Wow. I just watched the first seven minutes of this. It should be re-titled 'help, I'm stuck in my own symantics'. Your point seems to boil down to 'only "cogito ergo sum" is definately true so everything else is based on assumption'. Well done, you've read a little Descartes. Not sure why your bothering anyone else with your existential strugles though (pun intended).
Sorry bud this has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with scientific definitions. Do you think definitions are not important in science? If so just come out and admit it.
Obviously we have to distinguish consistently between experience and the external world. Otherwise people start believing in irrational explanations, ie, religion.
The point of defining a word is ultimately to let other people know what aspect of experience you are referring to. "Shape" can thus be defined by pointing to various shapes. "Warped space," "0D point particle," etc. cannot be rescued in similar fashion; they are mere wordplay.
I know this is pretty radical. I don't own a computer, or else I could just slap together a prezi whenever. This kind of thing really needs prezi to be able to have enough precision and finesse to communicate it clearly big-picture-wise.
sorry i haven't been able to fully contemplate and respond to your comments yet it gets so overwhelming to try to follow all of these conversations! definitely interested and reading tho!
Wow, that was easy! Sorry, i couldn't help noticing that you ran away from our debate, especially now that your challenge has been exposed.
But i also have a challenge for you: According to your definition of ‘existence’, do CONCEPTS exist? It is very difficult to answer this question without offending your own intelligence and many others failed this challenge before you. So what's it gonna be? Should we call your challenge a kids play or do you have something to show for?
you still don't get it. define concept. define existence. then you'll know whether or not concept exists. if a concept is something experienced then no, not under a definition of exist for the physical sciences.
what you don't understand is that the term "exist" is really just the dividing line between the "in here" and "out there." Using "exist" for both causes mass confusion and irrationality.
... define shape. We both can play that game, you see. If circular definition is what you get, what’s the point?
*no, not under a definition of exist for the physical sciences.*
Good. So when you say that an object ‘has’ certain concepts (whether its mass, speed or shape) that’s not a scientific claim. I disagree. Not a good away to start a scientific presentation anyway.
I see your point. You don’t like the definitions that everybody else uses because they don’t fit the way you see the world. You want them to change their definitions but you cannot tell them the actual reason for that. So you tell them that their definitions are no good because they are circular. Bad choice. Now you get caught in your own fallacy. Like i said, your "challenge" has been exposed.
If a definition is too vague to be used consistently then what good is it? If it only points to other words, ie, placeholders for meaning, then what good is it? I've told you my reasons in great detail over and over again.
*How can something visualized be reduced to words?*
Try to describe what you see. Works everytime.
*obviously you cannot define shape since it is visualized directly!*
Obviously you can. Shape: the part of space occupied by an object as determined by its external boundaries. How else could you talk about it? Denying this definition won’t solve the problem of circularity, though. In fact it will reveal the weakness of your argument even deeper.
*All definitions in physics point to something which can be visualized, obviously you cannot define shape since it is visualized*
So according to you, there are no definitions in physics. Please read what you wrote again. Maybe you should stick to silence after all… I’ll just wait here.
*the existence of something external to the mind does not depend on our ideas. This is assumed.*
Exactly this is merely assumed outside the scope of your definition. ‘Cause according to your definition, the existence of something DOES DEPEND on the presence of ‘shape ‘. But shape is not even external to our minds - it’s a concept, even you can understand this. Your definition of existence does not prevent me from assuming that objects didn’t exist before we were here to conceive shape. At all!
"Your definition of existence does not prevent me from assuming that objects didn’t exist before we were here to conceive shape."
lol no of course it doesn't! i only take that angle because most people make those assumptions. you are free to think that there is no existence external to your mind.
we have no knowledge of this external existence, which is why we have to define it. obviously our conceptions will always be mind dependent, we have no other choice!
by the way i've long sing abandoned the "3D shape + location" definition, if you were clever enough you could show me why it is actually circular. i got me a new definition.
*if you were clever enough you could show me why it is actually circular.*
It is circular because the existence of anything for that matter DEPENDS on concepts that only a mind can conceive. Should I walk you through it again?
You are stuck inside your models that represent whatever’s “out there” - It is a closed circle. Whatever’s out there, it is not a concept.
Seriously I'm confused at this point as to where we even disagree. We define "existence." It is a representation in the mind. We only have access to the representations, not the "real deal" out there, if there even is an "out there." This is why you make assumptions in physics. You have no knowledge of that which you are attempting to model, you can only make assumptions and try to infer their correctness by seeing how well they can explain the observations.
Yea, yea did you read my answer to this question? Everything you said ago describes conventional science just as well. The models work and we can only ASSUME that they represent reality accurately. As a skeptic you can assume whatever you want. Inside the model we can describe and predict outcomes that will be verified inside the model as well.
Conventional science may not be able to tell you whether or not we live inside the matrix. But neither can you. You don’t know anything about the matrix (i.e. external existence) and everything that you do know is relative to the model.
But a model is always circular because it irrefutably DEPENDS on a mind that can conceive it. Elements of the model like time, mass, shape or even a number (i.e. concepts) are inputs to the model and have no value when we mention, what we agreed to call, the “external existence”.
Your only way out of this is come up with an exception regime. Whether its shape or any other concept, it's a concept that can only be justified as an EXCEPTION to all the other concepts that, ironically enough, had already been excluded from the realm of existence by the obligation of the definition.
shape: that which occupies but does not blend with space
space: shapelessness, emptiness, nothingness
(again these defs are POINTERS to qualities we can conceive, that is where the meaning lies)
existence: that which is assumed to be represented by shape
represent: to be in the likeness of, but not identical to
so where is the problem? conceived shape becomes a model when it is recognized and treated as a representation of something assumed to be beyond experience.
*define "model" since you are using it inconsistently.*
A model is comprised of concepts. That is all you need to know. Whether it’s shape or any other concept, if I am using the word inconsistently, so are you. How about you define the word “consistently” before you propose it as a challenge to other Ytubers?
That’s not circular; that is an infinite regression. Circularity means that an object DEPENDS on another object (an observer) to exist. (Are you sure you have you been reading my comments so far?)
*there is no problem with that*
I read you. It’s just that in the video you suggest that there is, hence the contradiction. Anyway if there is no problem, there is no need to change the definition.
"So what’s the problem with assuming that it didn’t exist before humans were here to ponder it?"
there is no problem with that. you are free to! it just means you think there is no external existence and no physical explanations for anything. it appears to me that the world i observe acts with a great amount of regularity, and that something will continue persist when I die, so I assume that there is an external existence in order to explain my observations.
what makes them circular??? do we have to define "circular" AGAIN?
circular: that which reduces only to more words
words are placeholders which means in order to be non circular a model has to reduce to something imaginable beyond mere placeholders for meaning like words.
we treat the model as if what it represents is not contingent upon the model. yes, we can only work inside our minds, but we can still objectively understand the notion of non contingent existence.
i pretty much say all of that in the video........are you under the impression that i disagree? you have no knowledge of the external existence, only the model you formulate to represent it.
"describe and predict outcomes that will be verified"
what??? define "model" since you are using it inconsistently. is it a predictive equation or is it a physical model of what you assume exists? there is no way to verify or falsify explanatory models, you can only "verify" predictive "models" by showing how difficult they are to falsify in the Popperian sense.
"existence of anything for that matter DEPENDS on concepts that only a mind can conceive"
You are still confusing concepts and physical existence. Our explanations are limited by what we can conceive, but what is possible external to our minds is NOT dependent upon our concepts.
"You are stuck inside your models that represent whatever’s “out there” - It is a closed circle. Whatever’s out there, it is not a concept."
I really don't know where you are confused. Most people assume there is an external reality. We cannot know if there is. That is why you define external existence, we have to model it because we can have no direct experience of it by our own admission.
You are free to not make such assumptions. It just means that you have no physical explanations.
again, i defined shape earlier, so i am incorrect to say it can't be defined, what i am driving at is to say that those words are only POINTERS. all definitions in physics work this way.
for example, distance: the space between objects
Those words are a pointer to a common quality which can be recognized in many different possible shape scenarios.
fair enough, i also defined shape earlier, we just have to be careful here. you can "define it" like you did or I did in order to simply clarify what is being pointed at, but SHAPE DOES NOT REDUCE TO WORDS, it is visualized. your definition would be MEANINGLESS if one could not visualize shape! the words only act as placeholders, they have no inherent meaning!
The entire point is that the existence of something external to the mind does not depend on our ideas. This is assumed. What part of this process can you not understand? The only ramifications our mental models have is our ability to explain our observations.
Do you have the ability to visualize physical objects? All definitions in physics point to something which can be visualized, obviously you cannot define shape since it is visualized directly! How can something visualized be reduced to words? It's the other way around fiesta. This is incredibly straightforward and simple. Otherwise, what do your definitions reduce to but other words?
As much as I applaud what this whole "define existence" angle has achieved, both in physics and theology, I think it's ultimately a crutch and a distraction. What we call existence is a rather complex matter when you get down to it. It ends up taking a lot of extra explanation unless the person acquiesces to it right away.
Yet the whole point of it was to be quick and clean. And in fact, even if the person agrees right away, it's still an unneeded extra step. I think the real juice is...
All you have to go on are your 5 senses. "See-touch" is actually pretty good. If I see a pyramid in front of me then I reach out and feel a pyramid shape, I'll say good enough! It exists! The mountain in the distance I just assume that if I move my legs in a running motion I'll eventually bump into it. You could say I just assume it exists until I actually check. Anyway.
If you have a limited number of words (language) to define all the words that "there are", some of these words will remain undefined or defined redundantly. You cannot define existence either.
words are pointers to qualities of experience, that is where the meaning lies. "shape" points to something you can conceive of within your own mind. this is how you escape the circularity.
If we accept your definition, then Existence depends on conceptions of the mind either way. You are saying that something doesn’t exist unless you (or a mind) can conceive it. Well that’s just the circularity you were trying to refute in the beginning of the argument. Things only exist if we can experience them. You cannot escape circularity this way.
correct, because "existence" is a concept we define. what other choice to we have? you define existence and then it is obvious whether or not something qualifies under the definition. we have to be careful tho...we believe our definitions to point to something external to the mind, something which is not contingent upon our thoughts.
@junior00bacon00chee “you define existence and then it is obvious whether or not something qualifies under the definition”
That’s how you do it. But the definition depends on some concepts that only you (as an observer) are able to conceive. That’s like saying that the universe didn’t exist before these concepts could be conceived. You haven’t escaped circularity and yet you make sever accusations on the scientific method in your video. Not nice.
"But the definition depends on some concepts that only you (as an observer) are able to conceive."
correct. in the course of trying to talk about this external existence we have no choice but to formulate a representation within experience. that is the birth of the model, when we recognize that what we conceive is a conceptual representation of something which we assume to be separate and not contingent on the model.
Exactly. You formulate the model and then you talk about the model you formulated. The circularity starts and ends at the observer –there’s no way to “escape” it. I told you could not escape circularity. Maybe the criteria is too much for you to follow. And in that case you are attacking a strawman. The scientific model also works with models.
when is a definition circular fiesta? when the words only point to other words which never ultimately point to anything in experience. obviously i have not done that here.
Actually that’s precisely what I am NOT talking about. Read again.
*when the words only point to other words which never ultimately point to anything in experience.*
It’s when the list of words reaches experience that the def. become circular. Existence: that which can be conceived by a human mind. This is the circularity you were pointing out in your video. If this is the criteria, I also agree that you cannot escape it.
you can't even define "circular" without pointing to something I understand in my experience.
"Existence: that which can be conceived by a human mind"
whose definition is this?
let's establish what circularity is first. i say that it means that the definitions you use only point to other words such that all your are doing is pointing to what are supposed to be placeholders for meaning.
@junior00bacon00chee *establish what circularity is first. I say that it means that the definitions you use only point to other words*
Great. So the definition: “existence that which we can observe/experience” is not circular. The meaning of “experience” doesn’t need more words; its meaning is conceivable by any mind without the need to add more words and that’s how you escape circularity. If you follow this criteria...
okay, before i concede that such a definition is not circular, first let me get some clarification.
what do you mean by "can experience?" i experience a vision of the moon when i look at it. is it the visualization in my mind that i "can experience," or is it the moon "out there?" do you think light mediates information to your retinas from the lunar surface? is the visual somehow created by your brain different than the moon "out there?"
I mean something that you can conceive within your own mind without the need to an endless stream of words. But don’t let semantics get in the way of a scientific discussion. Tell me what you mean by “shape “or tell me why you cannot define this concept either and we can both understand how you escape circularity.
“is it the visualization in my mind that i "can experience," or is it the moon "out there?”
“...we believe our definitions to point to something external to the mind (…)not contingent upon our thoughts.”
Sure you do. The nature of that which is external to our minds (let’s call it this way) is a matter of BELIEF anyway. I also believe that the universe is external to our minds. But keep in mind that’s just your opinion. Nothing wrong with it though.
okay, now we can clarify further since i also used to term "belief" to try to make a point.
you don't necessarily have to believe in this external reality in order to understand what I mean by it. you can imagine it and entertain the notion but not believe it to be accurate.
so for the purpose of a scientific dissertation you lay out your assumptions, one of those being the definition of existence.
@junior00bacon00chee “These defs appear circular semantically but they are not,”
That should do it. Your entire case is based on semantics anyway, so don’t look any further. I guess that now we should all assume that the Universe didn’t exist before humans could conceive concepts? Isn’t that the case?
Surely you believe the universe did exist outside of our minds before but the definition you propose does not support that assumption.
These defs appear circular semantically but they are not, they are pointers to things that all humans can conceive of. You do engage in spatial reasoning, do you not?
@junior00bacon00chee Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of perception, but basically that which you relate to, I think. On whatever level of mental functioning. So yes, I think a concept or an abstraction can exist, as those. We don't all have to have any particular level of capacity for abstraction in order to qualify as being able to relate to existence, do we? Even to identify a self there has to be some degree of experience with existents, some quantity of content in the mind.
"Even to identify a self there has to be some degree of experience with existents, some quantity of content in the mind."
Certainly, we have the innate feeling of "existing" or "being" in our experience. However, we have to be able to distinguish between that and physical existence. Does the existence of the moon depend upon whether or not you are aware of it? Physical existence is forever beyond our direct experience, that's why we have to assume a definition for it.
@junior00bacon00chee I'm not sure I understand why one would say experience is distinct from physical existence. It's a relationship, is it not? Our awareness would seem to be of both the moon, and the one expiencing it. Yet I don't understand what you mean by "direct experience". What constitutes "direct experience"?
we don't know what the relationship is, or if they are even "truly separate," i am assuming that they are distinct for the purpose of using definitions consistently. for all we know we are brains in a vat, right? so, when you look at the moon what you are aware of is this visual that your brain somehow creates (or at least we assume), not the "moon itself."
that's what i mean by "direct experience," really it's just synonymous with "experience," but what i am trying to do is point to this distinction between what we experience, and that which is not dependent on our experience. it's the same reason why we try to theorize about light...we think there must be some physical intermediary between our retinas and objects "out there."
@junior00bacon00chee 1a. I'm still not clear on what you mean by direct experience. If we were brains in a vat, would a direct experience involve the existent to penetrate the brain itself? I wouldn't think so, as the brain doesn't work that way. "we don't know what the relationship is..." I'm not really sure what to make of that statement. You seem to be saying we don't know anything at all. Wouldn't the basic assumption be that you trust the senses to feed valid info to your brain? I mean...
"direct experience involve the existent to penetrate the brain itself"
by direct experience i just mean our experience, not those objects which we aren't directly aware of. i can see the moon but what i am really seeing is an image created by my brain, that is the distinction i am pointing at. if the universe existed before human minds came around then we can reason that the existence of these objects is not dependent upon our thoughts.
you could ask...well where does the physical brain meet the mental thought? personally i don't think there is a possible explanation, that is what they call the explanatory gap. the mind perceives these two natures, ie, the physical and mental, as so radically different that i don't think the mind is capable of reconciling them. we simply have to draw a distinction for the purpose of formulating consistent definitions.
"You seem to be saying we don't know anything at all"
let me define knowledge.
knowledge - one's immediate experience
So once again, we have knowledge of everything in our experience, but no knowledge of the physical realm we believe to be beyond it. This is why you must make assumptions in science.
@junior00bacon00chee "...by direct experience i just mean our experience, not those objects which we aren't directly aware of." I'm having trouble with this one. How is an experience not what constitutes awareness? The image you say is created by the brain is a product of an interaction between the moon and the sensory apparatus. How is awareness not a product of our experience? The brain isn't operating in a vaccuum; it's using sensory data.
@junior00bacon00chee 2a. ...the senses, from my grasp anyway, undergo an ongoing calibration process with the realtionship between the body and the mind. My skin tells me where my body is relative to components of my body. My inner ear feeds me constantly info of the realtionship of my body to the earth's gravitational pull. My eye's give me info of the realtionship of the world to the sensations fed to me by my skin. It's all a relationship in my experience. But what do you mean by direct?
when you list all these things off you are giving me physical descriptions of objects outside your direct experience. again, by direct experience i just mean that which you are aware of right now. you are as aware of these objects as you are the moon or the andromeda galaxy. you may sense them, ie, see them, but again what you are seeing is the image your brain creates. how the physical brain accomplishes this is anyone's guess.
"Wouldn't the basic assumption be that you trust the senses to feed valid info to your brain?"
Does this mean that when you close your eyes the entire universe ceases to exist? When you turn the lights off the walls actually disappear? We automatically reason beyond the senses in order to understand the world. External existence cannot be dependent on sense data.
@junior00bacon00chee "...how the physical brain accomplishes this is anyone's guess." again, my brain doesn't create them independently of the sensory aparatus that supplies the raw data. But just because I don't know how the brain utilizes it, doesn't mean it operates independently of the actual existent, does it?
care to get specific beyond vague generalized philosophic terms? philosophers have gone in circles for thousands of years b/c they refuse to define their terms clearly (it's b/c they are still trying to find the "true" definitions). can you offer me anything in particular that i can actually understand?
@junior00bacon00chee Since simple ideas like 'concepts' are beyond your ability to understand, trying to educate you on higher ideas would be a waste of time.
@junior00bacon00chee Since simple ideas like concepts are beyond your ability to understand, trying to educate you on any higher ideas would be a waste of time. Kinda like me trying to explain quantum mechanics to a two year-old.
haha of course. it's always the same. you believe what scientists say based purely on faith in their authority. guess where these scientists got their beliefs? authority!!! they memorized the answer for the test like good little doggies. it's the blind leading the blind!
now come on old man make an argument! where would you like to start so that i can destroy your religion?
@junior00bacon00chee I 'believe' in nothing. Either I know a thing or I do not. Belief does not enter into the equation. Again, this is a elementary concept that is evidently beyond your understanding. I am curious though, I have no religion so I'm wondering just how you can destroy something that does not exist?
The problem with God is that you're looking for a finite infinitude. It's logically contradictory. This is why the concept is unimaginable and irrational. The only thing that can be infinite is all of reality. Everything is a result of that which it is not, it has boundaries and limits. Even minds have limits and boundaries or they would cease being minds. Only the totality of existence can be God.
Some things are just concepts, they don't need to be defined in terms of existence. Time is a concept, it does not exist as an object, even by your definition. We can give it value based on the movement of objects through space, but it is merely a concept. Whether or not it can fit some definition of existence, or whether or not it is real, is irrelevant to the fact that we can observe its effect on actual objects and measure it.
formic we just utterly destroyed the notion of "spacetime." time is not an object, nor is space, yet they are treated as objects which apparently can be "bent" or "warped." these words are unintelligible unless we invoke physical shape, ie, that which occupies but does not blend with space. We need physical surfaces to understand these terms, yet these "scientists" cannot in any way show us a "spacetime" surface.
@mbarkhau It's not a matter of not "fully" comprehending an explanation, but of there being no explanation actually given! Just a description of the observations. No one fully or even partially or even slightly can visualize curved space. Or if they do, they're actually visualizing a trampoline with a dip in it, which even the physicists admit it just a layman's tool.
Scientific explanations can be valid without individuals being able to fully comprehend them. Mathematics and experimental results are extensions of our mind and senses and we can use them to comprehend reality. Of course assumptions are made about their validity, but you have to start somewhere, so I don't see how this is a valid criticism. What would be a valid criticism is to offer alternative assumptions that you think are more reasonable and why you think so.
Existence is the stuff external to our minds that we can perceive through our senses. It extends in dimension that we can measure with our senses, sometimes indirectly. That things exist is an assumption and it may well be that we are brains in vats, but it is also the only reasonable assumption to make, as we have no access to anything else and so it makes no sense to think about anything but that which we perceive.
Logic is just grammar. The laws of logic are in fact just rules of grammar, or characterizations of how sentences are formed and how definitions and modifiers work.
You can therefore apply the laws of logic to any noun, for example. So I don't know what you're getting at there, but otherwise I agree in totality.
Modern physics has been terribly ineffective at creating frameworks of explanation that enable deeper theorizing. In fact, there are no explanations at all, only Ptolemaic "explanations."
this is a fascinating debate, i only heard part of it cause my internet connection is lousy right now, thank you for sharing, i will watch the entire video when i am able, would you consider getting a better microphone as it lowers the quality of an other wise great presentation.
Dear junior: Anyone declining to believe any claim (such as "There's a god.") is not required, by any form of human approach to knowledge or understanding, to himself explain or define anything, answer any question, prove any point, or meet any challenge.
No amount of silly chatter will alter that fact. This is like Bill Clinton attempting to question what "is" is.
of course i can't make anyone to take on my challenges getmethere, i just figured atheists might be interested to know how irrational they generally are.
@junior00bacon00chee : It's not irrational to reject an assertion which (rationally) seems prima facie unlikely. An assertion that there are invisible creator/supervisor-entities with supernatural powers--with the basis for the assertion being that the claimant "just knows it's true"--is unlikely (or at least unimpressive) to a rational person.
rejecting god isn't irrational, but accepting modern physics, as many atheists do, is irrational. that was kind of the point of the video, to argue that the reason why god fails is the same reason that many "theories" of modern physics fail.
irrational: not coherent enough to apply the laws of logic consistently
@junior00bacon00chee : "accepting" modern physics (even ignoring the problems of a full definition of "to accept") is not irrational--and no amount of sophistry can change that. All "acceptance" in science is based on utility. Modern physics has considerable utility.
and no amount of hand waving, or accusations of "sophistry," can fix the problems associated with modern physics. i have nothing against making quantitative predictions, what i have a problem with is when people claim that explanations have been "proven" b/c an equation can get the numbers right, especially when those explanations are irrational.
@junior00bacon00chee : Straw man argument. No philosopher or scientist talks about anything in science as having been "proven." (or perhaps colloquially)
It's well understood that science does not and can not offer "proofs."
oh come on now getme. i guess you've never heard of the "fact" of evolution.
you see getmethere, no one has established definitions that can be used consistently for the scientific method. as a result, no matter what you argue, it's always a "strawman." scientists routinely talk about proving or verifying or confirming, yet that's not what they *really* mean. what they mean is it hasn't been falsified, so it's been "proven" 99% according to their authority.
@junior00bacon00chee : 1) You can't take colloquial language and use it to try to make a highly technical philosophical argument. 2) The "fact" of evolution is something different. There, "facts" are direct observation (ERV fragments placed appropriately among descendant lineages; fossils demonstrating that life has "evolved" in SOME manner over the lifetime of the earth; etc.). They are called "facts" because that is the term used to describe direct observations. Sometimes "facts" are wrong.
1) what makes or breaks a definition is whether or not it can be used consistently. unfortunately people are under the impression that when something is a hypothesis, or a theory, or a fact, for example, is up to conventions agreed upon by scientists. the only "test" of my language is whether or not i can use my terms consistently.
2) you can use "fact" consistently to refer to the actuality of your experience, but this doesn't have any consequences for the "facts" of existence, ie, the actuality of what is "out there" that we attempt to represent with mental models.
as a theorist, your testimony of what you observed is what you are trying to explain. if all you give me is fossils then i don't have an explanation. the question is how or why did these fossils end up the way they did?
@junior00bacon00chee : Again, your arguments have a strong strawman element--that perhaps you're not realizing. No serious scientist claims or means to imply that absolute truth is being discovered through science. Science seeks to elucidate well supported hypotheses--and ones which seem to WORK as a means to explain things in such a way as to suggest FURTHER hypotheses which then might be supported. That's all; and that's all that science claims. Science can claim only to be EFFECTIVE.
@junior00bacon00chee : The issue of "falsifiability" in science is that it is the STRONGEST sort of proof: You can never prove something is TRUE--except to show that it's true that it is FALSE; it's the only thing you can "prove" in science. And so a test of a hypothesis is good science only if it's a test that could FALSIFY the hypothesis. As newer attempts at falsification fail, the hypothesis is supported. But the value of the exercise is PRACTICAL:the hypotheses WORK....
@L1ber8ted I'd love to see a video about your ideas concerning differences in certain thought and language 'modes'. It's something I've been writing about. For example: - Descriptive (properties, logic, math, hypothesis) - Prescriptive (ethics, should, ought, must, rights, good/evil) - Assumption (explanation, theory) - Visual (image, movie, thought experiment)
Etc. I'm not saying those are the right categories, but something along these lines.
hey thanks! i'm working on a revised version of the explanatory scientific method where all these terms are organized and defined, so we'll see if that can stand up to any scrutiny. where are you writing about this stuff? i'd be interested to read it. i'll pm you the link to a facebook group "rational science" if you want too. That's a great place to bring up and discuss the type of terms you listed, one of our goals is to achieve maximum clarity.
@junior00bacon00chee I believe he means that existence depends on whether or not you believe something exists. You can say "There is a chair there." I can say "there is not."
Existence is what we expierience with our senses. To minimize the problem of something like dreaming or hallucination we use scientific methods. So we can say the probability that science describes the reality is higher than worldviews without scientific methods.
so if we don't sense something then it doesn't exist? subatomic particles don't exist? galaxies beyond the visible spectrum don't exist? the planets didn't exist until we discovered them? the universe didn't exist before our senses were here to discover it?
Everything in this video is rather silly/ignorant, except for one thing: asking what "God exists" actually means is a good question.
"Exist" is subtle and hard to define. Its proper use varies with the context. Unicorns don't exist in one sense (natural organisms), but do exist in others. In all uses (physical & abstract), the essential idea is that "to exist is to have consequences". "Good will among men" exists because you can observe its consequences, just as a tree existing has consequences
so when someone claims that "X exists" they don't have to tell us what "exist" means? if this is the case then you have no way to argue against the existence of god.
"to exist is to have consequences"
do the consequences have to be observed in order for the thing to exist?
Re: "when some claims that "X exists" they don't have to tell us what "exists" means?"
Anyone who claims anything is rationally obliged to give an account of what they mean, but that's not necessarily the same as providing a list of definitions. Meaning comes from language fluency, not owning a dictionary.
Re: "do the consequences have to be observed in order for the thing to exist?"
No. Observability relates to the *evidence* for "exists", not the meaning of "exists".
Unobservable things might well exist. In fact, we'll often claim to know something exists even when we have absolutely no evidence (direct or inferentially direct) for its existence. Prior to the last decade, we had no evidence that planets exist orbiting stars other than our own Sun, and yet astronomers then would've told you that they knew that some such planets exist.
Whether we can detect the consequences or not, saying X exists is saying there's some difference consequent from X.
Put another way, there's no difference between saying "absolutely nothing, in any way, follows from, is changed by, or is different because of X's existence" and saying "X does not exist."
so for X to exist then it must not only have the ability to influence other objects, but it must also do so actively? if X ceases to interact it ceases to exist, and only comes back into existence whenever it decides to interact again?
Re: "so for X to exist then it must not only have the ability to influence other objects, but it must also do so actively? if X ceases to interact it ceases to exist, and only comes back into existence whenever it decides to interact again?"
I was talking about what the general meaning of "exists", which is different in different contexts. Within this physical existence context, the answer is "Yes": ceasing to have any physical consequences is ceasing to physically exist.
okay, then how can something begin to exist physically again? if something ceases to exist, then what event can trigger its reappearance? how can something come from nothing? this sounds like creationism.
Why the physical world behaves as it does is unrelated to the question of what a fluent speaker intends when he says "physically exists". I'll discuss this new issue, but only after stressing that it's a separate topic.
Why are the laws of nature (including the quantum mechanical "coming into existence" rules and probabilities) what they are and not something else? I don't know. There are reasonable theories, but in principle no observation can directly determine that.
what you have done is invoke the notion of an "object" by talking about the existence of "X" and yet you can tell me nothing about this object. apparently it can pop in and out of existence, but i have no clue what is supposed to be doing that. is it god? is it matter?
the only reason that QM hasn't been exposed as irrational nonsense is b/c theorists refuse to define strategic words in order to avoid obvious criticisms.
that tells me nothing about what it is to be an electron! quantities are relationships between objects, ie, the thing being measured and the unit of measurement. quantities are relational, and as such they are meaningless until you tell us about the relevant objects. i can't understand "charge" as a quantity for example until i try to understand how the coulomb relates to the object(s) i'm measuring.
Re: "that tells me nothing about what it is to be an electron!"
Recall, I said that your complaint misrepresents the function of physics, which is descriptive and ultimately *always* rests at core on "this is simply how Nature observably behaves".
your def of exist, "that which influences other objects." if the electron exists, then that means it can influence other objects. so, in order for any explanation in physics to be derived from electrons, we have to try to understand how this influencing happens. otherwise we can only speak in terms of describing quantities. in that case no explanations can be formulated.
Re: "apparently it can pop in and out of existence, but i have no clue what is supposed to be doing that"
The laws of physics are descriptive, so your complaint represents a misunderstanding of what physics is attempting to do. No matter any future theory reductions, ultimately physics always rests on "this is simply how Nature observably behaves."
"physics always rests on 'this is simply how Nature observably behaves.'"
no amount of observation in the world can prove, or even indicate whatsoever the existence of objects that we cannot imagine. this has nothing to do with what is or is not possible in the universe, and everything to do with what we as humans can and cannot conceive. if the objects of an explanation are unimaginable, then no imaginable explanations can be derived and we learn nothing.
Re: "no amount of observation in the world can prove, or even indicate whatsoever the existence of objects that we cannot imagine ... if the objects of an explanation are unimaginable, then no imaginable explanations can be derived and we learn nothing."
Sorry, but that's just false. People constantly use explanations, efficiently and productively, having entities that don't match anything in our natural imaginations. We can rationally refer to and manipulate abstractly.
This week I tutored a friend in linear algebra. I gave him a "concrete" example of a certain linear mapping between two 7 dimensional real vector spaces, including the behavior of the map due to some of its complex eigenvalues. Our discussion was rational and that example made things very clear, but neither of us can naively imagine what 7 dimesional space is or what a complex number "is". Humans are perfectly adept at thinking abstractly. So too when speaking of electrons.
physics does not equal mathematics!!! i can speak rationally about numbers, but i can't speak rationally about what it means for a number to exist outside of my mind!
an electron is either an object which exists outside of my mind or it's not. if i think it is, then the onus is on me to formulate the meaning of "electron exists" such that those terms can be used consistently throughout the presentation of a theory.
Re: "physics does not equal mathematics!!! i can speak rationally about numbers, but i can't speak rationally about what it means for a number to exist outside of my mind!"
You asked "give me a single example of an explanation involving objects which cannot be imagined.". My math example highlighted our human capacity to think abstractly. For a physical example, I'll use the light bulb right next to me - whose behavior is explained using electrons and photons.
Re: "i can't speak rationally about what it means for a number to exist outside of my mind!"
You've made several references to existences outside your mind. I think this inside/outside the mind is the wrong way to approach this. For instance, when I think of a number that you've never thought of, isn't that number "outside your mind" (though in my mind)? Doesn't this inside/outside distinction already presume the very conception of existence that you're challenging?
you are using two different definitions of "explain." it's one thing to teach someone mathematics and another to tell me how or why something happens!
and you still refuse to tell me what "electron exists" means beyond measuring some quantities, and yet you think you can explain how a light bulb works?
Re: "you are using two different definitions of "explain." it's one thing to teach someone mathematics and another to tell me how or why something happens!"
No - they are the same. I'd say it's you who doesn't understand what "explain" means.
Re: "you still refuse to tell me what "electron exists" means beyond measuring some quantities,.."
I've "refused" nothing. I've been perfectly clear - your dissatisfaction and inability to understand isn't my concern.
Re: "and yet you think you can explain how a light bulb works?"
Yes, I can. And you'd understand my explanation too. You would, however, no doubt feign its incomprehensibility in order to argue your point.
This is clearly futile - I'm done. I think an Intro to Philosophy class would benefit you. You're obviously a smart guy, but I don't think you've a handle on this yet. You should learn about explanations and inductive logic & reasoning before attempting such discussions
you have not told me what an electron is! and you're right, your "explanation" will most certainly be incoherent b/c you can't tell me what the objects of your explanation are.
come on now, don't quit, just tell me what an electron is besides listing off quantities! i already argued that quantities are not objects, they are relationships between objects. this is key. quantities don't tell me what something is!
This has been flagged as spam show
The definition: Existence: that which is assumed to be represented by something that can only be conceived by a human mind.
fiesta181 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
*it is literally impossible to do anything other than form mental models in our attempt to speak of "existence."* - juniorOObaconOOche
fiesta181 4 weeks ago
Indeed. Physical objects are rather complex in terms of pure experiential phenomenona.
EpicYarnEM 1 month ago
This is not about agreement or disagreement. This is about the fine art of non-contradiction.
However you try to turn this around, a ‘physical object’ will forever be: that which has one - or several, concepts ‘attached’ to it.
And that’s why you can never use this definition to objectively differentiate physical objects from Concepts.
My point all along. Thank you for your time.
fiesta181 1 month ago
Seems more and more agreement is happening, appearances aside.
EpicYarnEM 1 month ago
Wow. I just watched the first seven minutes of this. It should be re-titled 'help, I'm stuck in my own symantics'. Your point seems to boil down to 'only "cogito ergo sum" is definately true so everything else is based on assumption'. Well done, you've read a little Descartes. Not sure why your bothering anyone else with your existential strugles though (pun intended).
bartosinc 1 month ago 2
@bartosinc
Sorry bud this has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with scientific definitions. Do you think definitions are not important in science? If so just come out and admit it.
Obviously we have to distinguish consistently between experience and the external world. Otherwise people start believing in irrational explanations, ie, religion.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
If it did, you should have no problem articulating how.
EpicYarnEM 1 month ago
@EpicYarnEM
Are you suggesting that one phenomenon that has no practical explanation doesn't exist?
fiesta181 1 month ago
The point of defining a word is ultimately to let other people know what aspect of experience you are referring to. "Shape" can thus be defined by pointing to various shapes. "Warped space," "0D point particle," etc. cannot be rescued in similar fashion; they are mere wordplay.
EpicYarnEM 1 month ago
@EpicYarnEM *mere wordplay.*
Wow didn't irony slap you right in the face when you wrote that comment?
fiesta181 1 month ago
I need to get on a computer again sometime and make a prezi for this.
EpicYarnEM 1 month ago
I know this is pretty radical. I don't own a computer, or else I could just slap together a prezi whenever. This kind of thing really needs prezi to be able to have enough precision and finesse to communicate it clearly big-picture-wise.
EpicYarnEM 1 month ago
...in the ESM video you posted. Hopefully I can explain this better sometime.
EpicYarnEM 2 months ago
@EpicYarnEM
sorry i haven't been able to fully contemplate and respond to your comments yet it gets so overwhelming to try to follow all of these conversations! definitely interested and reading tho!
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
Wow, that was easy! Sorry, i couldn't help noticing that you ran away from our debate, especially now that your challenge has been exposed.
But i also have a challenge for you: According to your definition of ‘existence’, do CONCEPTS exist? It is very difficult to answer this question without offending your own intelligence and many others failed this challenge before you. So what's it gonna be? Should we call your challenge a kids play or do you have something to show for?
fiesta181 1 month ago
@fiesta181
ran away? looks like I left the last comments.
"do CONCEPTS exist"
you still don't get it. define concept. define existence. then you'll know whether or not concept exists. if a concept is something experienced then no, not under a definition of exist for the physical sciences.
what you don't understand is that the term "exist" is really just the dividing line between the "in here" and "out there." Using "exist" for both causes mass confusion and irrationality.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@junior00bacon00chee *define concept. define existence* …
... define shape. We both can play that game, you see. If circular definition is what you get, what’s the point?
*no, not under a definition of exist for the physical sciences.*
Good. So when you say that an object ‘has’ certain concepts (whether its mass, speed or shape) that’s not a scientific claim. I disagree. Not a good away to start a scientific presentation anyway.
fiesta181 1 month ago
*the term "exist" is really just the dividing line between the "in here" and "out there.*
And you cannot draw that line because the ‘existence of something’ depends on concepts. The line is tilted; the game is riddled. You are cheating.
fiesta181 1 month ago
I see your point. You don’t like the definitions that everybody else uses because they don’t fit the way you see the world. You want them to change their definitions but you cannot tell them the actual reason for that. So you tell them that their definitions are no good because they are circular. Bad choice. Now you get caught in your own fallacy. Like i said, your "challenge" has been exposed.
fiesta181 1 month ago
@fiesta181
If a definition is too vague to be used consistently then what good is it? If it only points to other words, ie, placeholders for meaning, then what good is it? I've told you my reasons in great detail over and over again.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
*How can something visualized be reduced to words?*
Try to describe what you see. Works everytime.
*obviously you cannot define shape since it is visualized directly!*
Obviously you can. Shape: the part of space occupied by an object as determined by its external boundaries. How else could you talk about it? Denying this definition won’t solve the problem of circularity, though. In fact it will reveal the weakness of your argument even deeper.
fiesta181 1 month ago
*What are you talking about?*
Hmmm, quote me on something for this…
*All definitions in physics point to something which can be visualized, obviously you cannot define shape since it is visualized*
So according to you, there are no definitions in physics. Please read what you wrote again. Maybe you should stick to silence after all… I’ll just wait here.
fiesta181 1 month ago
*the existence of something external to the mind does not depend on our ideas. This is assumed.*
Exactly this is merely assumed outside the scope of your definition. ‘Cause according to your definition, the existence of something DOES DEPEND on the presence of ‘shape ‘. But shape is not even external to our minds - it’s a concept, even you can understand this. Your definition of existence does not prevent me from assuming that objects didn’t exist before we were here to conceive shape. At all!
fiesta181 1 month ago
@fiesta181
"Your definition of existence does not prevent me from assuming that objects didn’t exist before we were here to conceive shape."
lol no of course it doesn't! i only take that angle because most people make those assumptions. you are free to think that there is no existence external to your mind.
we have no knowledge of this external existence, which is why we have to define it. obviously our conceptions will always be mind dependent, we have no other choice!
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
by the way i've long sing abandoned the "3D shape + location" definition, if you were clever enough you could show me why it is actually circular. i got me a new definition.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
*lol no of course it doesn't!*
That’s it; i got him to say it. So how do you know that whatever you experience (visualize) is not a hallucination or a dream or the matrix?
In other words, could we keep the original definitions (semantically circular) and cut the bullshit?
*i got me a new definition.*
Irrelevant. That definition is also circular. Test me if you have the courage.
fiesta181 1 month ago
*if you were clever enough you could show me why it is actually circular.*
It is circular because the existence of anything for that matter DEPENDS on concepts that only a mind can conceive. Should I walk you through it again?
You are stuck inside your models that represent whatever’s “out there” - It is a closed circle. Whatever’s out there, it is not a concept.
fiesta181 1 month ago
*we have no knowledge of this external existence, which is why we have to define it.*
Define what? That which, you just conceived, you know nothing about?
…Ooh, you’re good!
fiesta181 1 month ago
@fiesta181
Huh?
Seriously I'm confused at this point as to where we even disagree. We define "existence." It is a representation in the mind. We only have access to the representations, not the "real deal" out there, if there even is an "out there." This is why you make assumptions in physics. You have no knowledge of that which you are attempting to model, you can only make assumptions and try to infer their correctness by seeing how well they can explain the observations.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@junior00bacon00chee *you could show me why it is actually circular.*
Yea, yea did you read my answer to this question? Everything you said ago describes conventional science just as well. The models work and we can only ASSUME that they represent reality accurately. As a skeptic you can assume whatever you want. Inside the model we can describe and predict outcomes that will be verified inside the model as well.
fiesta181 1 month ago
Conventional science may not be able to tell you whether or not we live inside the matrix. But neither can you. You don’t know anything about the matrix (i.e. external existence) and everything that you do know is relative to the model.
fiesta181 1 month ago
But a model is always circular because it irrefutably DEPENDS on a mind that can conceive it. Elements of the model like time, mass, shape or even a number (i.e. concepts) are inputs to the model and have no value when we mention, what we agreed to call, the “external existence”.
fiesta181 1 month ago 2
*is why you define external existence, we have to model it*
You make a model OF it. You didn’t do a damn thing TO “external existence”.
*if there even is an "out there."*
So what’s the problem with assuming that it didn’t exist before humans were here to ponder it?
See? We do have common ground after all.
fiesta181 1 month ago
Your only way out of this is come up with an exception regime. Whether its shape or any other concept, it's a concept that can only be justified as an EXCEPTION to all the other concepts that, ironically enough, had already been excluded from the realm of existence by the obligation of the definition.
fiesta181 1 month ago
@fiesta181
shape: that which occupies but does not blend with space
space: shapelessness, emptiness, nothingness
(again these defs are POINTERS to qualities we can conceive, that is where the meaning lies)
existence: that which is assumed to be represented by shape
represent: to be in the likeness of, but not identical to
so where is the problem? conceived shape becomes a model when it is recognized and treated as a representation of something assumed to be beyond experience.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@junior00bacon00chee
*define "model" since you are using it inconsistently.*
A model is comprised of concepts. That is all you need to know. Whether it’s shape or any other concept, if I am using the word inconsistently, so are you. How about you define the word “consistently” before you propose it as a challenge to other Ytubers?
fiesta181 1 month ago
*that which reduces only to more words*
That’s not circular; that is an infinite regression. Circularity means that an object DEPENDS on another object (an observer) to exist. (Are you sure you have you been reading my comments so far?)
*there is no problem with that*
I read you. It’s just that in the video you suggest that there is, hence the contradiction. Anyway if there is no problem, there is no need to change the definition.
fiesta181 1 month ago
*existence: that which is assumed*
Say no more, you might get caught in your own fallacies again.
*it just means you think there is no external existence*
The explanation works just fine without that assumption. I don’t know if there is an external existence or not, that’s what it means.
fiesta181 1 month ago
*shape: that which*
Bla, bla bla… what you need to answer is this: does “shape” exists?
If not, then this is a definition of common speech, utterly irrelevant for any scientific discussion.
fiesta181 1 month ago
*Your only way out of this is come up with an exception regime.*
There is another way though: Denial!
(it doesn't always work but it never completely fails)
fiesta181 1 month ago
@fiesta181
"So what’s the problem with assuming that it didn’t exist before humans were here to ponder it?"
there is no problem with that. you are free to! it just means you think there is no external existence and no physical explanations for anything. it appears to me that the world i observe acts with a great amount of regularity, and that something will continue persist when I die, so I assume that there is an external existence in order to explain my observations.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
what makes them circular??? do we have to define "circular" AGAIN?
circular: that which reduces only to more words
words are placeholders which means in order to be non circular a model has to reduce to something imaginable beyond mere placeholders for meaning like words.
we treat the model as if what it represents is not contingent upon the model. yes, we can only work inside our minds, but we can still objectively understand the notion of non contingent existence.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
i pretty much say all of that in the video........are you under the impression that i disagree? you have no knowledge of the external existence, only the model you formulate to represent it.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
"describe and predict outcomes that will be verified"
what??? define "model" since you are using it inconsistently. is it a predictive equation or is it a physical model of what you assume exists? there is no way to verify or falsify explanatory models, you can only "verify" predictive "models" by showing how difficult they are to falsify in the Popperian sense.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
"existence of anything for that matter DEPENDS on concepts that only a mind can conceive"
You are still confusing concepts and physical existence. Our explanations are limited by what we can conceive, but what is possible external to our minds is NOT dependent upon our concepts.
"You are stuck inside your models that represent whatever’s “out there” - It is a closed circle. Whatever’s out there, it is not a concept."
Agreed.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
I already said that in my own video!
I really don't know where you are confused. Most people assume there is an external reality. We cannot know if there is. That is why you define external existence, we have to model it because we can have no direct experience of it by our own admission.
You are free to not make such assumptions. It just means that you have no physical explanations.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
again, i defined shape earlier, so i am incorrect to say it can't be defined, what i am driving at is to say that those words are only POINTERS. all definitions in physics work this way.
for example, distance: the space between objects
Those words are a pointer to a common quality which can be recognized in many different possible shape scenarios.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
"Try to describe what you see."
the words are then only pointers, aren't they?
"Denying this definition"
fair enough, i also defined shape earlier, we just have to be careful here. you can "define it" like you did or I did in order to simply clarify what is being pointed at, but SHAPE DOES NOT REDUCE TO WORDS, it is visualized. your definition would be MEANINGLESS if one could not visualize shape! the words only act as placeholders, they have no inherent meaning!
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
What are you talking about?
The entire point is that the existence of something external to the mind does not depend on our ideas. This is assumed. What part of this process can you not understand? The only ramifications our mental models have is our ability to explain our observations.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@fiesta181
Do you have the ability to visualize physical objects? All definitions in physics point to something which can be visualized, obviously you cannot define shape since it is visualized directly! How can something visualized be reduced to words? It's the other way around fiesta. This is incredibly straightforward and simple. Otherwise, what do your definitions reduce to but other words?
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
@jbc
As much as I applaud what this whole "define existence" angle has achieved, both in physics and theology, I think it's ultimately a crutch and a distraction. What we call existence is a rather complex matter when you get down to it. It ends up taking a lot of extra explanation unless the person acquiesces to it right away.
Yet the whole point of it was to be quick and clean. And in fact, even if the person agrees right away, it's still an unneeded extra step. I think the real juice is...
EpicYarnEM 2 months ago
All you have to go on are your 5 senses. "See-touch" is actually pretty good. If I see a pyramid in front of me then I reach out and feel a pyramid shape, I'll say good enough! It exists! The mountain in the distance I just assume that if I move my legs in a running motion I'll eventually bump into it. You could say I just assume it exists until I actually check. Anyway.
EpicYarnEM 2 months ago
fucking fine i wont use the word existence you can have it ill use murpebin instead
scorpidable 2 months ago
If you have a limited number of words (language) to define all the words that "there are", some of these words will remain undefined or defined redundantly. You cannot define existence either.
fiesta181 2 months ago
Btw:
Sure enough, you defined existence circularly.
fiesta181 2 months ago
@fiesta181
words are pointers to qualities of experience, that is where the meaning lies. "shape" points to something you can conceive of within your own mind. this is how you escape the circularity.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
If we accept your definition, then Existence depends on conceptions of the mind either way. You are saying that something doesn’t exist unless you (or a mind) can conceive it. Well that’s just the circularity you were trying to refute in the beginning of the argument. Things only exist if we can experience them. You cannot escape circularity this way.
fiesta181 2 months ago
@fiesta181
"Existence depends on conceptions of the mind"
correct, because "existence" is a concept we define. what other choice to we have? you define existence and then it is obvious whether or not something qualifies under the definition. we have to be careful tho...we believe our definitions to point to something external to the mind, something which is not contingent upon our thoughts.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee “you define existence and then it is obvious whether or not something qualifies under the definition”
That’s how you do it. But the definition depends on some concepts that only you (as an observer) are able to conceive. That’s like saying that the universe didn’t exist before these concepts could be conceived. You haven’t escaped circularity and yet you make sever accusations on the scientific method in your video. Not nice.
fiesta181 2 months ago
@fiesta181
"But the definition depends on some concepts that only you (as an observer) are able to conceive."
correct. in the course of trying to talk about this external existence we have no choice but to formulate a representation within experience. that is the birth of the model, when we recognize that what we conceive is a conceptual representation of something which we assume to be separate and not contingent on the model.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee *formulate a representation within experience."
Exactly. You formulate the model and then you talk about the model you formulated. The circularity starts and ends at the observer –there’s no way to “escape” it. I told you could not escape circularity. Maybe the criteria is too much for you to follow. And in that case you are attacking a strawman. The scientific model also works with models.
fiesta181 2 months ago
*which we assume to be separate and not contingent on the model.*
Irrelevant. No one is saying that a representation is contingent to the model. It's a representation and that's that.
fiesta181 2 months ago
@fiesta181
"a representation is contingent to the model"
what are you talking about?
representation = model. they are synonymous.
"circularity starts and ends at the observer"
when is a definition circular fiesta? when the words only point to other words which never ultimately point to anything in experience. obviously i have not done that here.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
*what are you talking about?*
Actually that’s precisely what I am NOT talking about. Read again.
*when the words only point to other words which never ultimately point to anything in experience.*
It’s when the list of words reaches experience that the def. become circular. Existence: that which can be conceived by a human mind. This is the circularity you were pointing out in your video. If this is the criteria, I also agree that you cannot escape it.
fiesta181 2 months ago
@fiesta181
you can't even define "circular" without pointing to something I understand in my experience.
"Existence: that which can be conceived by a human mind"
whose definition is this?
let's establish what circularity is first. i say that it means that the definitions you use only point to other words such that all your are doing is pointing to what are supposed to be placeholders for meaning.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
how can "circular" mean when the words reach experience? wouldn't that make your definition of "circular" circular?
in what way do you disagree with my definition?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee *establish what circularity is first. I say that it means that the definitions you use only point to other words*
Great. So the definition: “existence that which we can observe/experience” is not circular. The meaning of “experience” doesn’t need more words; its meaning is conceivable by any mind without the need to add more words and that’s how you escape circularity. If you follow this criteria...
fiesta181 2 months ago
@fiesta181
okay, before i concede that such a definition is not circular, first let me get some clarification.
what do you mean by "can experience?" i experience a vision of the moon when i look at it. is it the visualization in my mind that i "can experience," or is it the moon "out there?" do you think light mediates information to your retinas from the lunar surface? is the visual somehow created by your brain different than the moon "out there?"
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee “what do you mean by "can experience?”
I mean something that you can conceive within your own mind without the need to an endless stream of words. But don’t let semantics get in the way of a scientific discussion. Tell me what you mean by “shape “or tell me why you cannot define this concept either and we can both understand how you escape circularity.
fiesta181 2 months ago
“is it the visualization in my mind that i "can experience," or is it the moon "out there?”
“...we believe our definitions to point to something external to the mind (…)not contingent upon our thoughts.”
Sure you do. The nature of that which is external to our minds (let’s call it this way) is a matter of BELIEF anyway. I also believe that the universe is external to our minds. But keep in mind that’s just your opinion. Nothing wrong with it though.
fiesta181 2 months ago
@fiesta181
"is a matter of BELIEF anyway."
okay, now we can clarify further since i also used to term "belief" to try to make a point.
you don't necessarily have to believe in this external reality in order to understand what I mean by it. you can imagine it and entertain the notion but not believe it to be accurate.
so for the purpose of a scientific dissertation you lay out your assumptions, one of those being the definition of existence.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee “These defs appear circular semantically but they are not,”
That should do it. Your entire case is based on semantics anyway, so don’t look any further. I guess that now we should all assume that the Universe didn’t exist before humans could conceive concepts? Isn’t that the case?
Surely you believe the universe did exist outside of our minds before but the definition you propose does not support that assumption.
fiesta181 2 months ago
@fiesta181
I do define shape, but only as a pointer to something you can conceive of in experience.
Shape: that which occupies but does not blend with space
Space: formlessness, shapelessness, emptiness, nothingness
These defs appear circular semantically but they are not, they are pointers to things that all humans can conceive of. You do engage in spatial reasoning, do you not?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
So existence isn't identity?
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
@RichardRoy2
what do you mean by identity? identity as in that which you conceive of in the mind's eye?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of perception, but basically that which you relate to, I think. On whatever level of mental functioning. So yes, I think a concept or an abstraction can exist, as those. We don't all have to have any particular level of capacity for abstraction in order to qualify as being able to relate to existence, do we? Even to identify a self there has to be some degree of experience with existents, some quantity of content in the mind.
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
@Richard
"Even to identify a self there has to be some degree of experience with existents, some quantity of content in the mind."
Certainly, we have the innate feeling of "existing" or "being" in our experience. However, we have to be able to distinguish between that and physical existence. Does the existence of the moon depend upon whether or not you are aware of it? Physical existence is forever beyond our direct experience, that's why we have to assume a definition for it.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee I'm not sure I understand why one would say experience is distinct from physical existence. It's a relationship, is it not? Our awareness would seem to be of both the moon, and the one expiencing it. Yet I don't understand what you mean by "direct experience". What constitutes "direct experience"?
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
@RichardRoy2
"It's a relationship, is it not?"
we don't know what the relationship is, or if they are even "truly separate," i am assuming that they are distinct for the purpose of using definitions consistently. for all we know we are brains in a vat, right? so, when you look at the moon what you are aware of is this visual that your brain somehow creates (or at least we assume), not the "moon itself."
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
that's what i mean by "direct experience," really it's just synonymous with "experience," but what i am trying to do is point to this distinction between what we experience, and that which is not dependent on our experience. it's the same reason why we try to theorize about light...we think there must be some physical intermediary between our retinas and objects "out there."
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee 1a. I'm still not clear on what you mean by direct experience. If we were brains in a vat, would a direct experience involve the existent to penetrate the brain itself? I wouldn't think so, as the brain doesn't work that way. "we don't know what the relationship is..." I'm not really sure what to make of that statement. You seem to be saying we don't know anything at all. Wouldn't the basic assumption be that you trust the senses to feed valid info to your brain? I mean...
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
@RichardRoy2
"direct experience involve the existent to penetrate the brain itself"
by direct experience i just mean our experience, not those objects which we aren't directly aware of. i can see the moon but what i am really seeing is an image created by my brain, that is the distinction i am pointing at. if the universe existed before human minds came around then we can reason that the existence of these objects is not dependent upon our thoughts.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
you could ask...well where does the physical brain meet the mental thought? personally i don't think there is a possible explanation, that is what they call the explanatory gap. the mind perceives these two natures, ie, the physical and mental, as so radically different that i don't think the mind is capable of reconciling them. we simply have to draw a distinction for the purpose of formulating consistent definitions.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
"You seem to be saying we don't know anything at all"
let me define knowledge.
knowledge - one's immediate experience
So once again, we have knowledge of everything in our experience, but no knowledge of the physical realm we believe to be beyond it. This is why you must make assumptions in science.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee "...by direct experience i just mean our experience, not those objects which we aren't directly aware of." I'm having trouble with this one. How is an experience not what constitutes awareness? The image you say is created by the brain is a product of an interaction between the moon and the sensory apparatus. How is awareness not a product of our experience? The brain isn't operating in a vaccuum; it's using sensory data.
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee 2a. ...the senses, from my grasp anyway, undergo an ongoing calibration process with the realtionship between the body and the mind. My skin tells me where my body is relative to components of my body. My inner ear feeds me constantly info of the realtionship of my body to the earth's gravitational pull. My eye's give me info of the realtionship of the world to the sensations fed to me by my skin. It's all a relationship in my experience. But what do you mean by direct?
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
@RichardRoy2
when you list all these things off you are giving me physical descriptions of objects outside your direct experience. again, by direct experience i just mean that which you are aware of right now. you are as aware of these objects as you are the moon or the andromeda galaxy. you may sense them, ie, see them, but again what you are seeing is the image your brain creates. how the physical brain accomplishes this is anyone's guess.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@jbc
"Wouldn't the basic assumption be that you trust the senses to feed valid info to your brain?"
Does this mean that when you close your eyes the entire universe ceases to exist? When you turn the lights off the walls actually disappear? We automatically reason beyond the senses in order to understand the world. External existence cannot be dependent on sense data.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee "...how the physical brain accomplishes this is anyone's guess." again, my brain doesn't create them independently of the sensory aparatus that supplies the raw data. But just because I don't know how the brain utilizes it, doesn't mean it operates independently of the actual existent, does it?
RichardRoy2 2 months ago
Sophomoric Descartianism (Descartiansim - I made that term up to give a name to methodological skepticism).
SmackontheWeb 2 months ago
@SmackontheWeb
care to get specific beyond vague generalized philosophic terms? philosophers have gone in circles for thousands of years b/c they refuse to define their terms clearly (it's b/c they are still trying to find the "true" definitions). can you offer me anything in particular that i can actually understand?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Since simple ideas like 'concepts' are beyond your ability to understand, trying to educate you on higher ideas would be a waste of time.
SmackontheWeb 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Since simple ideas like concepts are beyond your ability to understand, trying to educate you on any higher ideas would be a waste of time. Kinda like me trying to explain quantum mechanics to a two year-old.
SmackontheWeb 2 months ago
@SmackontheWeb
haha of course. it's always the same. you believe what scientists say based purely on faith in their authority. guess where these scientists got their beliefs? authority!!! they memorized the answer for the test like good little doggies. it's the blind leading the blind!
now come on old man make an argument! where would you like to start so that i can destroy your religion?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee I 'believe' in nothing. Either I know a thing or I do not. Belief does not enter into the equation. Again, this is a elementary concept that is evidently beyond your understanding. I am curious though, I have no religion so I'm wondering just how you can destroy something that does not exist?
SmackontheWeb 2 months ago
@SmackontheWeb
define "knowledge."
i'll do it for you: knowledge - one's immediate experience
Do you know whether or not your computer screen exists?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
The problem with God is that you're looking for a finite infinitude. It's logically contradictory. This is why the concept is unimaginable and irrational. The only thing that can be infinite is all of reality. Everything is a result of that which it is not, it has boundaries and limits. Even minds have limits and boundaries or they would cease being minds. Only the totality of existence can be God.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
Some things are just concepts, they don't need to be defined in terms of existence. Time is a concept, it does not exist as an object, even by your definition. We can give it value based on the movement of objects through space, but it is merely a concept. Whether or not it can fit some definition of existence, or whether or not it is real, is irrelevant to the fact that we can observe its effect on actual objects and measure it.
formicfarm 2 months ago
@formicfarm
define concept!
concept - a relationship involving more than one object or location
"Time is a concept, it does not exist as an object"
YES! exactly! time is a comparison between motions! it's a concept and only exists in our minds!
time - relative motion
"we can observe its effect on actual objects and measure it."
"it" doesn't have any effect. time is not an object, it's a relationship between objects. that relationship can be quantified, ie, measured.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
formic we just utterly destroyed the notion of "spacetime." time is not an object, nor is space, yet they are treated as objects which apparently can be "bent" or "warped." these words are unintelligible unless we invoke physical shape, ie, that which occupies but does not blend with space. We need physical surfaces to understand these terms, yet these "scientists" cannot in any way show us a "spacetime" surface.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@mbarkhau It's not a matter of not "fully" comprehending an explanation, but of there being no explanation actually given! Just a description of the observations. No one fully or even partially or even slightly can visualize curved space. Or if they do, they're actually visualizing a trampoline with a dip in it, which even the physicists admit it just a layman's tool.
EpicYarnEM 2 months ago
Scientific explanations can be valid without individuals being able to fully comprehend them. Mathematics and experimental results are extensions of our mind and senses and we can use them to comprehend reality. Of course assumptions are made about their validity, but you have to start somewhere, so I don't see how this is a valid criticism. What would be a valid criticism is to offer alternative assumptions that you think are more reasonable and why you think so.
mbarkhau 2 months ago
Existence is the stuff external to our minds that we can perceive through our senses. It extends in dimension that we can measure with our senses, sometimes indirectly. That things exist is an assumption and it may well be that we are brains in vats, but it is also the only reasonable assumption to make, as we have no access to anything else and so it makes no sense to think about anything but that which we perceive.
mbarkhau 2 months ago
@mbarkhau Thoughts in your mind exist too. Minds create as well as take in.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@JBC
Logic is just grammar. The laws of logic are in fact just rules of grammar, or characterizations of how sentences are formed and how definitions and modifiers work.
You can therefore apply the laws of logic to any noun, for example. So I don't know what you're getting at there, but otherwise I agree in totality.
EpicYarnEM 2 months ago
@GetMeThere1
Modern physics has been terribly ineffective at creating frameworks of explanation that enable deeper theorizing. In fact, there are no explanations at all, only Ptolemaic "explanations."
EpicYarnEM 2 months ago
this is a fascinating debate, i only heard part of it cause my internet connection is lousy right now, thank you for sharing, i will watch the entire video when i am able, would you consider getting a better microphone as it lowers the quality of an other wise great presentation.
persevere67 2 months ago
Dear junior: Anyone declining to believe any claim (such as "There's a god.") is not required, by any form of human approach to knowledge or understanding, to himself explain or define anything, answer any question, prove any point, or meet any challenge.
No amount of silly chatter will alter that fact. This is like Bill Clinton attempting to question what "is" is.
GetMeThere1 2 months ago
of course i can't make anyone to take on my challenges getmethere, i just figured atheists might be interested to know how irrational they generally are.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee : It's not irrational to reject an assertion which (rationally) seems prima facie unlikely. An assertion that there are invisible creator/supervisor-entities with supernatural powers--with the basis for the assertion being that the claimant "just knows it's true"--is unlikely (or at least unimpressive) to a rational person.
GetMeThere1 2 months ago
@GetMeThere1
rejecting god isn't irrational, but accepting modern physics, as many atheists do, is irrational. that was kind of the point of the video, to argue that the reason why god fails is the same reason that many "theories" of modern physics fail.
irrational: not coherent enough to apply the laws of logic consistently
synonyms: inconceivable, unimaginable
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee : "accepting" modern physics (even ignoring the problems of a full definition of "to accept") is not irrational--and no amount of sophistry can change that. All "acceptance" in science is based on utility. Modern physics has considerable utility.
GetMeThere1 2 months ago
@GetMeThere1
and no amount of hand waving, or accusations of "sophistry," can fix the problems associated with modern physics. i have nothing against making quantitative predictions, what i have a problem with is when people claim that explanations have been "proven" b/c an equation can get the numbers right, especially when those explanations are irrational.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee : Straw man argument. No philosopher or scientist talks about anything in science as having been "proven." (or perhaps colloquially)
It's well understood that science does not and can not offer "proofs."
GetMeThere1 2 months ago
@GetMeThere1
oh come on now getme. i guess you've never heard of the "fact" of evolution.
you see getmethere, no one has established definitions that can be used consistently for the scientific method. as a result, no matter what you argue, it's always a "strawman." scientists routinely talk about proving or verifying or confirming, yet that's not what they *really* mean. what they mean is it hasn't been falsified, so it's been "proven" 99% according to their authority.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee : 1) You can't take colloquial language and use it to try to make a highly technical philosophical argument. 2) The "fact" of evolution is something different. There, "facts" are direct observation (ERV fragments placed appropriately among descendant lineages; fossils demonstrating that life has "evolved" in SOME manner over the lifetime of the earth; etc.). They are called "facts" because that is the term used to describe direct observations. Sometimes "facts" are wrong.
GetMeThere1 2 months ago
@GetMeThere1
1) what makes or breaks a definition is whether or not it can be used consistently. unfortunately people are under the impression that when something is a hypothesis, or a theory, or a fact, for example, is up to conventions agreed upon by scientists. the only "test" of my language is whether or not i can use my terms consistently.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@GetMeThere1
2) you can use "fact" consistently to refer to the actuality of your experience, but this doesn't have any consequences for the "facts" of existence, ie, the actuality of what is "out there" that we attempt to represent with mental models.
as a theorist, your testimony of what you observed is what you are trying to explain. if all you give me is fossils then i don't have an explanation. the question is how or why did these fossils end up the way they did?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee : Again, your arguments have a strong strawman element--that perhaps you're not realizing. No serious scientist claims or means to imply that absolute truth is being discovered through science. Science seeks to elucidate well supported hypotheses--and ones which seem to WORK as a means to explain things in such a way as to suggest FURTHER hypotheses which then might be supported. That's all; and that's all that science claims. Science can claim only to be EFFECTIVE.
GetMeThere1 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee : The issue of "falsifiability" in science is that it is the STRONGEST sort of proof: You can never prove something is TRUE--except to show that it's true that it is FALSE; it's the only thing you can "prove" in science. And so a test of a hypothesis is good science only if it's a test that could FALSIFY the hypothesis. As newer attempts at falsification fail, the hypothesis is supported. But the value of the exercise is PRACTICAL:the hypotheses WORK....
GetMeThere1 2 months ago
Great video!
L1ber8ted 2 months ago
@L1ber8ted I'd love to see a video about your ideas concerning differences in certain thought and language 'modes'. It's something I've been writing about. For example: - Descriptive (properties, logic, math, hypothesis) - Prescriptive (ethics, should, ought, must, rights, good/evil) - Assumption (explanation, theory) - Visual (image, movie, thought experiment)
Etc. I'm not saying those are the right categories, but something along these lines.
L1ber8ted 2 months ago
@L1ber8ted
hey thanks! i'm working on a revised version of the explanatory scientific method where all these terms are organized and defined, so we'll see if that can stand up to any scrutiny. where are you writing about this stuff? i'd be interested to read it. i'll pm you the link to a facebook group "rational science" if you want too. That's a great place to bring up and discuss the type of terms you listed, one of our goals is to achieve maximum clarity.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
existence is reletive
binkiie4dictator 2 months ago
@binkiie4dictator
what does that mean?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee I believe he means that existence depends on whether or not you believe something exists. You can say "There is a chair there." I can say "there is not."
atheistram 2 months ago
Existence is what we expierience with our senses. To minimize the problem of something like dreaming or hallucination we use scientific methods. So we can say the probability that science describes the reality is higher than worldviews without scientific methods.
manunderyourbed 2 months ago
@manunderyourbed
"Existence is what we experience with our senses"
so if we don't sense something then it doesn't exist? subatomic particles don't exist? galaxies beyond the visible spectrum don't exist? the planets didn't exist until we discovered them? the universe didn't exist before our senses were here to discover it?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
It is possible to experience these things with our senses. Maybe I should have written "what we can experience".
manunderyourbed 2 months ago
@manunderyourbed
okay so your def is now "existence = that which we can experience with the senses"
so subatomic particles don't exist?
let's just fast forward here b/c people below did all the same things.
do you mean "existence = that which can be detected via senses or measurement"?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
Everything in this video is rather silly/ignorant, except for one thing: asking what "God exists" actually means is a good question.
"Exist" is subtle and hard to define. Its proper use varies with the context. Unicorns don't exist in one sense (natural organisms), but do exist in others. In all uses (physical & abstract), the essential idea is that "to exist is to have consequences". "Good will among men" exists because you can observe its consequences, just as a tree existing has consequences
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
so when someone claims that "X exists" they don't have to tell us what "exist" means? if this is the case then you have no way to argue against the existence of god.
"to exist is to have consequences"
do the consequences have to be observed in order for the thing to exist?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "when some claims that "X exists" they don't have to tell us what "exists" means?"
Anyone who claims anything is rationally obliged to give an account of what they mean, but that's not necessarily the same as providing a list of definitions. Meaning comes from language fluency, not owning a dictionary.
Re: "do the consequences have to be observed in order for the thing to exist?"
No. Observability relates to the *evidence* for "exists", not the meaning of "exists".
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
(cont)
Unobservable things might well exist. In fact, we'll often claim to know something exists even when we have absolutely no evidence (direct or inferentially direct) for its existence. Prior to the last decade, we had no evidence that planets exist orbiting stars other than our own Sun, and yet astronomers then would've told you that they knew that some such planets exist.
Whether we can detect the consequences or not, saying X exists is saying there's some difference consequent from X.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
(cont)
Put another way, there's no difference between saying "absolutely nothing, in any way, follows from, is changed by, or is different because of X's existence" and saying "X does not exist."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
so for X to exist then it must not only have the ability to influence other objects, but it must also do so actively? if X ceases to interact it ceases to exist, and only comes back into existence whenever it decides to interact again?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "so for X to exist then it must not only have the ability to influence other objects, but it must also do so actively? if X ceases to interact it ceases to exist, and only comes back into existence whenever it decides to interact again?"
I was talking about what the general meaning of "exists", which is different in different contexts. Within this physical existence context, the answer is "Yes": ceasing to have any physical consequences is ceasing to physically exist.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
okay, then how can something begin to exist physically again? if something ceases to exist, then what event can trigger its reappearance? how can something come from nothing? this sounds like creationism.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Why the physical world behaves as it does is unrelated to the question of what a fluent speaker intends when he says "physically exists". I'll discuss this new issue, but only after stressing that it's a separate topic.
Why are the laws of nature (including the quantum mechanical "coming into existence" rules and probabilities) what they are and not something else? I don't know. There are reasonable theories, but in principle no observation can directly determine that.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
what you have done is invoke the notion of an "object" by talking about the existence of "X" and yet you can tell me nothing about this object. apparently it can pop in and out of existence, but i have no clue what is supposed to be doing that. is it god? is it matter?
the only reason that QM hasn't been exposed as irrational nonsense is b/c theorists refuse to define strategic words in order to avoid obvious criticisms.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "what you have done is invoke the notion of an "object" by talking about the existence of "X" and yet you can tell me nothing about this object."
To BE an electron, for example, is to have the correct rest mass, charge, lepton number, etc.. And that IS telling you something about the object.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
that tells me nothing about what it is to be an electron! quantities are relationships between objects, ie, the thing being measured and the unit of measurement. quantities are relational, and as such they are meaningless until you tell us about the relevant objects. i can't understand "charge" as a quantity for example until i try to understand how the coulomb relates to the object(s) i'm measuring.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "that tells me nothing about what it is to be an electron!"
Recall, I said that your complaint misrepresents the function of physics, which is descriptive and ultimately *always* rests at core on "this is simply how Nature observably behaves".
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
your def of exist, "that which influences other objects." if the electron exists, then that means it can influence other objects. so, in order for any explanation in physics to be derived from electrons, we have to try to understand how this influencing happens. otherwise we can only speak in terms of describing quantities. in that case no explanations can be formulated.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "apparently it can pop in and out of existence, but i have no clue what is supposed to be doing that"
The laws of physics are descriptive, so your complaint represents a misunderstanding of what physics is attempting to do. No matter any future theory reductions, ultimately physics always rests on "this is simply how Nature observably behaves."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPetting
"physics always rests on 'this is simply how Nature observably behaves.'"
no amount of observation in the world can prove, or even indicate whatsoever the existence of objects that we cannot imagine. this has nothing to do with what is or is not possible in the universe, and everything to do with what we as humans can and cannot conceive. if the objects of an explanation are unimaginable, then no imaginable explanations can be derived and we learn nothing.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "no amount of observation in the world can prove, or even indicate whatsoever the existence of objects that we cannot imagine ... if the objects of an explanation are unimaginable, then no imaginable explanations can be derived and we learn nothing."
Sorry, but that's just false. People constantly use explanations, efficiently and productively, having entities that don't match anything in our natural imaginations. We can rationally refer to and manipulate abstractly.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
give me a single example of an explanation involving objects which cannot be imagined.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
This week I tutored a friend in linear algebra. I gave him a "concrete" example of a certain linear mapping between two 7 dimensional real vector spaces, including the behavior of the map due to some of its complex eigenvalues. Our discussion was rational and that example made things very clear, but neither of us can naively imagine what 7 dimesional space is or what a complex number "is". Humans are perfectly adept at thinking abstractly. So too when speaking of electrons.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
physics does not equal mathematics!!! i can speak rationally about numbers, but i can't speak rationally about what it means for a number to exist outside of my mind!
an electron is either an object which exists outside of my mind or it's not. if i think it is, then the onus is on me to formulate the meaning of "electron exists" such that those terms can be used consistently throughout the presentation of a theory.
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "physics does not equal mathematics!!! i can speak rationally about numbers, but i can't speak rationally about what it means for a number to exist outside of my mind!"
You asked "give me a single example of an explanation involving objects which cannot be imagined.". My math example highlighted our human capacity to think abstractly. For a physical example, I'll use the light bulb right next to me - whose behavior is explained using electrons and photons.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Re: "i can't speak rationally about what it means for a number to exist outside of my mind!"
You've made several references to existences outside your mind. I think this inside/outside the mind is the wrong way to approach this. For instance, when I think of a number that you've never thought of, isn't that number "outside your mind" (though in my mind)? Doesn't this inside/outside distinction already presume the very conception of existence that you're challenging?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
can numbers exist independent of minds?
and what conception of existence am i supposed to be challenging?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
you are using two different definitions of "explain." it's one thing to teach someone mathematics and another to tell me how or why something happens!
and you still refuse to tell me what "electron exists" means beyond measuring some quantities, and yet you think you can explain how a light bulb works?
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "you are using two different definitions of "explain." it's one thing to teach someone mathematics and another to tell me how or why something happens!"
No - they are the same. I'd say it's you who doesn't understand what "explain" means.
Re: "you still refuse to tell me what "electron exists" means beyond measuring some quantities,.."
I've "refused" nothing. I've been perfectly clear - your dissatisfaction and inability to understand isn't my concern.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Re: "and yet you think you can explain how a light bulb works?"
Yes, I can. And you'd understand my explanation too. You would, however, no doubt feign its incomprehensibility in order to argue your point.
This is clearly futile - I'm done. I think an Intro to Philosophy class would benefit you. You're obviously a smart guy, but I don't think you've a handle on this yet. You should learn about explanations and inductive logic & reasoning before attempting such discussions
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
you have not told me what an electron is! and you're right, your "explanation" will most certainly be incoherent b/c you can't tell me what the objects of your explanation are.
come on now, don't quit, just tell me what an electron is besides listing off quantities! i already argued that quantities are not objects, they are relationships between objects. this is key. quantities don't tell me what something is!
junior00bacon00chee 2 months ago