Science & economics have made living easier, not better. Is this advancement/progress?

In a sense yes - why burden 100 people with 1 bulldozer's work? However, we only recently discovered what in business is termed as hidden costs of science & economics (the deadly cocktail that has poisoned the land, the water, and the air).

In another sense - no! What is the aim of modern science? It is to preserve and/or restore our environment + undo the damage it has inflicted on the biosphere. We already had a pristine, healthy, environment. The doctor poisons the patient and then comes calling with the antidote.

God is merciful mon ami! :death: :flower:

I don't know how the system actually works, but there's a price to pay for everything - some are willing to, others no, still others are, as we speak, turning their options over in their heads. Hope for the best, prepare for the best, oui monsieur?

The socioeconomic climate, inter alia, and "the prevalent mentality", is the radix of our problems. Is it right to fault a man who's already off-balance for being knocked down by gale-force winds?

I believe you're close to the truth. From an evolutionary standpoint, it (selfishness) seems critical to survival, but from ethics, it's a prime evil/cardinal sin. Perhaps it violates the basic principle of quid pro quo. An individual enjoys the protection the group offers, but gives nothing back in return. There's another word for such folks - parasite.

I blame all our problems on the wiseguy who, 10,000 BC, went "hey guys, why not grow our own food?" My personal opinion is that human individualism though toned down over innumerable generations by natural selection is too strong for social existence; groups larger than 50 - 100 are, I think, unstable and it shows - large cities tend to have high crime rates. As our astute OP seems to have noticed, a person only wants a friend so that the probability of ending up as a lion's lunch goes down from 100% to 50%. Selfish is us and of course the same goes for all life.

If you really want to know, information is readily and freely available. — Vera Mont

God is merciful! El Rachum!

:fire: :up: Evolution may be blind but we definitely are not (re Gregor Mendel and his peas, dog/horse/sheep/cattle breeders and dogs/horses/sheep/cattle). The next step is both exciting and also worrying - designer babies, ethically very suspect.

---

As for evolution, I'm happy, nay, more than happy to go extinct! Momma nature agrees. It's a kinda suicide, but I don't want to end up in a B grade movie, although I don't actually mind a few sex scenes with a pretty lass.

The site you linked me to requires authorization which I don't know how to get. Can you provide more, a paragraph or two, for me to work on.

I know Aristotle was (also) a naturalist - an A1 polymath, that's what he was.

Downloaded the file. Gracias. True that determining/assuming the truth value of a proposition requires semantics - only after having understood the meaning of a proposition can we say it's true ... or false.

However we can write a short piece of code for a run-of-the-mill PC, e.g. it can just include a modus ponens subroutine, and it'll churn out truths like nobody's business; all that with zero semantics ability (computers allegedly don't have semantic understanding though they're annoying grammar Nazis). I believe that was the whole point of logic.

Like you keep reminding us, logic is grammar i.e. syntax (rules) are its stock-in-trade; the semantics is either ignored or is secondary e.g. I believe the implication as defined truth functionally is counterintuitive e.g. $the ~ moon ~ is ~ made ~ of ~ green ~ cheese \to 2 + 2 = 4$ is true despite the antecedent being false and there being no discernible semantic connection between it and the consequent.

In my TPF posts, I am not trying to appeal to religious believers, but to philosophical reasoners. I abandoned my own religion many years ago. And I don't try to convert my still-religious siblings to my personal worldview. They may think that I'm going to Hell for my unbelief, but I don't believe in Hell, so I'm not worried about their afterlife. Most religiously-minded people have little-to-no interest in the unsentimental abstractions of Philosophy, that have no regard for people's feelings.

I'm also not trying to bring Science & Religion "under one roof". Instead, I agree with Steven Jay Gould that they are "non-overlapping magisteria". As Galileo put it : "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go". Religion has more in common with Politics than with Science. Religion & Politics are programs to control human behavior, while Science is a method for controlling Nature. However, Gnomon may be aiming to bring Science & Philosophy back under one roof. — Gnomon

:up: Superb!

Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. Nevertheless, they're secondary to the primary aim which is to generate the mother of all models, one that encompasses both philosophy and science.

Bonam fortunam (broken Latin for good luck).

@Banno, do you notice any issues having to do with the fact that logic in the context of the issue being discussed in this thread is pure symbol manipulation, of course, as per some agreed up, rational rules.

As you mentioned, $(x = y) \to \Box (x = y)$ is a tautology in the sense its truth is independent of reality - it's, some would say, just the way the system works.

Those are good questions. I guess it would depend on, inter alia, the studier's goals and/or, colloquially speaking, brains and/or circumstances.

I'll try to illustrate with examples.

1. Goals: If my goal is finding the area of a triangle then I'd need to focus on the angles and sides (how many there are and their values).

2. Brains: Properties are abstractions and to home in on those properties that are essential takes brains. Everybody saw objects fall to the earth, the moon traverse the night sky, but it took a Newton to realize that these two were the same thing.

3. Circumstances: A biologist may be interested in a tiger's penis :rofl: but if you were to encounter one in the forest, your eyes would immediately zoom in on its claws and fangs.

It looks like I consider essential is contextual - it depends on the situation. Do I mean that there are no essential properties, a sine qua non for classification/categorization/identification? At this point, I call upon the all-too-familiar phrase ceteris paribus - the world is chaotic, but every once in a while there's a lull in the storm and when we place (an) object(s) in that quiet zone, its/their true essence comes into view.

A person can maintain their identity as the same thing yet at the same time have different properties.

But how can an object maintain its identity as the same thing yet at the same time have different properties ? — RussellA

Permit me to take a stab at that.

Properties
1. Essential i.e. critical to identity e.g. the 3 sides + the 3 angles of a triangle.
2. Incidental i.e. not critical to identity e.g. the color of the triangle above.

Apologies, as you can see some philosophical terminology are new to me and now that you explained what it is that you were trying to convey, I concur on the omnipresence bit, but of course it's too obvious to mention why omnipresence is much less defensible that God existing in some possible world. Clearly, God, a fortiori, can't be in hell, a legit possible world.

As for possibility, I used the standard definition - isn't or doesn't entail a contradiction. As far as I could tell, your statements didn't imply one and hence my reply "possible".

However, possible doesn't mean actual. Are you saying there's no alternative other than to accept your statements i.e. to reject your position entails a contradiction? Please clarify.

@Banno Perhaps @Mww doesn't agree that once x = y is observationally confirmed, $\Box (x = y)$ (tautology). Does s/he mean that if, observationally x = y, it is possible that, observationally ~x = y. I believe that amounts to a contradiction.

Observationally x = y $\to \Diamond (x = y)$

If, as Mww claims $\neg ((x = y) \to \Box (x = y))$ then $\Diamond (x = y \land \neg x = y)$, but $(x = y \land \neg x = y)$ is a contradiction (impossible) i.e. $\neg \Diamond (x = y \land \neg x = y)$

Ergo, reductio ad absurdum, $(x = y) \to \Box (x = y)$.

(9) is a tautaology — Banno

First, thanks for the awesome link. I'll need it. Does the site also explain the rules and latest notations of natural deduction?

Second, yep, it's a tautology. Is that a bad thing? It's a property of the system as opposed to being a property of the world?

Not just valid, also sound?

1. $x = y$ [assume for conditional proof]
2. $\Diamond (x = y)$ [from 1]
3. $\neg \Diamond (x = y \land \neg x = y)$ [LNC]
4. $\Box \neg (x = y \land \neg x = y)$ [from 3]
5. $\Box (x = y \lor \neg x = y)$ [from 4]
6. $\Box (x = y) \lor \Box(\neg x = y)$ [from 5]
7. $\Box (x = y) \lor \neg \Diamond (x = y)$ [from 6]
8. $\Box (x = y)$ [from 2, 7]
9. $(x = y) \to \Box (x = y)$ [1 to 8 conditional proof]

QED

1. $x = y$ [assume]
2. $\diamond ( \neg x = y)$ [assume]
3. $\diamond (× = y)$ [from 1]
4. $\diamond (x = y) \land \diamond (\neg x = y)$ [from 2 and 3]
5. $\diamond (x = y \land \neg x = y)$ [from 4]
6. $\neg \diamond (x = y \land \neg x = y)$ [contradictions impossible]
7. $(\diamond (x = y \land \neg x = y)) \land (\neg \diamond (x = y \land \neg x = y))$ [from 5 and 6]
8. $\neg \diamond (\neg x = y)$ [2 to 7 reductio ad absurdum]
9. $\Box \neg (\neg x = y)$ [from 8]
10 $\Box (x = y)$ [from 9]
11. $(x = y) \to \Box (x =y)$ [1 to 10 conditional proof]

QED

:up:

For the record, by "non-scientific" I mean philosophical and meta-physical. But ↪180 Proof seems to equate modern Philosophy with classical (non-quantum) Physics — Gnomon

I understand and just a suggestion, if the aim is to bring science and religion under one roof, you must pay heed to objections/criticisms/opposition from scientifically-minded folk like @180 Proof. I'm rather surprised that you're getting neither a yea nor a nay from the religiously-minded.

I have a feeling superposition means something more than uncertainty. Is it that simple? If I think there's a 50% chance that it'll rain, I don't usually don't go around saying it's both raining (the cat is alive) and not raining (the cat is dead).

This topic might be really interesting ... in some possible world. :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Time makes things interesting/boring! :grin:

@Gnomon

COMPUTER ALGORITHM (Information as the arche)

Chicken & Egg Problem vis-à-vis mind-information

To build mind, one needs information on how to build a mind.

To gather information on how to build a mind one needs mind.

I've never taken issue with the significant scientists he cites; I usually take issue only with Gnomon's poorly reasoned interpretations of the work of those scientists and the mystical / metaphysical traditions on which his interpretations rely. — 180 Proof

:up: On target mon ami. It's quite odd that a few of these scientists write so badly, leaving the door wide open for misinterpretations of all and sundry kinds. I'll leave Gnomon to come up with an appropriate response.

:up:

Silly me. I'm using 'information' in terms of contemporary information science and computer science (e.g. David Deutsch, Stephhen Wolfram) and the physics on which they are based according to my layman's understanding (it's been decades since university studies on these topics). "Enformationism", etc doesn't provide any nontrivial or coherent grounds to reconceive or reinterpret any aspects of those (or any other) contemporary sciences. Asa philosophical speculation, it's woo-of-the-gaps idealiam rationalized with sophistical statements (i.e. "meta-physics", etc). Good luck with all that pseudo-stuff, Smith. — 180 Proof

:grin:

I understand. I was especially moved by how science, as demonstrated by you in your last post to me, can so effortlessly and so heartlessly reduce to rubble painstakingly put together philosophies. I'm in awe, but to be fair there's dissent among the ranks mon ami - some scientists, probably those mystically-minded, are proposing novel ideas and models (@Gnomon cites big and small names) who, by his account, see eye to eye with him. That should mean something - a few scientific domains are still open to metaphysical interpretations like our friend Gnomon's. It's as unfortunate as is unsurprising that Gnomon has bet his money on quantum physics - the shadowy realm of science where cats are both dead and alive. It's an easy target as far as I can tell for mystic cum metaphysicans; all the more reason for scientists to get their act together and fast.

Au revoir.

From a fractal POV, our problems will be of the same type, only this time a hundred or a thousand fold magnified. Our resources of course, of course, scale up and so as Laozi once said, "ruling a country is like cooking a small fish". :lol:

:up:

You mean to say our universe is the radix of all other universes and so, if something violates the laws of our universe, it can't exist in any of the other universes i.e. since god is incompatible with our universe, the multiverse is too. Even if god exists, he doesn't in the multiverse because of the way he's defined.

Possible worlds, in the philosophical sense, doesn't equate to the multiverse.

I don't see how "philosophy as a way of life" was a persecuted "cause". — 180 Proof

Precisely. The Athenians were well-aware of and allowed, even encouraged, philosophy & philosophers (how else did it floruit and spread all over the globe?) - they were, if I recall correctly, well-respected citizens.

If I may be so bold as to conjecture - the first, Socrates is considered the Father of philosophy, usually becomes and actually is an alien to his/her own people (new ideas those days were looked upon with suspicion, out-group) and so what befell Socrates is not exactly surprising. It was not a matter of if but when he would be executed/exiled by Athens.

Of course him being not a martyr does nothing to diminish his signifcance to the world. He ranks among those rare folks who practice what they preach and I respect him for that despite the fact that he, like Aristotle, might've condoned, nay justified, slavery and all the other societal maladies of their time. We have the advantage of hindsight which they say, rightly so, is 20/20, as will our children and their children.


As sometimes you quote, 180 Proof,

I don't know how to do philosphy without being a disturber of the peace. — Baruch Spinoza

What is an example of something outside the multiverse?

If the light blips then atoms exist

$\forall x(Bx \to \exists x(Ax))$

If x thinks then a thinker x exists

$\forall x(Sx \to \exists x(Rx))$

Yes, if the possible worlds become actual — val p miranda

A big if! Are you up to making a wager à la Pascal?

It's fiction by intent. "A Unicorn is Running" pretends to make an assertion. So long as we keep the domains of discourse clear, there should be no problem.

Nothing to do with the cogito — Banno

Yep, that seems to be the most logical option.

I tried translating "If I think THEN I exist" into predicate logic but all I can manage is nonsense like this:

$\forall x(Tx \to \exists y(y = x))$. If I instantiate using d = Descartes, I get $Td \to \exists y(y = d)$. In English, if Descartes thinks then there exists something that is identical to Descartes.

In propositional logic there's no issue.

To be fair to Thomas Nagel, I only quoted one paragraph. — Wayfarer

A most interesting paragraph mon ami, a most interesting paragraph. Au revoir.

DNA is the medium (paper), the message (information is in the sequence of nucleotides)
— Agent Smith

The general thrust of molecular biology is that DNA encodes and transmits information. Biosemiosis says that it is, therefore, different in kind from inorganic matter, as that passage indicates. — Wayfarer

Merci beaucoup for that interesting remark.

Wonderful!

1. Information is an emergent property

2. Enformy is an effect and not a cause

I have a feeling we're talking past each other. @Gnomon's idea of information is not the one you're using. As s/he said, his information is outré (unconventional) which to me reads nonscientific.

Gracias 180 Proof for the reply.

The problem with naturalism is simply that evolution as the justification for reason is that it's circular (evolution justifies reason justifies evolution justifies reason ... round and round in the merry-go-round) and self-contradictory (reason needs a justification because we don't trust it, but then to justify it(self) with evolution or anything else for that matter means we trust it). Double whammy.

Nagel seems to be saying that the buck must stop somwehere - the justification has to have a finality to it - and he recommends to look inside rather than outside logic/reason, that is to say he finds circularity less problematic than auto-contradiction. He seems not to have realized that both fallacies are committed at the same time - we can't choose the lesser of two evils in this case because it's bundleware/a package deal.

You ask good questions mon ami, good questions. It's just that fictional stories are logically rich and I would much prefer it if logic could be used on them; alas this wish, like all my other wishes, won't come true.

Muchas gracias. I'll need some time to process that. It's not a surprise at all, now that I think of it, that logic (being reality-oriented) is so fiction-unfriendly. Care to comment on my reply to Banno below.



"A unicorn" I thought means "there is at least one unicorn"

Ra= Aaron (the unicorn) is running?

What about Descartes' cogito then?

If nonexistent things like Aaron the unicorn can run then cogito ergo sum is false.

You're an information goldmine, monsieur. :up:

My conception of how info underpins everything is that it's a prerequisite to, well, everything. Before, as I recall telling you, I create a universe, I need info on how to (re DNA). This idea could be extrapolated to everything is information, dissolving the boundary between information and dinge, between medium and message (did you watch the Denzel Washington movie The Book of Eli? Eli is the Biblia Sacra).

Just the other day I was musing over the universe as an übercomputer and wondering how many flops it takes to run this shitshow :grin: - from me picking my nose to that Uranium atom that just decayed to galactic and intergalactic interactions. That's a mind-boggling amount of calculations this übercomputer has to perform every single instant.