Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems (Read 72762 times)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #200 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

You're wrong on that approach. Art doesn't has those internal mechanisms that regulates and conditions it's output, in other words no rational modelling of art it's possible.
If it was possible you could have art by mass production but you can't.

Somehow mass art or art-as-industry are well-acknowledged concepts. And I tend to see art from the same angle. Did you know how USSR children adored foreign chewing gum wraps? :) I did not have access to foreign wraps, but I have collected maps and atlases since childhood. Also train timetables occasionally qualify as art for me. I think I've already mentioned it in this thread.

And architecture is surely an example of art that is formalisable and strictly regulated. Architecture is necessarily a practical art. Houses are not made merely as a facade to look at, but they are meant for people to actually live in, and therefore the architect never has undue liberties. Except when designing for some ghastly rich entity who doesn't know any better, but then the result has less chance to qualify as art too.

In short, art should be understood holistically. It's of course difficult to formalise a holistic approach, but there are some ways, and if the art object is also meant as a pragmatic object, regulations are inevitable.


@Oakdale

I still don't know what you mean by problems of "statistical reasoning", but I found something probably related to talk about.

THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

Heisenberg discovered this principle as an impossibility to measure a particle's location and momentum (velocity) at the same time. For some reason it's said that the principle is counter-intuitive (the Wikipedia page also says this), but to me it always made perfect sense.

To me it always made perfect sense that it's false to assume the location as a mathematical point that should be possible to track down with infinitesimal precision. On a map, towns may be indicated as dots, but when you are there on the spot, you see that the town is actually an area. No town is a dot. They are all areas. Therefore common sense dictates that *physical location* is actually an area with a fluid centre of gravity, not a mathematical point.

Same with momentum or velocity. In the name of absolute precision one may want to envisage velocity as a mathematical vector, but in reality *the body that moves* is a space with a shape, never a mathematical point. Therefore the vector can only be an approximation, not a precise description.

Moreover, common-sense observation informs us that there are no strict lines in nature to show where one thing ends and another begins. Things don't have solid borders. There are no real solids. Entities are better seen as drops of fluids, clumps of energy, or whiffs of air. This perfectly applies in quantum mechanics. And there's nothing counter-intuitive about it. The scale of ordinary sense-experience conveys all the necessary clues to understand the uncertainty principle.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #201 –
Quote from: ersi on
On a map, towns may be indicated as dots, but when you are there on the spot, you see that the town is actually an area. No town is a dot. They are all areas. Therefore common sense dictates that *physical location* is actually an area with a fluid centre of gravity, not a mathematical point.


How long did it take you to figure out that Kiev wasn't a gigantic dot?!!  And pray tell, what is a fluid center of gravity in a solid? 

Quote from: ersi on
Same with momentum or velocity. In the name of absolute precision one may want to envisage velocity as a mathematical vector, but in reality *the body that moves* is a space with a shape, never a mathematical point.


Velocity is always measured in terms of one point in relation to another point and in terms of onboard or outside observers if one system is moving in relation to another (theory of relativity).  However, the major flaw in your understanding of the uncertainty principle, as far as measuring velocity and location simultaneously, is that location is measured at a fixed moment in time while velocity is measured over a period of time and you can't do both together. For example: You are in a car traveling at some speed.  The car may or may not move in a straight line, and your speed may or may not be constant.  While you can measure your speed or location, you can't do (know), both at the same time.  To measure your speed, your location must be changing and to measure your location, your speed must be ignored or assumed rather than measured. 

Now--does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle render omniscience impossible?  Since it's impossible to know the location and the velocity (or the direction), of an electron at the same time and omniscience would require intimate knowledge of every single subatomic particle in the universe, wouldn't omniscience require something that is necessarily impossible?  Furthermore, given the role that probability plays in the location and behavior of subatomic particles, wouldn't that make omniscience even more of an impossibility?  Or are you claiming that your god can predict and/or is controlling these apparently probabilistic events?  This of course begs the question, why is he doing this?  Why is he controlling it in a way that seems probabilistic?  Why give the illusion of randomness?  How does that fit in with his divine plan?

If you want to say the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle doesn't apply to your god, please specify which god you are referring to and what evidence you have to support the notion that the rules do not apply to him/her.  Simply stating that god has declared himself outside the laws of time and space (or that you have declared this for him by proxy), does not count.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #202 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Simply stating that god has declared himself outside the laws of time and space (or that you have declared this for him by proxy), does not count.

But that's the very definition of Him. :left:

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #204 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

However, the major flaw in your understanding of the uncertainty principle, as far as measuring velocity and location simultaneously, is that location is measured at a fixed moment in time while velocity is measured over a period of time and you can't do both together. For example: You are in a car traveling at some speed.  The car may or may not move in a straight line, and your speed may or may not be constant.  While you can measure your speed or location, you can't do (know), both at the same time.  To measure your speed, your location must be changing and to measure your location, your speed must be ignored or assumed rather than measured. 

Actually, this is precisely what I said, but it went over your head.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Now--does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle render omniscience impossible?

What is omniscience as per you? Doesn't perfect knowledge of laws of nature qualify?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #205 –
Quote from: ersi on
What is omniscience as per you? Doesn't perfect knowledge of laws of nature qualify?

No, it doesn't. For what you're saying, you'd also need perfect knowledge of everything in the universe at least at one particular point in time.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #206 –
Okay. I resisted as long as I could… I jump in at this point in defense of philosophy (including philosophy of science…).

The Uncertainty Principle states that an elementary particle's position and velocity can't both be measured at the same time to an arbitrary accuracy. (We don't need to belabor what "arbitrary accuracy" means, do we?)
What Heisenberg was talking about was the interpretation of quantum theory. Some have noticed that the "laws" of QED, etc., are statistical in nature (the same can be said for thermodynamics; so don't give me too much grief over this!); hence, "wavicles" are a little slippery…
(Schrôdinger's Cat, anyone? :) )
When a physical theory (a theory of physics…) resorts to statistics as its basis, of necessity it has renounced causality. Who doesn't understand this point doesn't understand statistical reasoning…
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #207 –
Quote from: ersi on
Actually, this is precisely what I said, but it went over your head.


You 'precisely' said no such thing--and Oakdale is mostly correct.  I would guess he is into his cups though, because he is hugely vague. 

Quote from: ersi on
What is omniscience as per you? Doesn't perfect knowledge of laws of nature qualify?


Interesting that you should ask.  I believe that theoretically there could be an omniscient entity in some universes, but not in our universe if we are to maintain that we have been given free will by a creator god.  We cannot have free will if it is known beforehand what we will do.  If the future is etched in divine stone somewhere, then we are mere puppets on a string, dancing to some god's prearranged tune.  A god who grants free will to beings or anything else of his creation (rocks, electrons et al), could not always accurately predict what will happen in the next moment of time. 

Perfect knowledge of the laws of nature by an entity could only occur in a universe that excludes the existence of anything with free will.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #208 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
Oakdale is mostly correct.  I would guess he is into his cups though, because he is hugely vague.

The "vagueness" you refer to is built into statistical reasoning; any science that relies upon such has, perforce, renounced causality. If you don't like that conclusion, it's no use saying anyone who points it out is drunk… :)
Drunk or sober, my understanding of science is based upon long study… If I mis-speak, correct me. If you don't like what I say, counter it with an argument; and then support your alternative with a sciency argument!

James, please explain -to me, and others- how statistical reasoning gets to causality… In other words, how correlation escapes its mere co-occurrence, and becomes causative? :)
(You can play too, ersi!)

The fact that I'm "in my cups" is beside the point; and you know it. You mention it, because you have nothing else…
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #209 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Quote from: ersi on
What is omniscience as per you? Doesn't perfect knowledge of laws of nature qualify?

No, it doesn't. For what you're saying, you'd also need perfect knowledge of everything in the universe at least at one particular point in time.

Yes, if you think in Newtonian or Einsteinian terms. Not so, if you think in quantum mechanics terms.

I'm not sure of everything what Oakdale means, but this is a point I would make:

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

When a physical theory (a theory of physics…) resorts to statistics as its basis, of necessity it has renounced causality. Who doesn't understand this point doesn't understand statistical reasoning…

Except I would perhaps rephrase it a bit: When a theory of physics resorts to approximations and critical thresholds as its basis, it has renounced direct causality. Who doesn't understand this point doesn't understand quantum mechanics.

(I still don't have much clue what he means by "statistical reasoning". Maybe "probabilistic" is statistical enough. When I think of statistics, such as "trends" in economy, I'd say things are moving this or that way and this or that "could" be the outcome, but at the same time it's granted that the trend can be changed by acknowledging it and taking specific measures. There's nothing specifically "statistical" in it. It's perfectly accommodated within the rest of logic, ordinary laws of nature, and the usual ways of the world.)

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

Perfect knowledge of the laws of nature by an entity could only occur in a universe that excludes the existence of anything with free will.   :knight:  :cheers:

What if free will is relative, not absolute? Just like bodies are relative, limited in time and space. With your free will you can imagine anything, but to actually get something done requires auspicious preconditions, understanding those conditions and using them to the advantage the aim.

And maybe it's helpful to distinguish between two kinds of theologies. The prevalent theology these days is mechanistic-voluntaristic. According to it, God set things going "in the beginning", gave a nudge to the Big Bang. Everything that followed has supposedly unfolded naturally by itself with God intervening now and then miraculously to make amends or to reward and punish.

Whereas according to classical theology God sustains the universe incessantly. There's no distinction between "natural" and "miraculous". Everything looks natural (=causally related) because there's a logical basis (=God) sustaining everything all the time, but at times it's revealed that the logical basis is all there really is and the things with their causal relations and structure are actually empty in themselves, insubstantial and inconsequential. The causal relations seem to exist because we'd like them to be there, and the world lends itself to such interpretation, until we realise it's just an interpretation, not an observation true in itself.

The first kind of theology feels more natural to people with mechanistic particularist thinking, which includes every rank-and-file theist and atheist I know, and is easily reconciled with physics from Aristotle to Einstein. The other theology expounds God-of-the-philosophers and the universe of quantum physicists and mystics.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #210 –
Quote from: ersi on
Except I would perhaps rephrase it a bit: When a theory of physics resorts to approximations and critical thresholds as its basis, it has renounced direct causality. Who doesn't understand this point doesn't understand quantum mechanics.

As much as I appreciate the help against an admitted "scidolator"… I have an obvious quibble:
If the Laws of Nature are -to the scientists- statistical in formulation, necessarily, then causality is beyond their compass. No? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #211 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

If the Laws of Nature are -to the scientists- statistical in formulation, necessarily, then causality is beyond their compass. No? :)

What does this even mean? Do you mean that since we measure once at a time and not in continuity, then we necessarily cannot determine causality, only remote comparability? This is not so. We actually have continuity. We have definitions and specifications according to which we can tell we are measuring the same thing at different times. Moreover, analogy, correlation, causality, etc. are themselves entirely conceptual definitions, so the same way as analogy and correlation are terms that have their use, the same with causality too. I agree that causality is overdetermined, but I don't agree that it's a useless concept.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #212 –
Quote from: ersi on
And maybe it's helpful to distinguish between two kinds of theologies. The prevalent theology these days is mechanistic-voluntaristic. According to it, God set things going "in the beginning", gave a nudge to the Big Bang. Everything that followed has supposedly unfolded naturally by itself with God intervening now and then miraculously to make amends or to reward and punish.

Whereas according to classical theology God sustains the universe incessantly. There's no distinction between "natural" and "miraculous". Everything looks natural (=causally related) because there's a logical basis (=God) sustaining everything all the time, but at times it's revealed that the logical basis is all there really is and the things with their causal relations and structure are actually empty in themselves, insubstantial and inconsequential. The causal relations seem to exist because we'd like them to be there, and the world lends itself to such interpretation, until we realise it's just an interpretation, not an observation true in itself.

The first kind of theology feels more natural to people with mechanistic particularist thinking, which includes every rank-and-file theist and atheist I know, and is easily reconciled with physics from Aristotle to Einstein. The other theology expounds God-of-the-philosophers and the universe of quantum physicists and mystics.

Very well said, congratulations, but not complete. God plays at both dimensions, sustaining incessantly and performing miracles by the simple reason that God is beyond rational dichotomies. He's one and all.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #213 –
Quote from: ersi on
I agree that causality is overdetermined(*), but I don't agree that it's a useless concept.
But you're not agreeing with me: I think causality is under-determined by current theories! I accept such as an empirical result, the best we can get, given how far we've come… Our modern science is heavily prejudiced by the realities of our epistemology; and our epistemology is rational.
You'd prefer it be otherwise. I don't know how we can overcome this difference… :)

QED doesn't say Reality is beyond our ken. It says Reality is what we can access… And it eschews causality, in essence. (Why questions are not addressed by statistical equations…) Einstein was wrong when he said "God doesn't play dice…". We only hope that He plays fair!
Causality isn't a "useless" concept. It is merely one of limited applicability. (Stomp your feet and hurl derisive epithets all you want! Surely, God makes you do it, and you can't help yourself.) Modern science (physics) won't care.
Your reasons for doing so are not "scientific," and a form of "sour grapes"…

I'm not opposed to poetry and mysticism: Only don't try to supplant science with either! You won't like the result.
—————————————————————————
* I'm pretty sure you meant "erroneously ascribed" and not "overdetermined"… Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #214 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Quote from: ersi on
I agree that causality is overdetermined(*), but I don't agree that it's a useless concept.
But you're not agreeing with me: I think causality is under-determined by current theories!

I meant: Causality gets overemphasised, it tends to be seen in too many places. What you probably mean is that causality is ill-defined. With specifics added, I may agree on that too.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Our modern science is heavily prejudiced by the realities of our epistemology; and our epistemology is rational.
You'd prefer it be otherwise. I don't know how we can overcome this difference… :)

You mean I'd prefer our epistemology to be irrational? Actually, I prefer our epistemology to depend less on empiricism, but still completely depend on rationality. Rationality itself is unempirical! (When did you last "detect intelligence" as promised by the Intelligent Design theory?) This may come as a surprise to you if you never thought of this before, but this only means you were not rational enough.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

QED doesn't say Reality is beyond our ken. It says Reality is what we can access… And it eschews causality, in essence. (Why questions are not addressed by statistical equations…)

Indeed. However, even the basic empirical how-questions are inevitably framed by some kind of metaphysics. Given sufficiently (and rationally) elaborated metaphysics, also why-questions are satisfactorily answered.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Einstein was wrong when he said "God doesn't play dice…". We only hope that He plays fair!

"God plays dice" is an incomplete (i.e. wrong) way to put it. If there's free will, then reality inevitably looks like a game of dice, but this only looks so from the perspective of free will, of free choice. Whereas from the omniscient perspective there can only be a single true path marked by right choices. Free will (like crossroads with many options where the choice is like a roll of dice) entails lack of omniscience.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Causality isn't a "useless" concept. It is merely one of limited applicability.

Completely agreed here...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

(Stomp your feet and hurl derisive epithets all you want! Surely, God makes you do it, and you can't help yourself.) Modern science (physics) won't care.
Your reasons for doing so are not "scientific," and a form of "sour grapes"…

...but looks like our attitude and corollaries differ wildly, even when we agree on something rather fundamental.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

I'm not opposed to poetry and mysticism: Only don't try to supplant science with either! You won't like the result.

Already been there, done that, and I know and like the result. Of course I can see that you don't like it, but this is not my problem.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

* I'm pretty sure you meant "erroneously ascribed" and not "overdetermined"… Please correct me, if I'm wrong.

You are right :)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #215 –
Quote from: ersi on
(When did you last "detect intelligence" as promised by the Intelligent Design theory?)
The Intelligent Design theory is a prime example of rationality, divorced from a sensible empiricism... :)
Quote from: ersi on
Given sufficiently (and rationally) elaborated metaphysics, also why-questions are satisfactorily answered.
True, so true! Most often, they're answered by Just So Stories.
Quote from: ersi on
If there's free will, then reality inevitably looks like a game of dice, but this only looks so from the perspective of free will, of free choice. Whereas from the omniscient perspective
Ahem! From an "omnicient perspective" neither science nor statistics is possible; but they're unnecessary, too -- all knowledge is "direct" in that case.
Fantastic! No? :)

Regarding photons: Are you claiming that they have free will? Or do you prefer the equally odd claim, that chance is a causative agent? Or (this is more likely, I think) that our free will, which indeed must preclude our having omnicience, also crafts and limits our science? Our epistemology? Our reality?
We're back to Just So Stories... :)
(It's possible that you're unfamiliar with Kipling's Just So Stories?)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #216 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Quote from: ersi on
(When did you last "detect intelligence" as promised by the Intelligent Design theory?)
The Intelligent Design theory is a prime example of rationality, divorced from a sensible empiricism... :)

Quite the opposite. It's empiricism irrationally overblown, just like it is in materialism (physicalism). ID theory shares with materialism the point of view that intellect, mind and consciousness are epiphenomena on brain functions and should be directly observable/measurable in some way.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Quote from: ersi on
Given sufficiently (and rationally) elaborated metaphysics, also why-questions are satisfactorily answered.
True, so true! Most often, they're answered by Just So Stories.

Whereas your thesis is that why-questions are not allowed? I have not seen you behave in accordance with it. But this is not really your fault. Nobody can keep such an impossible commitment.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Quote from: ersi on
If there's free will, then reality inevitably looks like a game of dice, but this only looks so from the perspective of free will, of free choice. Whereas from the omniscient perspective
Ahem! From an "omnicient perspective" neither science nor statistics is possible; but they're unnecessary, too -- all knowledge is "direct" in that case.
Fantastic! No? :)

Science and statistics are quite possible from omniscient perspective, but they are unnecessary. For those who don't care about the omniscient perspective, i.e. who readily dismiss the possibility of a complete end-all of scientific investigation, such as yourself, science and statistics will remain ever-relevant. Enjoy them.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Regarding photons: Are you claiming that they have free will? Or do you prefer the equally odd claim, that chance is a causative agent? Or (this is more likely, I think) that our free will, which indeed must preclude our having omnicience, also crafts and limits our science? Our epistemology? Our reality?
We're back to Just So Stories... :)

Let me see. You don't like free will. You find statistical chance problematic. Causation disconcerts you. You ridicule omniscience. Then what are you left with besides Just So Stories?

Tell me your story of photons, then I will tell you mine.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #217 –
Quote from: ersi on
ID theory shares with materialism the point of view that intellect, mind and consciousness are epiphenomena on brain functions and should be directly observable/measurable in some way.

If you substitute "in-directly," I'd agree about the last part. "Epiphenomenal" is an unsupportable presumption (though popular...) that mires science in mere argument.
ID theory is a rationalization, pure and simple...
Quote from: ersi on
Whereas your thesis is that why-questions are not allowed? I have not seen you behave in accordance with it. But this is not really your fault. Nobody can keep such an impossible commitment.
I agree that such a commitment would be impossible to keep... But my "thesis" isn't that Why questions aren't or shouldn't be allowed; only that they aren't answerable by statistics.
Quote from: ersi on
ence and statistics are quite possible from omniscient perspective, but they are unnecessary.
No, sir.  Omniscience entails complete and direct knowledge... Science and statistics deal with mediated knowledge; the former, of reality and the latter, of our ignorance.
Quote from: ersi on
Let me see. You don't like free will. You find statistical chance problematic. Causation disconcerts you. You ridicule omniscience.
A-hem! I'm fine with free will! Chance (or randomness, if you prefer...) is, I think, a meaningless concept... Causation is -when it can be explained- is the surest and most satisfying sort of knowledge! I don't ridicule omniscience; I am simply unacquainted with it, except as a fantasy.
So... What? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #218 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

ID theory is a rationalization, pure and simple...

And you think that since the word shares the root with "rationality" then rationalisation is rational? You'd be surprised to hear what words are used on such occasion in some other languages.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Quote from: ersi on
Whereas your thesis is that why-questions are not allowed? I have not seen you behave in accordance with it. But this is not really your fault. Nobody can keep such an impossible commitment.
I agree that such a commitment would be impossible to keep... But my "thesis" isn't that Why questions aren't or shouldn't be allowed; only that they aren't answerable by statistics.

If not by statistics, then the answer must lie elsewhere. I am okay with metaphysics.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Quote from: ersi on
ence and statistics are quite possible from omniscient perspective, but they are unnecessary.
No, sir.  Omniscience entails complete and direct knowledge... Science and statistics deal with mediated knowledge; the former, of reality and the latter, of our ignorance.

At first you demonstrated utter unwillingness to deal with the omniscient perspective, but now you pretend you know something about it. Okay, I call this progress.

Given omniscience, which is complete and direct knowledge, can you say that the notion of mediated knowledge is excluded from the omniscient mind? That if you mention or bring up mediated knowledge, then the omniscient mind would have no clue about it? Obviously, omniscient mind would know all about mediated and unmediated, complete and deficient, scientific, statistical, and metaphysical. It would know, but would have no use for any of it. All such things are crutches for the limited minds.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

So... What? :)

You were about to share some story about photons.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #219 –
Quote from: ersi on
Obviously, omniscient mind would know all about mediated and unmediated, complete and deficient, scientific, statistical, and metaphysical. It would know, but would have no use for any of it. All such things are crutches for the limited minds.

Would have no use for any of it because the omniscient being "is" entirely, when needing to use, you aren't entirely.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #220 –
BS = BR2

BS = Energy to produce BS .

BR = energy to   refute BS

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #221 –
Quote from: ersi on
Given omniscience, which is complete and direct knowledge, can you say that the notion of mediated knowledge is excluded from the omniscient mind?
No: I say that, given the definition of omniscience, mediated knowledge is precluded…for the omniscient being.
The switch to talk of notions makes as much sense as claiming that since I understand the word omniscience I must believe in an omniscient being! You see why that is unwarranted, don't you?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #222 –
No, Oakdale. I didn't ask you to believe anything. It's only requested of you to acknowledge the logical relations and distinctions of notions. No beings and no beliefs required.

Omniscience is a perspective. Any metaphysically inclined human can consider the omniscient perspective, calmly and rationally as with any other perspective, just as a thought experiment. You almost did it, but you got pissed at something that was not mentioned and not even implied. That's unwarranted.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #223 –
I merely stated that science and probability have no meaning, when applied to an omniscient being… In fact, they (these disciplines…) would be beyond the "power" of an omniscient being.
It's not my fault, if your logic is deficient: Omniscience is perfect, direct knowledge; if you mean something else, name or describe it…

Put another way:
Quote from: ersi on
It's only requested of you to acknowledge the logical relations and distinctions of notions.
If you won't -and you think I'm at fault for actually doing so- how do we proceed? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #224 –
You'd need to argue your case, not just assert it. We both know that our metaphysics differ, so without proper elaboration we run the risk of conveying literally nonsense to each other.

But if it is too hard for you to clarify your metaphysics, then let's deal with simpler things. The story of photons, please. People are waiting.