Civility

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

A formal logic system is defined by a set of axioms and derivation rules. A proof consists of showing that a statement (theorem) can be derived from the axioms through the repeated application of rules.

 

Ignoring  Gödel's unprovable theorems for a moment, the other 'truths' within such a system are recursive, i.e., computable. Does that mean that each proof has an existence before it is constructed? Probably not in the physical realm, but certainly in a mathematical sense. All such proofs come into 'mathematical existence' as soon as the formal system is defined.

 

What is curious is that the physical universe appears to be extremely adverse to violating the truths that are derivable in any internally consistent formal logic system. That's why mathematics (a formal system) is such a great tool for modeling physical sciences. Why this is so, is unknown and probably unknowable. Is it by design? By accident? My guess is that the universe itself is just a dynamic formal system trying to randomly construct instantiations of all the possible theorems. In other words, a computer. But I have no proof

Continuing that line of thought, the entire history of the universe, to use your words, comes into mathematical existence simply through the definition of the underlying formal system. The question is then, does someone or something need to actually formulate the axioms and rules in order for a universe to "exist," or is it sufficient that they could be formulated?

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

What is your criteria for truth? Let’s say true = 1. In your logic system does 0.99 = 1? What formal logic system are you using? 

 

A formal logic system is a well-defined construct. I'm not using any specific ones. In mathematics (a formal system)  0.99=1 is not true and can be proven.

 

[mansr]

And there's of course Douglas Adams:

 

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

 

There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

[jabbr]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

A formal logic system is a well-defined construct. I'm not using any specific ones. In mathematics (a formal system)  0.99=1 is not true and can be proven.

 

So you need to work your way through Heisenberg and then all of 1st half 20th century quantum mechanics before you even get to Quine. The physical world is not precisely described by formal discrete logic and the harder you try to describe it, the harder the physical universe fights back at your meager  attempts. 

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

A formal logic system is defined by a set of axioms and derivation rules. A proof consists of showing that a statement (theorem) can be derived from the axioms through the repeated application of rules.

Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach provides, in my opinion, an accessible introduction to formal logic (and a bunch of other interesting topics) without delving into heavy mathematics.

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, jabbr said:

So you need to work your way through Heisenberg and then all of 1st half 20th century quantum mechanics before you even get to Quine. The physical world is not precisely described by formal discrete logic and the harder you try to describe it, the harder the physical universe fights back at your meager  attempts. 

 

You are jumping way deep into the physical world, where I was operating in the theoretical. But, yes, even quantum mechanics of today is based on a formal system. Whether or not we are using the correct formal system to model it, and whether or not our human intelligence is capable of deriving and proving the appropriate theorems (those that can be proven) in our chosen formalism is a very different story.

[wgscott]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach provides, in my opinion, an accessible introduction to formal logic (and a bunch of other interesting topics) without delving into heavy mathematics.

 

It was, in essence, "popularized" philosophy.

 

There was more to it than name-dropping and appeal to authorities (despite the title).

[jabbr]

51 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

What is curious is that the physical universe appears to be extremely adverse to violating the truths that are derivable in any internally consistent formal logic system.

So I assume you wish to modify this statement? This isn't the case from even a theoretical point of views. Essence of Heisenberg Uncertainty. I would say that at its very essence the physical universe is described by statistical probabilities. Schrodingers cat etc etc

 

Not just any formal logic system: Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation ... can you derive a formal logic from this? (Hint: its not binary logic)

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

It was, in essence, "popularized" philosophy.

 

There was more to it than name-dropping and appeal to authorities (despite the title).

Yes, and that's why I enjoyed reading it. Also, Hofstadter is primarily a scientist. I find "real" philosophy for the most part either (deliberately) incomprehensible or caught up in circular logic, which is why I haven't bothered reading much of it.

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Yes, and that's why I enjoyed reading it. Also, Hofstadter is primarily a scientist. I find "real" philosophy for the most part either (deliberately) incomprehensible or caught up in circular logic, which is why I haven't bothered reading much of it.

 

Funny.  I actually didn't like the book very much.  I found it kind of disorganized and irritatingly chatty.  It kind of reminded me of a cocktail party conversation (not that I ever go to those).

[christopher3393]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I think it is too strong.  I think you can be a 100% subjectivist (whatever that is) and be an atheist, even a bigoted anti-religious zealot.  Similarly, I see no reason why someone cannot be an 100% objective realist and an ardent believer in a God.

 

I think there are some parallels, but conflating the two becomes problematic (as you imply).

 

Thanks. great. That was helpful.maybe we can resolve a misunderstanding. How do you reconcile the above statement with this one:

Quote

It is the nature of irrational subjectivism to appeal to and to venerate authority figures (gods, or priests or "high profile members/people") to strengthen their positions, typically because they lack compelling experimental evidence to support their personal beliefs.

.

[wgscott]

@mansr

 

You might enjoy this:  Karl Popper:  Realism and the Aim of Science

 

Quote

Realism and the Aim of Science is one of the three volumes of Karl Popper’s Postscript to the Logic of scientific Discovery. The Postscript is the culmination of Popper’s work in the philosophy of physics and a new famous attack on subjectivist approaches to philosophy of science.

 

Realism and the Aim of Science is the first volume of the Postcript. Popper here formulates and explains his non-justificationist theory of knowledge: science aims at true explanatory theories, yet it can never prove, or justify, any theory to be true, not even if is a true theory. Science must continue to question and criticise all its theories, even those that happen to be true. Realism and the Aim of Science presents Popper’s mature statement on scientific knowledge and offers important insights into his thinking on problems of method within science.

 

[lucretius]

41 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

What is your criteria for truth? Let’s say true = 1. In your logic system does 0.99 = 1? What formal logic system are you using? 

 

Do you mean .9999999... ? Does 0 = -0 ?

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Thanks. great. That was helpful.maybe we can resolve a misunderstanding. How do you reconcile the above statement with this one:

.

 

"Irrational subjectivism" as a subset of "subjectivism."   

 

Sorry, I see now what you are objecting to.

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

Do you mean .9999999... ? Does 0 = -0 ?

 

Does it matter? 0 = -0 depending on the differential path  

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

So I assume you wish to modify this statement? This isn't the case from even a theoretical point of views. Essence of Heisenberg Uncertainty. I would say that at its very essence the physical universe is described by statistical probabilities. Schrodingers cat etc etc

 

Not any formal logic system: Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation ... can you derive a formal logic from this? (Hint: its not binary logic)

 

Nope, you're still missing the point. It's not formal logic that's derived from physical science, it is science that is derived from formal logic. 

 

What Heisenberg did was change the then prevailing formal system by adding an additional axiom about the limit of measurability of momentum and position. The rest of the axioms and rules of the formal system remained unchanged. Just like Einstein did when he introduced his relativity principle (axiom).

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, wgscott said:

@mansr

 

You might enjoy this:  Karl Popper:  Realism and the Aim of Science

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

You guys so often resent how your expertise is not given proper respect.

 

For me, this perfectly encapsulates the the futility of this discussion.  One of the leading proponents of "civility" in this thread sees no hypocrisy in using a broad brush against those with whom he disagrees.  And some amateur psychoanalysis thrown in for free.  Ad hominem cloaked in a monk's robe of intellectual hubris and pomposity is still ad hominem.

[pkane2001]

56 minutes ago, mansr said:

Continuing that line of thought, the entire history of the universe, to use your words, comes into mathematical existence simply through the definition of the underlying formal system. The question is then, does someone or something need to actually formulate the axioms and rules in order for a universe to "exist," or is it sufficient that they could be formulated?

 

Good question... to which I don't have a solid answer. A good book by Max Tegmark that attempts an answer:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

 

If I can summarize his idea, it is that all mathematically possible universes must and do exist.

[christopher3393]

Samuel T Cogley:

 

I'll stand by the statement. I'd say a number of tech savvy and scientifically oriented members that often name themselves as "objectivist" have raised this issues on numerous occasions, often on threads regarding civility and tolerance. My general sense is that this is very frustrating for some, that this frustration is not uncommon, and that the persistence of some who don't get the science and can't  seem to realize that they don't can test one's tolerance. I even recall a particular thread where this came up numerous times and the retort was "why can't you just let it go?", which doesn't seem like a very satisfactory strategy, and may not be.

 

 A broad brush here may indicate a hasty generalization, but uncivil? I understand how as a free thinker you may have taken offense. I seem to have touched a nerve. The post was not an attack on you.

[mansr]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

Good question... to which I don't have a solid answer. A good book by Max Tegmark that attempts an answer:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

 

If I can summarize his idea, it is that all mathematically possible universes must and do exist.

That's as good an answer as any. The universe exists because it can. No further explanation needed. It's not a new idea though.

[wgscott]

15 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

The post was not an attack on you.

 

Yeah, it was directed at me.

 

But he is forgiven, for we are bonded ultimately in our universal quest for Truth.

 

Forgiving is the Atheist thing to do.  Now spread the word.

[lucretius]

54 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Forgiving is the Atheist thing to do.  Now spread the word.

 

No need to capitalize atheist.

[crenca]

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Where in all of that does it say a humanist (Platonic or otherwise), Roman catholic (or Muslim or Jew or Buddhist), or the " moral, metaphysical, philosophical, religious foundations about what a human is", cannot be expected to conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner?

 

 

 

I have a "What rock do you live under?" reaction to this.  Actually, it is a "are you really so provincial - caught up in your imperialistic, mythical, arrogant universalism that you can't see people really do believe different things about the world, man, truth, morality, etc. than you do?" reaction.  

 

Putting yourself in someone else's shoes, seeing the world as they do, attempting to grasp their experience and thinking to a degree that puts your own thoughts and feelings at risk (because it places your own in the same provisional context) is hard work.  I get it if you don't want to do it, but I also am not sympathetic if you get frustrated why others don't agree with your provincial, self serving understanding of respect and civility.

 

To more directly answer your question of "where does it say":  Everywhere!  It is written in their "sacred" works, their traditions, their communities, in their understanding of who and what they are, in their very lives and deaths.  Truly, you need to take off your "Coexist" rose colored glasses long enough to see a little something (just a little) of what other people actually believe and live (people live their beliefs).

 

 

 

Lets simply approach it from a linguistic meaning model :

 

 

 

Again, my first reaction is "surely you jest".  Really? Are you honestly convinced that all this boils down to a language problem, a mere matter of definitions?  Are you seriously suggesting that posters here such as Bill are merely ignorant of a few definitions or are simply being stubborn in some emotional way and a "Now now boys and girls, let us open our dictionaries and see that we don't really have a disagreement about anything substantial at all" paternalism is going to convince him to see things (civility, respect, or any other subject) your way??

 

Where are you from? Are you Amish?  Are you a women in a sultan's harem who sneaks up from the dungeon to play on your masters computer every once in a while?  

 

Here is what is going to happen:  soon (maybe the next time you post) you are going to insult Bill or some other person who does not see the world as you do, and he quite rightly is going to tell you to stuff it.  You're going to then complain about "civility" from your simple and simplistic "Can't we all just get along" philosophy and attach a humorous video at the end of it.  It is all so predictable...

 

Someone pass me the popcorn! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Nope, you're still missing the point. It's not formal logic that's derived from physical science, it is science that is derived from formal logic. 

 

What Heisenberg did was change the then prevailing formal system by adding an additional axiom about the limit of measurability of momentum and position. The rest of the axioms and rules of the formal system remained unchanged. Just like Einstein did when he introduced his relativity principle (axiom).

 

Hegel, Descartes and Leibniz would be proud of you. Likewise Heidegger. Probably.