricism and rationalism you have clearly overdetermined one: empiricism.

Surely even you can work out that doesn't follow. Once again:

I am quite happy to get by with hypotheses and assumptions.

Gawd, I suppose I'd better spell it out. Empiricism and rationalism are more working practises than theories, but we can call them theories if you wish. Both these theories agree that there is empirical data. The difference is that rationalists theorise that they can discover truths about the universe by analysis of the data. Empiricists theorise that the only way to find out the truth about the universe is to do the experiments. Basically rationalists are searching for what Kant thought self-contradictory: analytic, a posteriori propositions. In two and a half thousand years, only Parmenides and Descartes have succeeded, but the moment they started to 'prove' anything more with their findings, it went pear shaped very quickly. If rationalists can come up with something better than say, the ontological argument for god, perhaps I would adjust, or abandon my empiricism.

...I think you have the capacity to understand that, in order to utter the sentence/make the assertion ' "Thinking exists" is true ', first you have to know what 'thinking', 'existence' and 'truth' are.

It would still be true, even if you had no idea what it meant.