The actuality you provided wasn't in your head, it was on the forum. — Harry Hindu

??

I said that I actually didn't give an explanation or definition. So how did I "provide an actuality"? I don't know what you're talking about.

Or simply put, if I were to give an explanation or definition (per what I consider that obviously), I would have written something different than what I wrote.

Not only are you wanting to argue for some reason, but I continually need to try to figure out what the f- you're even on about, which makes arguing difficult.

I said that I actually didn't give an explanation or definition. — Terrapin Station

Right, you're saying what you did independent of what I thought you did. Is what you did really the case, independent of what I thought you did? It seems to me that you're correcting me - informing me of what really is the case, independent of anyone else's view. If you're not correcting me, then what are you doing - just letting us know what you think? So what? Why should I care what you think if what you think only works for you?

Is what you did really the case, independent of what I thought you did? — Harry Hindu

I just wrote: "if I were to give an explanation or definition (per what I consider that obviously)"

How would that be independent of anyone's view?

I just wrote: "if I were to give an explanation or definition (per what I consider that obviously)"

How would that be independent of anyone's view? — Terrapin Station

Where is your explanation or definition - only in your head, or is it out on the forum right now? When we point to your explanation, do we point to your head, or at the screen? Is the screen or your head existing independent of anyone's view of it?

If you correct people on what you said, you are implying that how you see things is correct and how others see them is wrong, which implies that there is a way things are independent of how others are thinking about it.

What makes you think you can correct others? What would that even mean?

Where is your explanation or definition - only in your head, or is it out on the forum right now? When we point to your explanation, do we point to your head, or at the screen? Is the screen or your head existing independent of anyone's view of it? — Harry Hindu

It depends on what you're referring to and how you're referring to it. The marks on the screen are objective, obviously. But they have no meaning objectively. You can refer to the marks on the screen as an explanation--that's a shorthand way of saying "These are the marks that I assign the sort of meaning to that I call an 'explanation'"

It depends on what you're referring to and how you're referring to it. The marks on the screen are objective, obviously. But they have no meaning objectively. You can refer to the marks on the screen as an explanation--that's a shorthand way of saying "These are the marks that I assign the sort of meaning to that I call an 'explanation'" — Terrapin Station

Sure they do have a objective meaning. You typed them, didn't you? If you didn't how did they get on the screen? So, the existence of your post means that you wrote it and submitted it. It also means that you understand English. Aren't your words a representation of your ideas in your head, and doesn't your ideas have causal power? The meaning of the scribbles is the relationship between the scribbles and the ideas in your head, which I assume aren't just more scribbles. Meaning is there, it just depends on where you look.

Sure the do have a objective meaning. You typed them, didn't you? — Harry Hindu

You can't literally type a meaning. You can only produce marks on a screen or paper or whatever. Those marks aren't literally meaning. They don't literally contain or encode etc. meaning, either. Meaning isn't a property that we can find in them. Meaning is a way that we think about them.

You can't literally type a meaning. You can only produce marks on a screen or paper or whatever. Those marks aren't literally meaning. They don't literally contain or encode etc. meaning, either. Meaning isn't a property that we can find in them. Meaning is a way that we think about them. — Terrapin Station

Then we would all come to different meanings. How is it that we don't? How do we communicate?

What purpose would anyone produce marks on screen for? Aren't the marks what you mean and could you mean anything without the idea preceding the act of producing marks on the screen?

If I were to ask what you mean, what would you do? Wouldn't you explain the relationship between your ideas and the scribbles - the way you used the scribbles, not someone else?

Then we would all come to different meanings. How is it that we don't? — Harry Hindu

First, literally, we must come to different meanings, because numerically distinct things can not be identical. That's just like saying that two copies of the "same" Beatles CD have to literally be different.

Like the copies of the Beatles CD, though, the meanings we come to could be as similar as those copies are.

The problem is that we don't know, and there's absolutely no way to know, because you can't observe someone else's mind.

Practically, it doesn't matter, as long as interaction with someone makes sense to both parties. We communicate via saying things that we each assign meaning to, and as long as the meanings are coherent to each of us, as well as consistent over time, over similar utterances, etc., we consider it successful.

Often that doesn't go so well, as with just a few posts ago when I said, "I continually need to try to figure out what the f- you're even on about."

First, literally, we must come to different meanings, because numerically distinct things can not be identical. That's just like saying that two copies of the "same" Beatles CD have to literally be different.

Like the copies of the Beatles CD, though, the meanings we come to could be as similar as those copies are. — Terrapin Station

LOL. How can there be a copy of anything? Doesn't that require an objective process? How can we even say that the copies are the similar? They are different CDs that contain the same information. So again, how does two separate entities acquire the same copy, and what does it even mean to say it is a copy if the meaning of "copy" and "difference" is up to the individual? Why would we agree that my CD is a copy of yours if meaning is different for both of us? You aren't addressing the important question of how different entities can acquire similar views of meaning if we are as different as you seem to imply. You actually seem to imply that we don't live in a shared world at all.

LOL. How can there be a copy of anything? Doesn't that require an objective process? — Harry Hindu

Wait--Is there some reason to believe that I do not believe there are objective processes?

This is what we call a failure of communication, by the way.

Wait--Is there some reason to believe that I do not believe there are objective processes? — Terrapin Station

Wait, are you saying that your words have meaning independent of how I interpreted their meaning? Are you saying that I am wrong in how I interpreted the meaning of your words? How can that be if meaning is produced by how individuals think? I should be able to interpret your words how I mean them.

This is what we call a failure of communication, by the way. — Terrapin Station

Because you can't be consistent or acknowledge your inconsistencies. Failure to communicate would be the result of the world you think we live in. I'm asking how can we ever not fail to communicate given your claims.

If the information in the CDs is the same, then how is it that we would have different meanings for each CD? How would two people with the same information see things differently?

Wait, are you saying that your words have meaning independent of how I interpreted their meaning? — Harry Hindu

Sure, insofar as other people are applying meaning to them. That would be independent of the meaning you're assigning.

What does this response have to do with the question I asked you, though?

Are you saying that I am wrong in how I interpreted the meaning of your words? — Harry Hindu

Wtf? I'm asking you a question re why you'd think I'd not believe that there are objective processes. What's the answer to why you'd think I'd not believe that there are any objective processes?

Asking you a question isn't saying something. It's asking you a question.

I'm asking how can we ever not fail to communicate given your claims. — Harry Hindu

I explained this already. You didn't comment on it. That's because you sidetracked with the nonsensical critical comments about the idea of copies, based apparently on a belief that I don't think there are any objective processes, though who knows where you're getting that belief from.

Her was the explanation again: "Practically, it doesn't matter, as long as interaction with someone makes sense to both parties. We communicate via saying things that we each assign meaning to, and as long as the meanings are coherent to each of us, as well as consistent over time, over similar utterances, etc., we consider it successful."

If the information in the CDs is the same, — Harry Hindu

It's not literally the same. Again, I'm a nominalist. I explained this already.

Sure, insofar as other people are applying meaning to them. That would be independent of the meaning you're assigning. — Terrapin Station

So, how do I get at your meaning, if all I can get at is my own? If there are patterns of behavior that exist independent of, and prior to my application meaning, then isn't that saying those patterns are objective for anyone else to observe and come to the same conclusions? Why should it matter if the pattern of behavior is exhibited by a human being, ant, tree, planet, star or the entire universe?

Wtf? I'm asking you a question re why you'd think I'd not believe that there are objective processes. What's the answer to why you'd think I'd not believe that there are any objective processes?

Asking you a question isn't saying something. It's asking you a question. — Terrapin Station

Sure it is. Why would you ask the question if you didn't assume that I misinterpreted something you said?

Why would you even be concerned how I interpreted it? How do you know that how you interpreted my interpretation is accurate, if you only have your interpretation?

I explained this already. You didn't comment on it. — Terrapin Station

It's possible I missed it. Can you re-quote, please?

It's not literally the same. Again, I'm a nominalist. — Terrapin Station

It's either we're talking past each other when it comes to what we're pointing at when we say "the same", or "same" is meaningless.

So, how do I get at your meaning, if all I can get at is my own? — Harry Hindu

You'd not literally receive my meaning any more than you'd literally receive, say, my desires, or my pains, or anything like that.

I write something--I create a set of marks like this, and I do so largely per conventions of making marks like this (to the extent that I don't do that, this whole process becomes much more difficult), and you then have to assign meanings to it when you read it. You might be able to do that in a manner that makes sense to you, and you might not. When you do not, you say that you do not "get my meaning," you ask questions about it, etc.

But if you can assign meanings especially so that extended text from me makes sense to you, so that no matter how much I write and you read it, things keep rolling along coherently, consistently, etc., for you, then you say that you "get my meaning."

Meanings wouldn't just be "patterns of behavior," which I agree can be objective. Meanings are mental associations that you make. It can be an association of a pattern with something else--the pattern signifies such and such to you. The act of taking something to be a signification is the meaning part--neither the signifier nor the signified are the meaning. The association, so that the signifier is taken to point at the signified, is the meaning part.

Why would you ask the question if you didn't assume that I misinterpreted something you said? — Harry Hindu

Because I'm genuinely curious why you'd think that I believe there are no objective processes. I'm literally hoping for an answer, hoping you'll tell me why you think that. It could be because you misinterpreted something I said, but I don't know.

It's possible I missed it. Can you re-quote, please? — Harry Hindu

I did. At any rate, it was similar to what I wrote above.

It's either we're talking past each other when it comes to what we're pointing at when we say "the same", or "same" is meaningless. — Harry Hindu

I'm just clarifying that on my view, no two things (so no numerically distinct things) are literally the same--the identical whatever. Things can be similar, but not literally the same.

1) So, deduction first, testing later?
2) So, we have the issue of what the mind can reason and deduce itself to in terms of conclusions. But then we also must have access to whatever we need to test direclty, physically. And we would need the technology, presumably necessary to do those tests. And we would need to know what technology to create that would aid us in those tests.

There seem to be a lot of contingent factors. And anyone saying they are sure, seems to be speculating wildly. — Coben

You're thinking too much like a scientist lol. I'm not considering any contingencies or potential unsurpassable technological barriers... just posing the question of whether the human mind has the potential to grasp an all-encompassing model.
Whether we can actually put our noses to the grindstone and actually make it happen, that would be another thread :)

If the premise had been, “can reason and logic explain that which is present to human observation or mere thought” I wouldn’t have been so quick to jump. The human cognitive system, re: reason, is a relational system, re: logical, therefore it is by means of a methodology based on reason and logic a human should ever claim to know anything at all.

I see no reason to suspect you do not accept that physical science is grounded by pure reason, at least in its theoretical domain, which all science must be at some point. Whether the laws which justify our understanding of the world inhere in the world and are merely discovered, or are rationally determined a priori in response to the affect of the world on our sensibility, is sufficient to demonstrate the absolute necessity for pure reason with respect to the human’s ultimate seeking after knowledge.

Nevertheless, in a certain sense, you are correct, insofar as nothing whatsoever a consciously interactive human ever does, excepting pure reflex or sheer accident, is not immediately preceded by the thought of it, which is the epitome of reason and logic, however rational/irrational, logical/illogical it may be. — Mww

If I could put things in such an eloquent manner I would probably get better results...

How would we ever know that we have simulated all natural phenomema?

It's a different question than asking if we could understand the model, isn't it? — Harry Hindu

Agreed.

You're thinking too much like a scientist lol. I'm not considering any contingencies or potential unsurpassable technological barriers... just posing the question of whether the human mind has the potential to grasp an all-encompassing model. — staticphoton

sp. in other words could we hold all the ideas involved in an all encompassing model? I doubt it, but I think it's speculative either way.

sp. in other words could we hold all the ideas involved in an all encompassing model? I doubt it, but I think it's speculative either way — Coben

I also think it is speculative and I also doubt we have the ability, although when you state "all" the ideas in an "all encompassing model" one might get the impression that the problem with grasping the knowledge might be due to the sheer quantity and size of it. I'm inclined to believe the actual model might even consist of fewer elements than the multiple discorded present day models that only apply to specific scale ranges of the universe, just that the elements themselves are beyond our grasp in the same sense that complex abstract concepts, like for instance a metric tensor, would be beyond the grasp of a chimpanzee's mind.

My line of thinking leans on two premises, that the brain's cognitive evolution has not reached its potential summit (i.e. assumes the sapiens of a 1,000,000 year future will posses greater cognitive power), and that a system (in this case the universe) can't produce something more complex than itself.
If I define humans as a product of the universe, then in order to obtain knowledge of how the universe works, (and this is where I go way out on a limb) humans would have to be the most cognitive-potent entity the universe is capable of producing.

Then how about answering both questions as separate items?

Then how about answering both questions as separate items? — Harry Hindu

Not sure what you mean by answering questions, I just posted two possible scenarios.

I write something--I create a set of marks like this, and I do so largely per conventions of making marks like this (to the extent that I don't do that, this whole process becomes much more difficult), and you then have to assign meanings to it when you read it. You might be able to do that in a manner that makes sense to you, and you might not. When you do not, you say that you do not "get my meaning," you ask questions about it, etc.

But if you can assign meanings especially so that extended text from me makes sense to you, so that no matter how much I write and you read it, things keep rolling along coherently, consistently, etc., for you, then you say that you "get my meaning."

Meanings wouldn't just be "patterns of behavior," which I agree can be objective. Meanings are mental associations that you make. It can be an association of a pattern with something else--the pattern signifies such and such to you. The act of taking something to be a signification is the meaning part--neither the signifier nor the signified are the meaning. The association, so that the signifier is taken to point at the signified, is the meaning part. — Terrapin Station

So for you, "meaning" is only a causal mental phenomenon, but that doesn't seem to apply to how we commonly use the term, "meaning", or "means".

For me, "meaning" is all causal phenomenon and fits the common pattern that we see humans use the string of scribbles, "meaning".

For example, we say things like, "what do you mean?", as if we're trying to get at the user's meaning, not ours. In other words we are trying to get at the cause of the scribbles on the screen - the ideas the person had when typing those words. I want to understand what you mean with your word use, not what I mean.

We also say things like, "The tree rings in the stump mean the age of the tree.", or "that word means this", we are referring to an objective relationship or pattern that all humans would agree on exists independent of our own interpretations. In other words, some people would have to admit they are wrong in their meanings. Your view doesn't seem to allow one to be wrong in applying meaning.

Because I'm genuinely curious why you'd think that I believe there are no objective processes. I'm literally hoping for an answer, hoping you'll tell me why you think that. It could be because you misinterpreted something I said, but I don't know. — Terrapin Station

But the only answer you'd get would be your own associations you make with my pattern of word-use. You'd never understand my reasons - according to your view they would be your reasons.

I'm just clarifying that on my view, no two things (so no numerically distinct things) are literally the same--the identical whatever. Things can be similar, but not literally the same. — Terrapin Station

So if I were to say that all hydrogen atoms have the same number of protons and electrons, that wouldn't make sense to you?

For example, we say things like, "what do you mean?", — Harry Hindu

If the meaning were literally in the text marks or sounds, how would it make sense to ask anyone "What do you mean?" The text marks or sounds are what mean something, and supposedly you just perceive the meaning from the text marks or sounds.

There are aspects of the universe and its workings that are simply beyond the capability of human reasoning. — staticphoton

Reality itself is beyond the grasp of reason. You can reason about those things you can abstract and represent symbolically - which encompasses an enormous range of things; science can weigh and measure the universe (with caveats!) But as a philosopher observed, 'that of which we cannot speak, of that we should remain silent'. However that shouldn't be misinterpreted - 'that of which we cannot speak' is also an aspect of our existence. I think the meaning of that phrase is to draw attention to the limitations of language and reason.

There's a phrase - really a dogmatic formulation - in the Buddhist texts, which describes the nature of the Buddha's teaching so: 'These are those dhammas, monks, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Buddha, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others ¹.'

Notice the phrase 'beyond the sphere of reasoning'. And I think that is because whilst reason is powerful, it is not all knowing or omniscient even in principle.

In Greek philosophy, reasoning was prized because of its apodictic nature: the intellect knew truths of reason directly, without intermediaries; for example x - x = 0 is something that can be known directly, apodictically and without need of further justification. That tremendously impressed the ancient philosophers; it was the attempt to ground experience in the certainty of rational truth which gave rise to the rationalist tradition of philosophy and was one of the tributaries of science itself.

Reason gains traction by abstracting some aspect of reality - something that can be quantified or captured numerically. And scientific rationalism works by attempting to bring every subject under that umbrella. Again, very powerful, but not all-knowing even in principle. As one of the founders of atomic physics, Max Planck, said,

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

Which seems a truism, but what it's pointing out is that we're not outside of, or apart from, reality itself, and science really only deals with what is other to us; something which is very hard to see in our scientistic culture.

— Wayfarer

Man, that post was really enjoyable to read.

:pray:

By "everything in the universe" I meant the set of actual physical laws that govern the universe, so poor wording on my part. — staticphoton

As Popper convincingly showed, scientific theories, including those concerning "laws of nature" can never be deductively or empirically verified as either necessary or everlasting.

As Popper convincingly showed, scientific theories, including those concerning "laws of nature" can never be deductively or empirically verified as either necessary or everlasting. — Janus

I think that if you label something as necessary (or not), you should also clarify what it is necessary for, that way we can be on the same page.

Everlasting... considering the only thing constant about scientific theories is that they keep evolving, everlasting is not something that particularly comes to mind when describing scientific theories. So I'm with you on that one.

In my opinion the scientific method is not a particularly exclusive choice for understanding the universe (mainly due to its self imposed limitations), and I don't for a minute believe the boundaries of reason are fenced by the scientific method.

So I think we kind of agree.

I think that if you label something as necessary (or not), you should also clarify what it is necessary for, that way we can be on the same page. — staticphoton

Something that is thought of as being necessary is something which is simply thought of as necessarily being. So, the laws of nature might be thought of as necessary if they are either eternal or ordained by God.

Everlasting... considering the only thing constant about scientific theories is that they keep evolving, everlasting is not something that particularly comes to mind when describing scientific theories. So I'm with you on that one. — staticphoton

Sure, but in the context you seem to be considering- a "theory of everything" which is usually understood to be a theory which would unify the so-called "four fundamental forces"- the question could be asked as to whether those forces are everlasting.

I mean if we could ever explain everything, then that would entail that what we are explaining would be everlasting, no? Otherwise we would not have explained everything.

In my opinion the scientific method is not a particularly exclusive choice for understanding the universe (mainly due to its self imposed limitations), and I don't for a minute believe the boundaries of reason are fenced by the scientific method. — staticphoton

What other method could there be for understanding the universe? We can reason about human behavior and understand it in ways which are not usually thought of as being part of the scientific method, to be sure, but that kind of understanding is not usually thought of as "understanding the universe" but rather " understanding ourselves".

I would say that metaphysics does not consist in understanding the universe, but in understanding the ways in which we are able to think about things. Only the empirical method can test whether our ways of thinking can plausibly be thought to be accurately modeling the physical universe. But maybe I've misunderstood what you were aiming at?