Solipsism for example, I would call a non-philosophy and more of what should be a clinically recognized mental illness — Outlander

What does it mean to say that models are wrong? — Janus

The statistician George Box said "All models are wrong but some are useful." — Gary Venter

What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists? — 180 Proof

What proof do you have that ants don't philosophize? — Agree-to-Disagree

Philosophy Twitter — AmadeusD

If your reply does not address these quotes directly, I will move on. — Lionino

Yes, there are many different interpretations even in the academic communities. Which one is the absolute true one? — Corvus

He is wrong. Please see the above figure. — MoK

So how do you discover intrinsic geometry empirically? You measure angles, you measure dot products and you see what the values are. If those values are what you'd get with flat space, you're in a flat space. If they're what you'd get in curved space, well, you're in a curved space. You can consider this the definition of a curved space. You don't have to envision space bending into some other space. Just that in our space, we measure dot products of basis vectors to have some non-zero value. — https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/547140/what-is-intrinsic-curvature

We call it "curvature" because it works exactly like curvature. Angles and distances measured are exactly what they would be if the space was curved. We don't assume an embedding space because we don't need to to get the right answers. So why add something to the theory that cannot be observed?

Unless you can observe the embedding space, then no, you cannot deduce that you exist embedded in a higher space. That's an assumption that cannot be tested.

I don't think that time ever comes. — MoK

It's not about mathematics itself, or math being racist or about 2+2=5 — ssu

Your next move is to deny the evidence that I provided by whatever way you can — Lionino

G E Moore proved the existence of the external world by waving his two hands - saying, "Here is one hand, and here is another hand." Seeing the hands and being able to wave them proves that there exists the external world — Corvus

I was reading "A Kant Dictionary" by H. Caygill last night, and it says, Noumenon is not a being or existence in Kant — Corvus

but would you agree with me that Laurie Rubel’s comment about math and data being non-objective was likely not referring to the logic of calculating in itself but the contested subject matter it is attached to — Joshs

That many facts in the social sphere are contestable doesn’t in itself seem to be an unreasonable assumption — Joshs

I will consider this a joke until further notice. — L'éléphant

Indeed, the organizers coined the term 'Critical Race Theory' to make it clear that our work locates itself in intersection of critical theory and race, racism and the law. — Crenshaw Kimberlé 1995

In its critique of liberalism and its pessimism vis-à-vis incremental approaches to racial reform, CRT draws broadly from older currents of thought borrowed from Antonio Gramsci, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and W. E. B. Du Bois, as well as newer ways of thinking linked to the Black Power, Chicano, and radical feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s. — Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society (2008), p. 344

Where? An WSJ article? So someone really has the problem with actual arithmetic? If you provide "plain proof", the just give the reference...even if this is just five pages, it's hard to find. — ssu

I too failed to find plain proof of anyone advocating dodgy arithmetic. — GrahamJ

Well, I don't know your personal life, or where or when you went to school.

You're welcome, but I really think you're wrong here. A well-rounded understanding of the natural sciences is important for any thinker to be able to carry themselves in a sound manner. But, you are free to disagree if you want.

That's pretty much the exact reason why I believe you're here too, entertaining this discussion.

Not withstanding, your definition of a mathematician can only be so accurate, considering your knowledge of natural sciences.

I technically have, in my possession, every conceivable object in the known universe and beyond - only I have 0 of them

I will think deeply on these

Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. — Patterner

And you don't see that this is fallacious, and unwieldy at best, and complete irrelevant at worst> — AmadeusD

Without Aristotle, there would be CPR either. — AmadeusD

But motivation is not a cause on my account. Its an invitation or inspiration. I don't think anyone would claim that Kant's CPR was caused by Hume. I distinguish between something being 'put in mind' and an act being 'caused'. It seems you're not? — AmadeusD

Here. — MoK

How the lines could deviate towards or away from each other if the geometry of space is flat. — MoK

Actually, after some thought, I realized that even intrinsic curvature also requires a higher dimension. — MoK

No, general relativity is based on something called "intrinsic curvature", which is related to how much parallel lines deviate towards or away from each other. It doesn't require embedding space-time in a higher dimensional structure to work.

In summary, it is important to distinguish between extrinsic curvature, which involves bending through an additional dimension, and intrinsic curvature, which is directly visible on a surface without reference to an extra dimension. — physicsforums

For example, if you draw a triangle on the surface of the paper, the sum of the interior angles of the triangle will be 180 degrees. When you bend the paper or even roll it up into a cylinder nothing will change and the angles will still add to 180.

In order to have intrinsic curvature, you have to look at a manifold with at least two dimensions--for example, a 2-sphere [aka circle]. Then your question can be rephrased as: how is it possible to tell that a 2-sphere is curved, without making any use of an embedding of it into a space with more than 2 dimensions? The answer to that is, by looking at geodesic deviation, which can be measured purely within the surface.

It is physically necessary if it is logically necessary. — MoK

Spacetime could simply be limitless if its geometry is flat globally. — MoK

The Noumena is not hte thing-in-itself. It is the existent as perceived by something other than human sense-perception. So, unknown to us, but theoretically knowable. The Ding-en-sich is that existent without any perception of it is my understanding. — AmadeusD

Putting these pieces together we can see that “things in themselves” [Dinge an sich selbst] and (negative) “noumena” are concepts that belong to two different distinctions: “thing in itself” is one half of the appearance/thing in itself distinction, which Kant originally defined at A491/B519 in terms of their existence: appearances have no existence “grounded in themselves” while things in themselves do. “Noumena” is one half of the distinction phenomena/noumena which Kant characterizes at B307 as the distinction between what can be an object of our sensible spatiotemporal intuition and what cannot be an object of sensible intuition.

However, we can make a connection between them: things in themselves, the objects whose existence is “ground in itself”, and which appear to us in space and time, cannot be objects of any sensible intuition, so they are negative noumena. Whether, additionally, they are also objects of an intuitive intellect, is a separate matter.

And logically, if a noumenon was proven to be existent, then would it be still a noumenon? Or a phenomenon? — Corvus

All objects of empirical intuition are appearances, but only those that are “thought in accordance with the unity of the categories” are phenomena. For instance, if I have a visual after-image or highly disunified visual hallucination, that perception may not represent its object as standing in cause-effect relations, or being an alteration in an absolutely permanent substance. These would be appearances but not phenomena.

Aren't they the obvious sensations from your biological bodily workings telling your senses — Corvus

or why are you using your hair dryer too close to the skin? — Corvus

On places like 4chan it is not rare to have people talking about tulpas, creating realities through concentrated thought — thinking something is true makes it so — although this generally partially ironic (like everything in the Alt-Right) — Count Timothy von Icarus

When Mark Brahmin lays out his plan for a new religion based on worship of Apollo — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which bias originally derived from the bias input data, as is in the article. — Pantagruel

In the classification task, participants were instructed to observe a series of tissue samples, to decide, for each sample, whether it was affected or not by a fictitious disease called Lindsay Syndrome. Each tissue sample had cells of two colours, but one of them was presented in a greater proportion and volunteers were instructed to follow this criterion to identify the presence of the syndrome.

Like I said, it's a fact. Do some reading. — Pantagruel

"Training up" a neural net. — Pantagruel

Categorization is supplied, it's not intrinsic to the nature of a picture Copernicus. — Pantagruel

It's Critical Theory... not 'Critical Race Theory'. You should read it. — creativesoul

How could something be an epistemic being — Corvus

If you accept the existence of the Kantian Thing-in-itself in Noumena, then that would be a proof of the existence of the outside world. No? Because Noumena exists in the physical or external world. — Corvus

In the transcendental argument of the Refutation of Idealism, Kant’s target is not Humean skepticism about the applicability of a priori concepts, but rather Cartesian skepticism about the external world

More specifically, Kant intends to refute what he calls problematic idealism, according to which the existence of objects outside us in space is “doubtful and indemonstrable” (B274)

All off the above from the SEP.

It cannot exist in your mind according to Kant, or do you believe it does exist in your mind? — Corvus

For example, what are they? What are the things that you find in your mind whose origin you don't know? — Corvus

It requires as I illustrated. — MoK

Not all hyperspaces that I am talking about are necessarily closed so we could deal with finite hyperspace dimensions which accommodate everything. You are however right that we need infinite dimensions if all hyperspaces are closed. — MoK

I don't see any problem with hyperspace which has infinite dimensions though. — MoK

Here I am not talking about intrinsic curvature in spacetime that is caused by a massive object locally but extrinsic curvature which tells us what is the global geometry of space. — MoK

I was wondering, there were already micro particles in the environment before plastics were invented. How come they are not a problem? — Punshhh

I will wait on micro plastics until there are firmer research results. — Punshhh

They haven't responded at all, but that seems to be their way; they are in the unusual position of having less comments (8) than Discussions (11)... — Banno

No, general relativity is based on something called "intrinsic curvature", which is related to how much parallel lines deviate towards or away from each other. It doesn't require embedding space-time in a higher dimensional structure to work. — Does space curvature automatically imply extra dimensions?

Nope, spacetime curvature says nothing about the dimensionality. Your intuition here is probably wrong because human imagination needs 'some dimension to bend into' in order for something to be curved (i.e. an embedding in a higher-dimensional space). This is just our lack of imagination showing, though.

an artificial neural network’s initial training involvesbeing fed large amounts of data — Pantagruel

the AI system trained with such historical data will simply inherit this bias — Pantagruel

I've been studying neural networks since the 1990's, long before they were popular, or even commonly known.

There is no "AI" my friend — Pantagruel

By limited I mean restricted in size. Think of spacetime for example. If spacetime is restricted in size then we can reach its edges by moving in straight lines (of course if spacetime is not a closed manifold). The problem is what is beyond the edges. It cannot be nothing since nothing does not have any geometry and occupies no room. So, whatever is the beyond edges of spacetime is something. Therefore, what I said follows. — MoK

A mind-boggling property of this universe is that it is finite, yet it has no bounds. — https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-shape-is-the-universe/

Could this be an implication of accepting the Kantian thing-in-itself in empirical world? — Corvus

Kant never denied the existence of material things.
[...]
By referring to the ‘something’ that affects our sensibility and, hence, produces representations, Kant follows what he elsewhere terms Locke’s physiology of the human understanding (cf. A IX). Yet he goes on to note that we do not have to conceive of the ‘something’ that underlies appearances as a material object. It might as well be considered as something that is immaterial and can only be thought.
[...]
As we will see, Kant accepts the Leibnizian view that a non-material something must be considered to underlie appearances. Yet he does not identify the latter with the ‘something’ that is said to affect our sensibility
[from a footnote]
Jacobi implicitly identifies both the terms ‘transcendental object’ and ‘thing in itself’ with material objects that exist independently of the subject, something that in my view is not warranted. — Kant’s Multi-Layered Conception of Things in Themselves

Or does it mean just there are things that you have no experience of, therefore no awareness of them? — Corvus

Yes, you have given out your reason for the conclusion, but I am not sure if a semantic argument would be enough evidence for the ground. Because your language reflects the content of your mind, but not the other way around i.e. your belief is not based on what you said. — Corvus

If virtual particles did manage to form a BB, I have to wonder if the different mass would affect the brain's functioning. — Patterner