Page 16 of 16
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:09 pm
by Skepdick
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:02 pm
Contradiction thus becomes an element of truth and contradiction is no longer contradictory and ceases to exist.
Then why did you bother bringing it up?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:02 pm
Truth value is thus not subservient to utility.
So what's the value of truth?
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:25 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:09 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:02 pm
Contradiction thus becomes an element of truth and contradiction is no longer contradictory and ceases to exist.
Then why did you bother bringing it up?
Your stance is contradictory thus makes no sense.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:02 pm
Truth value is thus not subservient to utility.
So what's the value of truth?
What is the truth of value?
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:32 pm
by Skepdick
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:25 pm
Your stance is contradictory thus makes no sense.
To whom?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:25 pm
What is the truth of value?
It's true. Which makes it useful to me.
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:04 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:25 pm
Your stance is contradictory thus makes no sense.
To whom?
To outside observers.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:25 pm
What is the truth of value?
It's true. Which makes it useful to me.
If value is determined by use then what has no use has no value, yet seemingly useless phenomenon, such as mud, are necessary for usefulness to occur, such as the mud being formed into a brick.
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:12 pm
by Skepdick
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:04 pm
To outside observers.
Why do outside observers even care if my stance "makes sense" or not?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:04 pm
If value is determined by use then what has no use has no value.
So what's truth used for?
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:14 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:12 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:04 pm
To outside observers.
Why do outside observers even care if my stance "makes sense" or not?
That which reflects across multiple perspectives is objective.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:04 pm
If value is determined by use then what has no use has no value.
So what's truth used for?
Truth is used for truth thus making truth as self referential as self sustaining.
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:19 pm
by Skepdick
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:14 pm
That which reflects across multiple perspectives is objective.
Contradictions reflect across all perspectives...
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:14 pm
Truth is used for truth thus making truth as self referential as self sustaining.
I've never used truth for that...
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:26 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:14 pm
That which reflects across multiple perspectives is objective.
Contradictions reflect across all perspectives...
Paradoxes reflect across all perspectives with the paradox being that which is solvable. Dually that which is contradictory to one is not contradictory to another thus making the contradiction as not strictly subjective.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:14 pm
Truth is used for truth thus making truth as self referential as self sustaining.
I've never used truth for that...
Using truth for the truth of utility is to use one truth for another.
Re: Are all models wrong?
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:07 am
by bahman
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:21 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:40 pm
Yes. Because you cannot model mind.
What evidence is there for the existence of what we call the mind - a thing that can or can't be modelled?
The myth of abstract things runs deep and strong in philosophy and religion. But they're misleading metaphysical fictions - mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention. A dog chasing its tail needs to re-think the premise.
Well, I have two show two things: A) A conscious mind exists, and B) Any change needs a conscious mind.
A:
P1) Change exists
P2) A change requires a mind (please read B Argument)
C1) Therefore, there is a conscious mind
B: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. But two conditions have to take place in order to have a change, 1) X and Y cannot coexist at the same point and 2) X has to vanishes to live room for Y to takes place. There is, however, nothing (basically 2) when X vanishes, and nothing cannot possibly cause Y. Therefore, there must be a conscious mind who experiences X and causes Y.