Zombies remind us that death is social

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by Marcus »

Typhoon wrote:2 + 2 = 4 represents a fundamental reproducible empirical observation regarding the physical reality of our universe.
Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A, then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C. But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G, as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on. Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one's conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point. Another example: Imagine someone asking you whether the meter stick in your house was actually a meter long. How would you demonstrate such a thing? You could take it to your next-door neighbor and compare it to his meter stick and say, "see, it's a meter." However, the next question is obvious, "How do we know your neighbor's meter stick is really a meter?" This process would go on infinitely unless there were an ultimate meter stick (which, if I am not mistaken, actually existed at one time and was measured by two fine lines marked on a bar of platinum-iridium allow). It is this ultimate meter stick that defines a meter. When asked how one knows whether the ultimate meter stick is a meter, the answer is obviously circular: The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Zombies remind us that death is social

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
“We know truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart, and it is in this last way that we know first principles; and reason, which has no part in it, tries in vain to impugn them. The skeptics, who have only this for their object, labor to no purpose. We know that we are not dreaming, and, however impossible it is for us to prove it by reason, this inability demonstrates only the weakness of our reason, but not, as they [the skeptics] affirm, the uncertainty of all our knowledge. For the knowledge of first principles, as space, time, motion, number, is as sure as any of those we get from reasoning. And reason must trust this knowledge of the heart and of instinct, and must base every argument on them. The heart senses that there are three dimensions in space and that the numbers are infinite, and reason then shows that there are no two square numbers one of which is double of the other. Principles are intuited, propositions are inferred, all with certainty, though in different ways.


-Blaise Pascal


Nice quote. What the skeptics really don't get is that they too know first principles by the heart. Their epistemological self-consciousness gets as far back as reason, no further.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:2 + 2 = 4 represents a fundamental reproducible empirical observation regarding the physical reality of our universe.
Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
No.

In the physical sciences, beliefs do not determine physical reality. Physical reality determines beliefs.

There are plenty of Darwin award winners who believed that gravity,
the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy, and
the Fermi-Dirac statistics the give rise to the solidity of matter did not apply to them.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by Marcus »

Typhoon wrote:No.

In the physical sciences, beliefs do not determine physical reality. Physical reality determines beliefs.

There are plenty of Darwin award winners who believed that gravity, the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy, and the Fermi-Dirac statistics the give rise to the solidity of matter did not apply to them.


I'm not talking about the physical sciences.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:2 + 2 = 4 represents a fundamental reproducible empirical observation regarding the physical reality of our universe.
Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
No.

In the physical sciences, beliefs do not determine physical reality. Physical reality determines beliefs.

There are plenty of Darwin award winners who believed that gravity,
the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy, and
the Fermi-Dirac statistics the give rise to the solidity of matter did not apply to them.
Do you have a citation of someone doing this who wasn't intoxicated, delusional or suffering from the arrogance that comes from youthful exuberance?

I hear this all the time: You don't believe that X, well look at all the people who didn't believe in X and they are all idiots jumping off cliffs....

but there isn't ever a story of "Oafish Man Attempts to Fly!" to go along with it.

And furthermore, what is gravity? And how do you know of its universality and uniformity throughout all of spacetime? How do you quantify that?
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
Not really. Find me a man who will argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. On the other hand, I can find you plenty of people willing to rant at you about how the Bible or Quran is a worthless piece of lavender. There is something about 2+2=4 that is immediately more obvious and appealing to the human mind than religious beliefs.

The way you try to describe everything makes everything a matter of faith, and therefore faith has no meaning or value. I believe in God the same way I believe I had poutine for lunch yesterday. Ho hum.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
Not really. Find me a man who will argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. On the other hand, I can find you plenty of people willing to rant at you about how the Bible or Quran is a worthless piece of lavender. There is something about 2+2=4 that is immediately more obvious and appealing to the human mind than religious beliefs.

The way you try to describe everything makes everything a matter of faith, and therefore faith has no meaning or value. I believe in God the same way I believe I had poutine for lunch yesterday. Ho hum.
You obviously haven't been hanging out in the Post-Structural Feminist Mathematical Departments

My memory is failing me, but there is a prominent feminist mathematician who basically started the field who argues this very thing: that 2+2 equaling 4 is oppressive male chauvinism and the oppressed must revolt over such a notion.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Epistemologically unconscious . . .

Post by Marcus »

Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
Not really. Find me a man who will argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. On the other hand, I can find you plenty of people willing to rant at you about how the Bible or Quran is a worthless piece of lavender. There is something about 2+2=4 that is immediately more obvious and appealing to the human mind than religious beliefs.

The way you try to describe everything makes everything a matter of faith, and therefore faith has no meaning or value. I believe in God the same way I believe I had poutine for lunch yesterday. Ho hum.
You haven't a clue, Ib, you haven't a clue. Whether one will argue about 2 + 2 or whatever says nothing whatsoever about why he believes whatever.
waders_cartoon.jpg
waders_cartoon.jpg (14.82 KiB) Viewed 990 times
Stay outta deep water . . :oops:
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by Typhoon »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
Not really. Find me a man who will argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. On the other hand, I can find you plenty of people willing to rant at you about how the Bible or Quran is a worthless piece of lavender. There is something about 2+2=4 that is immediately more obvious and appealing to the human mind than religious beliefs.

The way you try to describe everything makes everything a matter of faith, and therefore faith has no meaning or value. I believe in God the same way I believe I had poutine for lunch yesterday. Ho hum.
You obviously haven't been hanging out in the Post-Structural Feminist Mathematical Departments

My memory is failing me, but there is a prominent feminist mathematician who basically started the field who argues this very thing: that 2+2 equaling 4 is oppressive male chauvinism and the oppressed must revolt over such a notion.
I recall there was some post-modernist feminist that used to rant that physics was nothing more than oppression by the patriarchy.

It's complete bullsh*t, just like the pronouncements of her fellow male post-modernists regarding science.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Zombies remind us that death is social

Post by Enki »

2+2=4 is not empirically true. It follows internally consistent to the rules of arithmetic AS DEFINED. In reality the notion that one thing is separate from another cannot be proven. We impose our arithmetical model upon reality in order to manipulate it. But math is still a human creation as elegant as it may be.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Epistemologically unconscious . . .

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
Not really. Find me a man who will argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. On the other hand, I can find you plenty of people willing to rant at you about how the Bible or Quran is a worthless piece of lavender. There is something about 2+2=4 that is immediately more obvious and appealing to the human mind than religious beliefs.

The way you try to describe everything makes everything a matter of faith, and therefore faith has no meaning or value. I believe in God the same way I believe I had poutine for lunch yesterday. Ho hum.
You haven't a clue, Ib, you haven't a clue. Whether one will argue about 2 + 2 or whatever says nothing whatsoever about why he believes whatever.
Hmm. Well it seems to me like you don't have a clue, but are unable to argue any further so you're giving up and adding a little personal insult as a parting shot.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Typhoon wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
Not really. Find me a man who will argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. On the other hand, I can find you plenty of people willing to rant at you about how the Bible or Quran is a worthless piece of lavender. There is something about 2+2=4 that is immediately more obvious and appealing to the human mind than religious beliefs.

The way you try to describe everything makes everything a matter of faith, and therefore faith has no meaning or value. I believe in God the same way I believe I had poutine for lunch yesterday. Ho hum.
You obviously haven't been hanging out in the Post-Structural Feminist Mathematical Departments

My memory is failing me, but there is a prominent feminist mathematician who basically started the field who argues this very thing: that 2+2 equaling 4 is oppressive male chauvinism and the oppressed must revolt over such a notion.
I recall there was some post-modernist feminist that used to rant that physics was nothing more than oppression by the patriarchy.

It's complete bullsh*t, just like the pronouncements of her fellow male post-modernists regarding science.
Are you familiar with a website that claims all physicists are glorified meta-physicians who are secretly continuing the work of the scholastics from the Dark Age and repressing that "physics" should be based on Kepler's Laws alone? I can't find it on google, but I wonder if you'd ever run into that? It's good for a laugh or two.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Tutoring needed . . .

Post by Marcus »

Ibrahim wrote:. . it seems to me like you don't have a clue, but are unable to argue any further so you're giving up . .
No, I'm sitting here, patiently waiting for you to catch up . .
Enki wrote:. . We impose our . . model upon reality in order to manipulate it. . .
Exactly! Can you explain that to Ib . . . please . . . ;) . . I'm done worn down to a nub tryin' . . . an he still doesn't get it . . . :(
Last edited by Marcus on Tue May 22, 2012 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: How do you know . . ?

Post by Typhoon »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:Yes. One chooses to believe 2 + 2 = 4 as surely as one chooses to believe the Bible or the Koran, and the self-authenticating source of authority for believing 2 + 2 = 4 is the predictability of the physical universe.
Not really. Find me a man who will argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. On the other hand, I can find you plenty of people willing to rant at you about how the Bible or Quran is a worthless piece of lavender. There is something about 2+2=4 that is immediately more obvious and appealing to the human mind than religious beliefs.

The way you try to describe everything makes everything a matter of faith, and therefore faith has no meaning or value. I believe in God the same way I believe I had poutine for lunch yesterday. Ho hum.
You obviously haven't been hanging out in the Post-Structural Feminist Mathematical Departments

My memory is failing me, but there is a prominent feminist mathematician who basically started the field who argues this very thing: that 2+2 equaling 4 is oppressive male chauvinism and the oppressed must revolt over such a notion.
I recall there was some post-modernist feminist that used to rant that physics was nothing more than oppression by the patriarchy.

It's complete bullsh*t, just like the pronouncements of her fellow male post-modernists regarding science.
Are you familiar with a website that claims all physicists are glorified meta-physicians who are secretly continuing the work of the scholastics from the Dark Age and repressing that "physics" should be based on Kepler's Laws alone? I can't find it on google, but I wonder if you'd ever run into that? It's good for a laugh or two.
No, I haven't.

However, such claims and sites are so common, that a Crackpot Index has been developed . . . only half in jest.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Tutoring needed . . .

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:. . it seems to me like you don't have a clue, but are unable to argue any further so you're giving up . .
No, I'm sitting here, patiently waiting for you to catch up . .
Enki wrote:. . We impose our . . model upon reality in order to manipulate it. . .
Exactly! Can you explain that to Ib . . . please . . . ;) . . I'm done worn down to a nub tryin' . . . an he still doesn't get it . . . :(

I'm going with Typhoon on this one. Marcus doesn't even know what he's talking about, which makes his attempts to insult other people all the more precious.
Demon of Undoing
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Zombies remind us that death is social

Post by Demon of Undoing »

Essentialism argument number 42 in three, two, one...

There is no two. Until you've fired your second shot out of your cut- down Twelve, and the bear is still up and at you.
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Zombies remind us that death is social

Post by Taboo »

Enki wrote:2+2=4 is not empirically true. It follows internally consistent to the rules of arithmetic AS DEFINED. In reality the notion that one thing is separate from another cannot be proven.
Dunno. One gorgeous Russian girl I know is separated from her equally gorgeous younger sister by an eternity in prison.
We impose our arithmetical model upon reality in order to manipulate it. But math is still a human creation as elegant as it may be.
And curiously, some models work better than others. Houses built ignoring the principle that the weight of the roof and the weight of the snow add up have this alarming tendency to kill their occupants. I wonder if that suggests something about the nature of Reality.

Unless, of course, you're a cat.
Image
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Well . . . does it?

Post by Marcus »

Taboo wrote:
We impose our arithmetical model upon reality in order to manipulate it. . .
And curiously, some models work better than others. . . I wonder if that suggests something about the nature of Reality.
Do tell . . does it? Suggest something about the nature of Reality, that is?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Zombies remind us that death is social

Post by Taboo »

Dunno. Build a paper roof for an Alaskan winter and let me know how that works out for you.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Don't be bashful . . spit it out . .

Post by Marcus »

Taboo wrote:Dunno. Build a paper roof for an Alaskan winter and let me know how that works out for you.
Don't be silly. What would that tell me about your question? — "I wonder if that suggests something about the nature of Reality?"

But was your question rhetorical? If so, spit it out . . what's your point?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Zombies remind us that death is social

Post by Enki »

Taboo wrote:
Enki wrote:2+2=4 is not empirically true. It follows internally consistent to the rules of arithmetic AS DEFINED. In reality the notion that one thing is separate from another cannot be proven.
Dunno. One gorgeous Russian girl I know is separated from her equally gorgeous younger sister by an eternity in prison.
We impose our arithmetical model upon reality in order to manipulate it. But math is still a human creation as elegant as it may be.
And curiously, some models work better than others. Houses built ignoring the principle that the weight of the roof and the weight of the snow add up have this alarming tendency to kill their occupants. I wonder if that suggests something about the nature of Reality.

Unless, of course, you're a cat.
Image
My point is simply a matter of definitions. 1, 2, and 4 are defined terms, equals is a defined term. So within the perfectly logically consistant creation known as math, all of that reconciles elegantly. But as every mathematician will tell you things are mathematically possible that are not actually possible. Math is not a fundamental part of nature, it's a fundamental part of our comprehension of nature. It really works, it really helps us understand, it's a phenomenal map. But it's still ultimately a map.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Maps . . .

Post by Marcus »

Enki wrote:. . Math is not a fundamental part of nature, it's a fundamental part of our comprehension of nature. It really works, it really helps us understand, it's a phenomenal map. But it's still ultimately a map.
It is an example of our ability to think God's thoughts after Him.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Zombies remind us that death is social

Post by Taboo »

Enki wrote:My point is simply a matter of definitions. 1, 2, and 4 are defined terms, equals is a defined term. So within the perfectly logically consistant creation known as math, all of that reconciles elegantly. But as every mathematician will tell you things are mathematically possible that are not actually possible. Math is not a fundamental part of nature, it's a fundamental part of our comprehension of nature. It really works, it really helps us understand, it's a phenomenal map. But it's still ultimately a map.
Ok, we are finally making progress.
Math is like a map.
Consider the fact that there are an infinite number of possible maps.
Only some maps are useful.
Now why is a map useful?
Because of the pretty colors?
Or because it consistently and accurately corresponds to something?
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Don't be bashful . . spit it out . .

Post by Taboo »

Marcus wrote:
Taboo wrote:Dunno. Build a paper roof for an Alaskan winter and let me know how that works out for you.
Don't be silly. What would that tell me about your question? — "I wonder if that suggests something about the nature of Reality?"

But was your question rhetorical? If so, spit it out . . what's your point?
Gravity is a harsh teacher?
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Zombies remind us that death is social

Post by Enki »

Taboo wrote:
Enki wrote:My point is simply a matter of definitions. 1, 2, and 4 are defined terms, equals is a defined term. So within the perfectly logically consistant creation known as math, all of that reconciles elegantly. But as every mathematician will tell you things are mathematically possible that are not actually possible. Math is not a fundamental part of nature, it's a fundamental part of our comprehension of nature. It really works, it really helps us understand, it's a phenomenal map. But it's still ultimately a map.
Ok, we are finally making progress.
Math is like a map.
Consider the fact that there are an infinite number of possible maps.
Only some maps are useful.
Now why is a map useful?
Because of the pretty colors?
Or because it consistently and accurately corresponds to something?
Well yes, but I think there is a reality that a lot of people judge a map as useless because they are not sure what it is actually mapping.

I think Christianity is a phenomenal map. But when you try to compare it to science it's like saying, 'my map of Spain is superior to your star chart of the Andromeda Galaxy.' They are just mapping different things.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Post Reply