To be a law of logic, a principle must hold in complete generality
No principle holds in complete generality
____________________
There are no laws of logic. — Gillian Russell

What about if I apply the conclusion (There are no laws of logic) to Gillian Russell's argument? The argument seems to be self-refuting - it relies on the laws of logic i.e. it assumes there are laws of logic but claims there are no laws of logic. Contradiction! Gillian Russell is contradicting herself full tilt.

Logic can't be used to negate itself for to do that is to affirm itself. Contradiction!

Information, according to Richard Dawkins à la Claude Shannon, is that which helps narrow down possibilities to one in the most economical way possible. If the possibilities were A, B, C, D and someone tells you A, how much information does A carry? Arguably that question can be rephrased as how many yes/no questions need to be asked to get to A from A, B, C, D.

Question 1. Is A among the firsr 2 letters of the alphabet?
Answer 1. Yes [possibilities now reduced to A, B]
Question 2. Is A the first letter of the alphabet?
Answer 2. Yes [A it is]

Questions here are aimed at reducing the number of possibilities.

2 yes/no questions = 2 bits of information. A contains 2 bits of information.

The general formula is, given N equiprobable alternatives, the information content of a message (in bits) that zeros in on one of these alternatives = Log(base 2) N.

Thus 1 card from a 52 deck card has log (base 2) 52 = 5.7 bits of information.

Also, information, as per Claude Shannon, is a measure of surprise/shock a message contains. The more surprising/shocking the message, the more information it contains. I guess, things that are probable/likely are uninteresting while those that are improbable/unlikely are very interesting, worth knowing. In terms of yes/no questions, the more improbable something is, the more yes/no questions that need to be asked which translates into more bits of information.

Suppose there are three possibilities A, B, C. The probability of A is 0.001%, that of B and C are equal at 49.9995%. The probability of A is so small that for practical purposes it can be ignored i.e. we can assume A won't occur.

Question 1: Is it B?
Answer 1: Yes, B OR No, C [ B and C carry only 1 bit of information]

On the off-chance that A is the message,

Question 2: Is it C?
Answer 2: No, A [A carries 2 bits of information]

A is improbable and if A is the message, it carries 2 bits of information while the other two B, C contain only 1 bit of information. Shock value = Information!

It seems to me that mathematics are the foundation and physical reality is mathematics made visible. Hawking asked 'What breathes fire into the equations?' If mind is the fundamental reality and if matter is contingent/created then it would seem that matter is a physical illustration or image of mind/mathematics. The material universe is thought made visible. — EnPassant

The material universe = the "physicalization" of mathematics, as Marcus du Sautoy puts it in his book, What we cannot know.

Well, then it's "the accident" in either case that gives rise to everything as it is. — 180 Proof

That sounds about right. No contest!

No, sir, the natural phenomena and their laws are described by humans using mathematics. The natural phenomena do NOT follow mathematical laws. — god must be atheist

Are you kidding me? The whole of western civilization chronicles the discovery of the mathematical laws of nature and their practical application..

Mathematics does not even have laws. It has some basic rules of computation and relationships, and everything else in mathematics is a corollary to that. Laws don't exist in math. The basic rules of math are called axioms. They can't be proven, they must be accepted as they are stated, and then a system of more complicated relationships is built on that as a superstructure. Nature has nothing to do with that. — god must be atheist

Rules = Laws

Who told you this bobimeiser? The universe has no mathematical nature. Man's interpretation and description of the universe uses mathematics. The universe only uses mathematics (as far as we know) in the minds of humans. The universe, and nature, IS. It is not calculating itself via math formulas. — god must be atheist

The description that's a good match for reality is mathematical. Put differently, natural phenomena follow mathematical laws.

And that "mind/intelligence behind it all" – in turn, what mind ... did its "distinctly mind attributes" come from? — 180 Proof

Well, just as some are happy to say the universe is just one giant accident, this mind too could've been one.

The arbitrariness of it?

Your proposed alternative "No evil but finite good" is explained away by the all-loving god wanting what's best for us, and a net infinite good is better than a net finite good.

Why have "bad" (not really bad if infinitely made up for) at all? The religions have a multitude of answers, from god testing our faith to it being a consequence of free will. If these reasons fail, an all-loving god has to pick or allow either (a) no finite bad to be cancelled out by the good (b) finite bad that is cancelled out by the good, and as there is no reason to prefer "a" or "b", god acts completely reasonably in picking at random or letting what will be, be. — Down The Rabbit Hole

It's complicated, huh? :kiss:

Intelligence, or goal-directed agency, neither follows from nor is presupposed by the mere mathematicity of nature. E.g. a vaccuum (void), insofar as it is completely symmetrical (i.e. without any orientation whatsoever), implies mathematical structures (re: Noether's theorem) but does not entail (or presuppose) a mathematician. In other words, 'the mappability of the territority' constitutes (the structure, or logical form, of) the terroritory; nothing else is (onto)logically required for the territory to be.

So explain where my thinking goes wrong. — 180 Proof

I was wondering about the existence of abstraction in our universe in the form of math. Abstraction, last I checked, is a distinctly mind attribute. I simply followed that lead to where it took me - a mind/an intelligence behind it all.

Cute quotes! — Alkis Piskas

Not quite the response I was expecting. Anyway...

St. Augustine knows what time is but he can't put it into words. Just like what you said about how Wittgenstein seems to have committed a faux pas when he so confidently declared, "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world."

Reminds me of a philosopher who's name I forget who claims that there are ineffables that are true. I'm sorry I can't recall his proof. Google it if it seems worthwhile.

Also, I seem to have erroneously hyperfocused on a narrow band of the language spectrum - the written & spoken word - and overlooked body language (e.g. dogs), chemical language (e.g. ants), to name a few. However, each gesture, each molecule of pheromone, can be treated as a word even in these cases. In other words, there's no fundamental difference between body, chemical, written/spoken language - they all have units of meaning comparable to words.

As for bicylcing, last I recall it's the cerebellum that learns/knows how to ride a bicycle. It might seem that this knowledge can't be written down/spoken of but, in my humble opinion, the cerebrum can with ease translate the skill into a set of propositions :point: How To Ride A Bike?

That said, the gist of my posts is the reality of ineffables. This not necessarily due to a poor vocab although being thus limited/constrained could give you a feel of mystical experiences (supposedly unwordable) - how it feels like to not be able to speak/write about what one has/is experienced/experiencing.

I'd like to see Isaac's response to that — schopenhauer1

Given my circumstances, antinatalism resonates with me deeply.

You accept that good can make up for the bad? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes but what bothers me is why this particular arrangement?

I understand your point: finite evil but infinite good. :sweat:

Why not, No evil but finite good? :grin:

I think the same objection could be raised against materialists; they argue that biological structures bring intelligence into being when the evidence suggests intelligence comes first. — EnPassant

@180 Proof

I'm signing up for more information.

What if EnPassant is correct and we have it backwards?

One piece of evidence is the mathematical nature of the universe. Math is an abstraction, something only a mind (intelligence) is capable of. If there's math in nature and there is, the universe, from the smallest to the largest, itself must be/could be the handiwork of a mind (intelligence).

What sayest thou?

No membership required. However, consider purchasing a good plated dime online to serve as a memento. — Yohan

Like a serial killer? :scream:

I have no idea if this is relevant but all religions have what appears to be a rather tricky problem to solve. First, they have to explain the status quo which inevitably requires them to come up with some framework in which evil makes sense. Second, they have to fit benevolence/goodness into that framework. The Abrahamic triad does this by introducing free will and divine retribution. Hinduism achieves this with a narrative about power struggles between gods and demons. Buddhism uses Karma to the same end.

However, as you will have noticed, these explanations seem a bit too contrived, as if those who founded these religions were really struggling with the issue of evil vis-à-vis goodness. This dissonance manifests in the many ways people jump through hoops, bend over backwards to accommodate evil in a system declared to be through and through benevolent, sometimes even going so far as to deny the existence of evil, that god works in mysterious ways, that everything happens for a reason, and so on.

The difficulty is most acutely felt in the Abrahamic triad because they have a God which they believe is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing? Whence this evil?

In Buddhism and Hinduism, the evil one experiences is just your own Karmic reflection. A better explanation in my opinion. After all, there's no good God that we must adjust for.

There maybe more interesting stuff we can unearth in the way religions, each in its own way, tackles the necessity for good and also the existence of evil.

Golden Dime rule:
I want others to treat me as I want to be treated, therefore I will treat others as they want to be treated — Yohan

:up: Great manifesto. Where do I sign up? :smile:

Okay. Seeming "deep" just because the bottom can't be perceived (or conceived of), however, doesn't make something deep. — 180 Proof

Shallow and muddy instead of clear and deep waters. In both cases "...the bottom can't be perceived (or conceived of)..."

But then...

I don't think they are "inferior" either which is why I use scare quotes. — 180 Proof

I see. Good to know.

What we know we must be able to tell — Socrates

What is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. — St. Augustine

Kind courtesy of Daniel Bonevac.

It doesn't make sense or one has to work really hard for it to connect at an emotional and also a rational level.
— TheMadFool

Yes, from the lyrics, I do find the program to be semantically incapable (assuming that it is not smart enough to form a new way of using words to communicate that humans do not understand). But derailing from the discussion, as a rock fan I have to point out that the lyrics of Nirvana and Radiohead are somewhat incoherent too lol — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Yes, that was part of the message I wished to convey! Some people are very AI-like or, even better, AI has passed the Turing state completely or partially depending on how human Kurt Cobain was.

I would say the OP was developing toward this question without pointing it out: Can we ultimately make something more creative than we are? — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

So, you're the mysterious type, huh? The audience has to figure out what you wanna say. Ok by me.

Well, there's a paradox we need to work out. Remember, as per received wisdom, life emerged from inanimate matter and it was simple back then and by back then I mean 4.5 billion years ago (I hope I got that right). In other words, the simple produced, by accident scientists maintain, the complex. A creative entity producing another entity more creative then itself then seems possible and if time permits and it does also inevitable.

However, humans haven't been able to achieve this "simple" task. Hence the paradox.

I never heard of this word until today — javi2541997

Old timer here!

Me too. Apart from the same reason as yours, because I guess we should show something previously before we demand to others an action. It is important to have a good image in interior and exterior relations. — javi2541997

I don't believe it's about having a "good image." It creates a information gap between what one is and the (good) image your project. To be honest many monsters dwell in that information gap. This information gap manifests in another pernicious way when a person has to deal with others - we don't know what other people want and hence the Golden Rule in which you measure others using yourself.

The Diamond Rule, praise the Good Lord, is about shedding light into that dark region (the information gap) and discovering as precisely as possible what others want so that we don't goof up!

“golden rule” or diamond rule — javi2541997

I thought I was talking about two entirely different approcaches:

1. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you (You're the measure of how you should act]

2. The Diamond Rule: Do unto others as others would like to do unto themselves (Others define your actions. You do what others want you to do to them. Others are the measure of your actions]

I prefer the Diamond Rule because it skirts the issue of how your personal idiosyncracies may throw a spanner in the works e.g. if you're a masochist, you might think hurting others is the right thing to do under the Golden Rule. The Diamond Rule, however, completely avoids such pitfalls as your actions will be tailored as per the likes/dislikes of the person who must face the consequences of your actions!

I suppose incels were a part of the social fabric for quite some time now. As a rough guide I'd use the number or percentage of bachelors and spinsters in the population since marriage records first began. I suspect we'll find a sizeable chunk of the populace never married and these would meet the criteria for incel-hood. An objection to such a metric would be incels don't want to marry as such, they want a sexual liaison with women not necessarily involving tying the knot. To that my response would be sex outside of marriage was frowned upon those good ol' days and so, the only way, barring some kind of covert physical relationship, sex would've been possible without inviting criticism would be marriage.

Fast forward to the 21st century and now incels are able to share notes, band together for that reason, all courtesy of internet social platforms.

What about the misogyny and the paradoxical misandry?

Well, the incel phenomenon revolves around women - not being able to get them into bed to be precise. So, we have on our hands a boy/man who likes girls/women (they're looking to get laid) but once that's denied (by girls/women), like is replaced by dislike. I guess, in extreme cases, love, when unreciprocated, turns into hate. This is a paradox, no? What an incel likes/loves (females) is what an incel dislikes/hates.

Most importantly, incels seem to be under the impression that they're entitled to sex/relationship with women, only this can explain the indignation/resentment they experience and which has become a rather troubling seedbed for violence. However, if it's about rights/entitlement incels seem to have forgotten, rather conveniently overlooked, the fact that women too are entitled, they too have rights - they can choose whom they have a relationship, platonic or sexual, with. I suppose then it's a case of incels' (perceived) right [they're entitled to women's sexual favors] vs women's (actual) right [they have the right to choose their mate].

Weakness masquerades itself as compassion. — hope

Good point but a tad bit too cynical for my taste. It's true that the weak have no choice but to feel compassionate - they're powerless to do anything else like resist/fight back for example. However, as weird as this sounds, there's something lamentable/sad about power - the powerful are constantly under threat from others who, like them, seek power and since they're willing to do anything to retain power they must always be watchful for there are those who'll do anything to attain power. From this simple truth about power, misery ensues - those who project power aren't happy (fear of losing power) and those who are at the receiving end are unhappy (liberty is impinged upon). Lose-lose. Thus, compassion I suppose.

BTW, freedom masquerades as power!

Is the apparent "creativity" forever a mere reflection of humans' own creativity through algorithms on the machines, or can the new structure of computers [...] — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

The utlimate test of creativity is to create something equally creative. In other words, when humans create something that's as human as any real human (in the sense creative and also in other ways) we've reached an, one, endpoint of creativity. The next goal, the follow-up move, is to create something that's more creative than us (technological singularity).

Sorry for the multiple posts.

:lol: :up:

Hooker john relationship cuts out the emotions. Which is why it's considered evil — hope

Hah!

"Superior" trick seeks "inferior" hookers – I wonder if that Ad works. — 180 Proof

I don't think hookers are inferior. At the very least they're honest as to what women want (money) and what men want (sex)! I should've realized this a long time ago.

It will not be in the grips of zeno effect because zeno effect is produced under certain conditions which are not the abundant conditions in nature — hume

Due to cosmic microwave background throughout the universe we have radiation particles everywhere which interact with quantum systems (particles, objects, matter that ends up making up our stars, planets, every thing) so even when there is no observer or measurement, the interaction is continuously happening. — hume

:chin:

Well, if intelligent women aren't attracted to or a repulsed by smart men and vice versa, we all know what that means: women only want the sausage and men only want a place to park their sausage. :chin:

In continuation, AI creativity seems to be missing the wood for the trees and it's telling (no?) how many real people make this mistake.

As you can see from the video links I provided in the previous post, AI seems capable of creativity but there's something about there output, paintings & music, that's off. This is not so apparent in the painting of course but read the lyrics of the Eurovision song. It doesn't make sense or one has to work really hard for it to connect at an emotional and also a rational level. Truth be told it seems to make more sense to our hearts than our brains. Artists are said to be more feelings than reason. scientists are thought to be the opposite. :chin:

Semantic coherence (SC) is what I'm getting at. SC simply means the words, the sentences, the whole composition (essay, song, etc.) has to cohere i.e. they should all come together to produce a unit of meaning. This seems to be lacking in the AI-composed Eurovision song.

Creativity requires imagination. Is there an algorithm for imagination? What is imagination? It's obvious that much of what we call creative works have to do with vision (painting) and hearing (music) and AI has made tentative first steps in both these domains, more in the latter than in the former presumably.

I suppose your point boils down to the diamond rule: Do unto others as others would like done unto them. The catch is how to find out what "others would like done unto them."

My understanding is that it’s not the measurement. It’s misleading. It’s the interaction. When particle interacts with other particle or environment then superposition is reduced to decoherence and particle takes specific state with certain value of spin and position. Since measurement is a form of interaction, it seems to is as if measurement (or observation) caused it.

Due to cosmic microwave background throughout the universe we have radiation particles everywhere which interact with quantum systems (particles, objects, matter that ends up making up our stars, planets, every thing) so even when there is no observer or measurement, the interaction is continuously happening. — hume

If what you say is correct and all that's needed are interactions, all quantum systems should be in the grips of the Quantum Zeno effect. I don't think that's correct.

You were right, you were always right!
— TheMadFool
Thanks. (I'm not sure though about "always". I hope it is not ironic!) — Alkis Piskas

Well, I wasn't as right as I thought I was.

Q is a unintelligible sentence i.e. Q is neither true nor false. That's that.
— TheMadFool

So if Q is nonsense, it is not false. — Amalac

Agreed.

P is a proposition. Say P is neither true nor false. ~P & ~~P = ~P & P = P & ~P (false)
— TheMadFool

If P is nonsense, then so is not P. The conjunction of P and not P is false if either P is false or not P is false. But neither are false, so the conjunction is also meaningless. — Amalac

Not exactly. I made it clear that P is a proposition. ~P too is a proposition.

P & ~P is a contradiction.

Ergo, Q must be false.
— TheMadFool

This conclusion contradicts one of your premises, Q can't be false and also not true and not false at the same time. — Amalac

Yes, you're right Q can neither be true nor false.

However,

assume Q is a proposition.

Then, Q is neither true nor false = ~(Q v ~Q) = Q & ~Q = a contradiction (false).

Q is neither true nor false implies:

1.Q is not a proposition (Q is meaningless).

OR

2. Q is a proposition but Q & ~Q (contradiction, false).

So, if I tell you there's a sentence Q which is neither true nor false, you won't be able to tell whether Q is not a proposition (Q is meaningless) OR Q is a proposition such that Q & ~Q.

In other words Q (meaningless) is indistinguishable from Q is a proposition such that Q & ~Q which is to say,

Q (meaningless) = Q is a proposition AND Q & ~Q.

Q is a proposition is true.
Q & ~Q is false.
Ergo,
(Q is a proposition AND Q & ~Q) is false.

Q (meaningless) must therefore also be false.

Ok you win. Independent of any observer, the earth is round enough in my opinion. G'day — Yohan

It's hopefully not about scoring points.

Which point of view is more objective.
The microscopic or macroscopic.
Far enough a way the earth looks like a shapeless blip
Closer, like a sphere
Closer, flat
Closer, neither flat nor curved exactly

How can you escape subjectivity? If there is no observer, which of the above perspectives would be true? — Yohan

Did you know scientists who are trying to determine the shape of the universe are worried about the same things you mention above. I recently got to know that the universe appears to be flat but those who claim this warn that it might be a local feature (too close).

Google definition of earth: the planet on which we live; the world.

Wrong, check the truth table for contradictions: contradictions are always false.

Plus a statement such as “the gostak distims the doshes” is just senseless, it does not even make sense so as to be self-contradictory. — Amalac

I wasn't clear enough. Let me try again.

Q is a unintelligible sentence i.e. Q is neither true nor false. That's that.

P is a proposition. Say P is neither true nor false. ~P & ~~P = ~P & P = P & ~P (false)

IF Q is taken as a proposition P then Q = P & ~P. P & ~P is false (it's a contradiction). Ergo, Q must be false.