GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin wrote:It is an absolutely serious point, because it concerns the inherent unpredictability of all (empirical) things.

Indeed. This toiuches upon Hume's induction argument. However, the difference is that such hypothetical sort of randomness would make induction impossible, in contrast to QM where the observations confirming to the predicted probabilistic distribution actually reinforces QM.

So it's an interesting point in and of itself, but completely misapplied in this context.

vicdan wrote:

Exactly why something that is unpredictable seems uncaused to you, is a mystery to me.

Because you are an idiot who can't read. I have already gone over why it's intellectually dishonest to suppose that there are hidden variables determining the specific outcome of a quantum event

I'm not saying that quantum events are caused by "local hidden variables" or "non-local hidden variables", whatever you think they are. I'm only saying that quantum events, and everything about them, every aspect, is caused and not uncaused - just the same as with everything else in Nature.

the honest look at QM strongly suggests that there are no hidden variables determining which outcome we observe.

"Strongly suggests", in science, usually means that it will be overthrown in very short order, and made to look stupid.

To many of us, it already looks stupid. For example, the sharp division of local from non-local hidden variables is a veritable minefield.

You can call that 'uncaused'.

Just as we say that a creationist believes in "creation from nothing", so we say that many of those who misinterpret quantum science, such as yourself (it certainly seems!), believe that some things can happen entirely without cause.

Dave Hodges wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Imagine that from this moment forth, whenever you throw a die, it simply disappears. Or, whenever you throw the die, it changes into a five-sided die. Or something completely different might happen each time you threw a die.

I can't tell any more if you think you are making a serious point

It is an absolutely serious point, because it concerns the inherent unpredictability of all (empirical) things.

Yes, you can imagine that stuff happening, but, when you go and throw a die, it doesn't.

That is only a blind guess on your part. We really are, truly, blind to the future.

Once you throw a die and look at the result, it is then a past result. And past results don't tell us anything about the future, other than how you might want to place your bets on what could well be destined to be a losing horse.

vicdan wrote:

Kevin wrote:It is an absolutely serious point, because it concerns the inherent unpredictability of all (empirical) things.

Actually, it was I who wrote the above, and not Dave Hodges, sorry for the mess-up.

such hypothetical sort of randomness would make induction impossible

Induction is guessing, based on past experience, and guessing is certainly possible.

So the fact that we are truly blind to the future doesn't stop us from guessing what it might entail. For example, the fact that I don't know that a particular horse will die at the first bend of a race doesn't stop me from guessing that it will win, based on my research of its recent form.

The unpredictability of the future is not at all hypothetical, but is very real. We have absolutely no way of knowing what the future will hold, empirically.

Kevin Solway wrote:That is only a blind guess on your part. We really are, truly, blind to the future.

Once you throw a die and look at the result, it is then a past result. And past results don't tell us anything about the future, other than how you might want to place your bets on what could well be destined to be a losing horse.

How do you know that past events don't tell us anything about the future? Using your own logic you can't. In fact, the way you're framing things here you might actually say there is no such thing as the future.

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Past results don't tell us anything about the future, other than how you might want to place your bets on what could well be destined to be a losing horse.

How do you know that past events don't tell us anything about the future?

Because our empirical models of reality are limited to our experience, and our experience falls infinitely short of all the information in the Universe.

What seems like a "sure bet" from what we know about how things work, may well be guaranteed to fail, because we didn't build-in to our model a factor that comes in from outside.

In fact, the way you're framing things here you might actually say there is no such thing as the future.

You could say that. In that case, you could say that there's no way we can predict the present (other than through the blind guesswork I have been talking about that we call "induction")

Your idea that predictions are not guaranteed to accurately match future events is apparently itself based on past predictions and their failure to accurately forecast the future. So your very argument predicts future states(ie possibility of current predictions being wrong) and is itself based on past performance.

Being totally blind to the future also means it would be incorrect to assert that our predictions are certain or uncertain.

Jason wrote:Your idea that predictions are not guaranteed to accurately match future events is apparently itself based on past predictions and their failure to accurately forecast the future.

No. My knowledge that "our experience falls infinitely short of all the information in the Universe" is something I have arrived at through purely logical reasoning, and is not based on empirical measurements and experience. From this fact I deduce that we cannot possibly predict future empirical events, other than through the blind guesswork of induction.

So your very argument predicts future states (ie possibility of current predictions being wrong) and is itself based on prior performance.

Rather, it is based on a purely logical deduction.

It is a logical necessity that our empirical models cannot perfectly reflect the infinite workings of the entire Universe.

Being totally blind to the future also means it would be incorrect to assert that our predictions are certain or uncertain.

We can make accurate predictions about the future so long as those predictions are purely logical in nature, and not empirical. For example, I can predict that all things will always be what they are, and that models will always be limited in their ability to predict.

Sorry, I just realized I have been arguing for argument's sake again. Dropping into threads, reading just a few posts and latching onto a little section I think is flawed, whilst potentially missing the real point and taking things out of context...is a really bad habit of mine.

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:That is only a blind guess on your part. We really are, truly, blind to the future.

Once you throw a die and look at the result, it is then a past result. And past results don't tell us anything about the future, other than how you might want to place your bets on what could well be destined to be a losing horse.

How do you know that past events don't tell us anything about the future? Using your own logic you can't. In fact, the way you're framing things here you might actually say there is no such thing as the future.

There is a good example of past events not telling us eveything about the future, and that example is The Law Of Gravity. It has always worked in the past, however is now starting to fall apart. Distant Galaxies have completely different Gravity Models to our own Galaxy. I account for this with the aether being of a different scale, and therefore in a way, the die has changed shape, like the 5 sided die. However. the 5 sided die was a bad example, because it actually changes shape in our observed physical world, and not an unknown world full of new principles.

How many angels can dance on a head of a pin?

I have never asked that question, or any question of the same order, or even remotely similar to that one.

Shahrazad wrote:
And what causes that? I'm going to keep asking this question until you run out of answers, or at the very least, you'll have to give an unscientific answer.

Victor wrote:
Meaning, you are looking for the ultimate answer -- you are looking for the answer that stops all questions. You are looking for a religious answer. You aren't looking for an answer that is correct, meaningful, or verifiable. You are looking for an answer that purports to be Absolute Truth. You want to be deceived.

Nice try to make me look religious, but you fail. If a religious answer would satisfy me, I would've found one long time ago.

I am not so desperate to find an answer that I will take a non-satisfying one. But jumping from there to "the question is not worth asking" is a quantum leap, in my opinion. And labeling anyone who even dares to ask themselves a question that science cannot answer as religious shows how narrow-minded some people can be, and desperate to make anyone who doesn't fully agree with them look ridiculous.

Kevin Solway wrote:No. My knowledge that "our experience falls infinitely short of all the information in the Universe"...

"There are many things I don't know."

Kevin Solway wrote:...is something I have arrived at through purely logical reasoning, and is not based on empirical measurements and experience. From this fact I deduce that we cannot possibly predict future empirical events, other than through the blind guesswork of induction.

You cannot have deductions without concepts. You cannot have concepts without empirical world. Therefore all deductions are indirectly based on the empirical world.

Neil Melnyk wrote:You cannot have concepts without empirical world. Therefore all deductions are indirectly based on the empirical world.

You keep saying this, but you never provide any proof. And without proof, these statements are worthless.

Read -- and understand -- 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism'.

vicdan wrote:Read -- and understand -- 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism'.

Quine's main problem is that he doesn't understand that thinking is an individual pursuit, rather than a social one. This is understandable, since he receives his income on the basis that he is not an individual, but an academic and a servant of society.

And this leads to his whole confusion about synonymy.

It is ultimately the individual who decides for himself what he understands by any word, it is the individual who determines synonymy. It is most definitely not determined by a dictionary, or by society. For example, if one defines for oneself that a bachelor is an unmarried man, then it follows that "No unmarried man is married" is synonymous with "No bachelor is married".

Quine thinks that synonymy is unexplained, but it is clear that for the individual it is fully explained. Things are synonymous if the individual makes them so, and regardless of what anyone else thinks.

So that completely disposes of all the vagueness that Quine imagines synonymity to have.

However, it must be said that in the context in which Quine speaks - namely the social context - his ideas are indeed valid (though trite). The problem is of course that his social context is itself invalid.

All his other problems stem from that fundamental mistake.

I tend to agree with what you're saying Kevin.But it creates a problem, doesn't it.

It means that any absolute truth that an individual(say you) has deduced can only be absolutely true for you.

For example if I don't agree with your synonyms 'God' and 'Totality' being identical then any of the other 'truths' you've deduced with this induction can never be true for me,an furthermore are not absolute truths.Your deductions may have been flawless but the induction is 'individual'

Vic made this same point during the Reasoning show if i remember rightly.What the word infinite means to you and what it may mean to others are not congruent.

Ataraxia wrote:I tend to agree with what you're saying Kevin.But it creates a problem, doesn't it.

It means that any absolute truth that an individual(say you) has deduced can only be absolutely true for you.

Other people can arrive at the very same truth, but they might use different words to explain or describe it, and even if they use the same words that I do, and in the same way, there is no way I can be sure that they mean the same thing by them, or that they have arrived at the same truth.

For example if I don't agree with your synonyms 'God' and 'Totality' being identical then any of the other 'truths' you've deduced with this induction can never be true for me, an furthermore are not absolute truths. Your deductions may have been flawless but the induction is 'individual'

If all you were to disagree with is the labels then there isn't a problem. For example, I can read the teachings of Jesus, the Buddha, and Lao Tzu, who all use completely different labels, and yet I get the very same truth out of all of them.

But let's say that a person didn't agree with me that "God" and "the Totality" are synonyms because they believe that God is some kind of intelligent and conscious person, which the Totality isn't. They might still agree with me that the Totality is the Supreme Being (since it necessarily contains any conscious being). So even in this case, we arrive at the same essential truth.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Ataraxia wrote:I tend to agree with what you're saying Kevin.But it creates a problem, doesn't it.

It means that any absolute truth that an individual(say you) has deduced can only be absolutely true for you.

Other people can arrive at the very same truth, but they might use different words to explain or describe it, and even if they use the same words that I do, and in the same way, there is no way I can be sure that they mean the same thing by them, or that they have arrived at the same truth.

Ok,then we would seem to agree then.

But this then suggests there is no such thing as an absolute or universal truth.Only each individuals attemps at deductions.

Sometimes these truths align,say with you and David Quinn but that aren't universal. Furthermore they align because you have both agreed on meanings of the terms at the outset.

When you are saying something about the world it can only ever be about your perception of the world.It is true to you.

Yes?

If all you were to disagree with is the labels then there isn't a problem. For example, I can read the teachings of Jesus, the Buddha, and Lao Tzu, who all use completely different labels, and yet I get the very same truth out of all of them.

I see some potential problems arising here.To me, when i have read the Bible, when Jesus refers to God or the Father he is not refering to the Totality but rather a some sort of supreme intelligent being.Much the same way Christians view it.

There are too many incidences in the Bible of God 'doing' this or that to be viewed any other way.[in my view] It is the main reason I'm an atheist.

Perhaps if you discard about 95% of what the New Testament says you can make it 'work' in a pantheist framework.It seems disingenious to me,but thats only really my opinion and is getting off the track of epistemology somewhat.

Ataraxia wrote:Ok,then we would seem to agree then.

I don't think so.

Different people can realize the same truth, it's just that we cannot absolutely affirm that another person has realized that truth.

But this then suggests there is no such thing as an absolute or universal truth.Only each individuals attemps at deductions.

It might be the case that every individual knows the one absolute truth, but that nobody can communicate this to anyone else.

When you are saying something about the world it can only ever be about your perception of the world. It is true to you.

Yes?

No.

If I say that A=A ("A thing is what it is") is a universal law that is true for all conscious beings, then it really is true for all conscious beings, regardless of what symbols they might use to express the same idea.

But there's no guarantee that I can communicate this idea to anyone. It may be that nobody understands my language.

To me, when i have read the Bible, when Jesus refers to God or the Father he is not refering to the Totality

I read "God the Father" in the same way that I read "Mother Nature". That is, I don't understand it to be refering to an actual person. I am of course an atheist with regard to what Christians seem to believe.

Kevin Solway wrote:Quine's main problem is that he doesn't understand that thinking is an individual pursuit, rather than a social one.

hahaha. Read --and understand -- Dennett's "Quining Qualia".

You people are walking, talking shitbags full of delusion and sloppy thinking.

Kevin Solway wrote:Other people can arrive at the very same truth,

But it's not truth.

You can define a formal system where the symbols are fruit names, but the fact that you can deduce 'apple + banana = mango' doesn't mean you have arrived at truth.

Let's take the recent idiocy with QM. You kids have argued, using your own private definitions, that everything has a cause and that therefore there is no randomness in the Universe. In comes QM. A quantum die roll has a cause, yet the result -- 6 rather than 5 -- does not. Your whole argument about causality is based on arguing that everything has antecedent state, but of course this has nothing to do with causality as the rest of the anglophone world understands it, because random events have antecedent states, but they are still random. Yet you take your conclusion 'everything has a cause', and conveniently forget that it was made using your own private definitions of words, instead applying it to the common meanings of the terms -- and voila! you proclaim that you have logically proven that quantum randomness is impossible! Which is not only stupid and insane, but also inexcusably sloppy and intellectually dishonest.

This is a concrete example of how what you idiots arrive at has nothing to do with truth in any reasonable sense of the word. As i had told you on the show, the way you approach things, you can have syntactic correctness or meaning, but not both. Truth about the world is not deduced wholly in the laboratory of the mind, and in order to map your symbolic reasoning onto the world, you have to make sure that your symbols model real relations.

A similar approach would be for me to redefine '2' to mean '3', and then run around telling everyone that I have just proven a new number-theoretic fact -- 2+2=6!!! This is basically what you morons do, except that you are too dumb and intellectually dishonest to even realize this.

vicdan wrote:Dennett's "Quining Qualia".

If you have something to say, you should be able to say it in your own words.

Quine's article was just nonsense and a waste of my time. If he had anything to say he would have said it clearly in the first paragraph. The fact that he rambled on with drivel for so long was a telling sign that he knew, deep down, that his ideas were fundamentally flawed.

Other people can arrive at the very same truth

But it's not truth.

I presume you're talking about things that are true by definition. These things are "true" if that's what we choose to call them. And we generally do - as a society - as evidenced by the fact that such things are commonly called "true by definition"

You have argued that everything has a cause and that therefore there is no randomness in the Universe

Definitely not. I define randomness to be "unpredictablilty" (which doesn't mean uncausedness). Randomness is everywhere.

A quantum die roll has a cause, yet the result -- 6 rather than 5 -- does not.

That's just as ridiculous as saying that if I throw a normal dice, and throw a 6 rather than a 5, the result is entirely without cause (since I am absolutely and completely unable to predict the outcome of a dice throw - even if the die is totally biased, and I only drop it from a height of a tenth of one millimetre).

you proclaim that you have logically proven that quantum randomness is impossible!

Absolutely not. Randomness means no more than unpredictability, I have never denied quantum randomness. Randomness is everywhere, both in the macro world as well as in the quantum world.

Also, our definition of a cause is not different to what people normally use. Just as there are causes which cause a normal die to turn up a 6 rather than a 5, likewise with the quantum equivalent. Some of the the details of those causes will necessarily forever remain hidden from us, but they are necessarily there. The "local hidden variables" stuff is nonsense.

You can have syntactic correctness or meaning, but not both.

That's obviously untrue, because if something is meaningful to me, such as "A=A", then it has both syntactic correctness as well as meaning. You are making the same mistake as Quine in believing that thinking and truth are social activities.

Truth about the world is not deduced wholly in the laboratory of the mind

It most certainly is. You can never get outside of your mind to do anything.

A similar approach would be for me to redefine '2' to mean '3', and then run around telling everyone that I have just proven a new number-theoretic fact -- 2+2=6!!!

Just the opposite. We purposely use the standard definitions of things in order that we can more effectively communicate our ideas. What makes some people think that we are tweaking the definitions is that we are in fact clarifying the henid definitions that people normally use, but don't know it.

The average scientist, or academic philosopher, really has no clue what they mean by a "cause". They are as vague as all hell. That's where we come in, clarifying exactly what a cause really is.

vicdan wrote:Dennett's "Quining Qualia".

Ok I read the first few paragraphs, which was as much as any human should have to read of that badly-written academic thumb-twiddling.

It sounds like Qualia are very closely related to what I call "henids". That is, they are just vague nothings.

Then I skipped to the end to see if he drew any interesting conclusions. With some sense of relief I found that he had gotten around to saying at least something, and that he thinks that the qualia (which I'm now certain are henids) can be clarified.

The clarifying of henids is exactly what I see it as my purpose in life to do.

Qualia are not henids as you define them. They are also vague and unqualified, but in a very different way -- as you would have found out were you to bother actually understanding something someone else says.

However, I did not direct you to QQ to make you understand qualia. In that paper, Dennett provides some very convincing arguments in favor of an idea that our introspective knowledge is not qualitatively better than interpersonal knowledge -- and your whole schtick seems to hinge on the assumption that introspection does indeed offer us qualitatively better knowledge than is interpersonally obtainable.

Dude, I call you guys dumb and idiots, but you aren't actually lacking intelligence as such. What you are completely, utterly lacking is wisdom, for all that you pretend to be interested in it. You have absolutely terrible judgment. You truly do not see how much anyone could benefit by understanding the many lives' worth of thought of the people who came before us.

I probably have higher IQ than Dan and David, but that was not why I whipped them in the reasoning show like little boys (nor was it because of their lame excuse that they are out of practice in radio hosting). It is because I am not afraid to learn from others, and I draw upon the whole of humanity's worth of thought, experiment, and experience, or at least as much of it as I can reach.

You should try understanding what others -- smart, brilliant, intensely thoughtful others -- have had to say. It might really be of use to you.

Now go back to QQ, re-read it, and understand what Dennett is saying. David had tried, and he completely miss the point. I wonder if you will be able to grasp it.

To be more accurate, I didn't see how Dennett's paper applied to the issue of our personally affirming the existence of our own consciousness. I still don't. When I brought this to your attention, you didn't respond.

When it comes to the issue of introspective vs interpersonal knowledge, it all depends on the context. Some areas of our knowledge are benefited by reading the thoughts and experiences of others, while some aren't. For example, when it comes to personally affirming the existence of one's own consciousness, no amount of reading of other people's theories is going to help. It is something that has to be done inwardly.

-