:up: Thanks for explaining.

So, all numbers 1 to 100, by the Collatz procedure converges to 1. We could use this as a starting point then and a proof would only need to show that for $x \geq 101$, the Collatz process utlimately takes us to a y such that $1 \leq y \leq 100$. Neat trick!

What do you think of the fact that $3n + 1$ is a straight line and $2^m$ is an exponential function? As far as I know, a straight line and an exponential graph intersects at a maximum of only two points. Is this relevanat? :chin:

What I think he's saying (and I don't pretend to be the last word on this), what I think he's criticizing, is similar in some sense to what Dewey would call the Philosophical Fallacy. That's the tendency to ignore the significance of context, which Dewey felt was prevalent in philosophy, and coming to conclusions in abstract. We can't just pretend to doubt everything and then apply as a maxim what we come up with in purporting to doubt what we clearly don't doubt. Dewey used to say we never really think until we encounter a problem. There's no problem until we have a real problem to solve or situation to resolve. — Ciceronianus

I concur with Dewey. I'm only guessing but many questions philosophy begins with have practical significance - there's a problem and we're looking for a solution (off the top of my head, morality) - but oftentimes many levels of abstractions are executed that even if a solution is found, it doesn't work in the real world.

Although I suspect a Pragmatist--at least a classical Pragmatist--wouldn't speak of certainty, the value of the results of intelligent inquiry, the results of testing in practice and consideration of the results, the forming of a consensus based on the resulting evidence, would be of great, maybe the greatest, value. — Ciceronianus

Yes, why look for the perfect in an imperfect world. That would be silly, not to mention dangerous.

Yes. That's why I spend a lot of time on this forum denying that my Enformationism worldview is Mystical or Magical in it's implications. Everything is indeed interconnected by causal links, but not all nodes are causes in themselves, or self-aware. — Gnomon

Where do you draw the line? How can you tell the difference between an interconnectedness that's conscious and one that isn't? I guess such questions expose the weak spots in IIT.

But, in order for anything to be Self-Conscious, it must have internal information feed-back loops, that result in novel outputs & behaviors, instead of just direct pass-thru of energy. — Gnomon

What are internal information feedback loops? Are you talking about learning? I once commented in another thread that psychologists can never ever construct a theory that explains human behavior because as soon as the word gets out, people will change in ways that'll contradict such a theory (people will learn the whys and hows of their actions and modify their conduct).

History cannot be explained deterministically and it cannot be predicted because it is chaotic. So many forces are at work and their interactions are so complex that extremely small variations in the strength of the forces and the way they interact produce huge differences in outcomes. Not only that, but history is what is called a ‘level two’ chaotic system. Chaotic systems come in two shapes. Level one chaos is chaos that does not react to predictions about it. The weather, for example, is a level one chaotic system. Though it is influenced by myriad factors, we can build computer models that take more and more of them into consideration, and produce better and better weather forecasts. 

Level two chaos is chaos that reacts to predictions about it, and therefore can never be predicted accurately. Markets, for example, are a level two chaotic system. What will happen if we develop a computer program that forecasts with 100 per cent accuracy the price of oil tomorrow? The price of oil will immediately react to the forecast, which would consequently fail to materialise. If the current price of oil is $90 a barrel, and the infallible computer program predicts that tomorrow it will be $100, traders will rush to buy oil so that they can profit from the predicted price rise. As a result, the price will shoot up to $100 a barrel today rather than tomorrow. Then what will happen tomorrow? Nobody knows. 

Politics, too, is a second-order chaotic system. Many people criticise Sovietologists for failing to predict the 1989 revolutions and castigate Middle East experts for not anticipating the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011. This is unfair. Revolutions are, by definition, unpredictable. A predictable revolution never erupts.  

Why not? Imagine that it’s 2010 and some genius political scientists in cahoots with a computer wizard have developed an infallible algorithm that, incorporated into an attractive interface, can be marketed as a revolution predictor. They offer their services to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and, in return for a generous down payment, tell Mubarak that according to their forecasts a revolution would certainly break out in Egypt during the course of the following year. How would Mubarak react? Most likely, he would immediately lower taxes, distribute billions of dollars in handouts to the citizenry – and also beef up his secret police force, just in case. The pre-emptive measures work. The year comes and goes and, surprise, there is no revolution. Mubarak demands his money back. ‘Your algorithm is worthless!’ he shouts at the scientists. ‘In the end I could have built another palace instead of giving all that money away!’ ‘But the reason the revolution didn’t happen is because we predicted it,’ the scientists say in their defence. ‘Prophets who predict things that don’t happen?’ Mubarak remarks as he motions his guards to grab them. ‘I could have picked up a dozen of those for next to nothing in the Cairo marketplace. — Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens)

Ironically, the typical human ape-mind seems to automatically jump to human-like intentional interpretations of natural events. For example, a book falling off a shelf, may be attributed to a mischievous ghost, instead of a breeze or gravity. Many people are also overly dramatic & imaginative. It's more interesting, when you hear hoof-beats in Houston, to look for exotic Zebras, instead of mundane Horses. :joke: — Gnomon

:lol: This got me thinking. I'm about 90% confident we're not living in a computer simulation. There are no superheroes, fancy tech, magic, ghouls, werewolves, zombies, etc.; you know, features you find in the most popular video games in the market. Yes, some games are realistic but I don't think they sell as much as the fantasy genre!

By my logic, our ancestors were hardcore gamers!

So yeah, when you hear hoofbeats, think zebra, not unicorn/centaur/pegasus! :grin:

Human population growth. — James Riley

:ok:

1. Large population $\rightarrow$Overcrowding $\rightarrow$ Pandemic

2. Large poulation $\rightarrow$ High demand for energy $\rightarrow$ Fossil fuel consumption + Deforestation $\rightarrow$ Climate change.

Double trouble! :up:

Anthropogenic climate change — 180 Proof

:ok:

Anyone have any idea whether global warming/climate change and COVID-19 are related?

Thank you! And to you too! I already completed the surgeries. I'm currently in the recovery process. I'm still in pain but it's manageable and my mobility is improving. — Nicholas Mihaila

:up: :flower:

This is the paradox: The more lethal weapons are, the less likely armed conflict is. Nobody wants to die (for nothing). MAD (mutually assured destruction) is an effective deterrent, more so than pacifism. What's up with the US and gun control? Explains proxy wars (skirmishes essentially at a global scale and also winnable), cold wars (stalemate), and arms races (messing with balance of power).

Regarding the list that I mentioned earlier, the list of things that contributed to my unhappiness, some of the items have been more difficult to cross off than others. The most difficult probably would have to be one of the more recent items: correcting my short stature. I worked 80-hour weeks and had 4 surgeries to correct my proportions and increase my height. This was, as you could imagine, agonizing. Anyway, my only point is that I am putting in the work. — Nicholas Mihaila

Me too! Good luck!

Everyone is stupid and enough of us are also smart which keeps the species going. So far. — 180 Proof

So, in a sense, stupidity hasn't reached critical mass to kickstart the chain reaction of chaos, bedlam and mayhem! How long, do you suppose, before we cross the Rubicon?

:up: Thanks for posting C. S. Peirce's thoughts on doubt. It was an eye-opener for me.

That said, what I gleaned from Peirce is that he's not saying we should stop doubting for the reason skepticism is nonsensical but because he believes there's value in certainty in that it enriches our lives. I prefer pepsi to water but not because I hate water; it's just that pepsi is more interesting to my taste buds.

$3n + 1 = 2^m$

The Greeks, back when Pythagoras was busy avoiding beans and mathematizing music, would've dismissed the above equation as complete nonsense! How can we add area to a line? That's not all, the equation goes on to say that area + line = volume!

Now you are jumping to conclusions. — T Clark

That's the only exercise I do on a regular basis. :grin:

The million dollar question is if stupidity is maladaptive, why are there more stupid people than smart people?

I guess stupid is being phased out slowly, in stages? Nature doesn't want to make a scene! :grin: Do you see any signs of that being the case?

As a total math idiot — Benkei

Welcome to my world!

We live in a world of probabilities. — Ciceronianus

The statement "the probability of rain is 95%" is either 100% true or 100%false i.e. even if rain is only probable, the forecast itself is certain.

There's a similar issue with multivalent/fuzzy logic. If I say "the apple is 70% red", the redness maybe 70% but the proposition itself is stated as 100% true. There seems to be no escape from binary (true/false) logic.

faux doubt. — Ciceronianus

What's that?

The Problem Of Possibility

I think we should have a reason to doubt before we doubt. — Ciceronianus

These "possibilities" are of no concern, to me. — Ciceronianus

:chin:

One way the Collatz procedure can hit 1 is if $3x + 1 = 2^n$.

The division by 2 being the only rule in the Collatz conjecture that decreases a given a number, something necessary if we're to end up with a 1.

With some algebraic manipulation,

$x = \frac{2^n - 1}{3}$

Now where have I seen $2^n - 1$

?

I don't think one can use basic statistics in determining whether China will be willing to go to war in order to get control over Taiwan since there are too many unknown variables in such a equation that would nearly be impossible to give a percentage chance at any time. It is as complex or even more complex that determining whether the stock market will either go up or down in a 6 month or 12 month period. — dclements

So much for probability and the alleged unreasonable effectiveness of math....

All we can say is the likelihood ain't cipher and that's not very helpful is it?

You're aware of the DEFCON system, right? It seems the US military and other armies around the world as well have in place some criterion to measure the likelihood of war. How do they calculate the probability of war? That is the question!

I wonder what the DEFCON level of the US army is right now?

Some hidden self-referential puzzles:

1. There are no truths. If true then it is false. Ergo, There are truths! I wish this could be used as a starting point to tackle radical skepticism.

2. Nothing is certain. This can't be certain - sawing off the branch you're sitting on aka self-refuting statement. Still in skeptical territory.

3. Everything is relative. Is that itself relative? If yes, whatever the problem is with relative positions is also a problem for relativism.

4. Cotard's delusion (walking corpse syndrome). "I'm dead" says the patient but he has to be alive to say that!

5. This sentance has 3 erors. Two errors within the sentence and one error is the sentence itself (a counting error).

6. I'm a Cretan and all Cretans are liars.

If there can be one, why can't there be more than one? — InPitzotl

Why not indeed! There can be many first causes! Kinda defeats the purpose though.

Must a first cause be a god? — InPitzotl

That's the general assumption. I have no bone to pick with anyone on the issue but, the way the world is, I think too many cooks spoiled the broth. Whatever happened to two heads are better than one?

If you can handle one first cause, what's the problem with handling any arbitrary number? Is there some rule you're applying where you'll "allow" one first cause "but no more"? Why should the universe care about such a rule? — InPitzotl

I dunno! Occam's razor?

Confusing the concept with the thing? "What caused my car to start" my brains/minds depending on my philosophy? — InPitzotl

Possibly but then thoughts aren't caused by your logic and that, somehow, doesn't seem to be correct unless you believe in free will; an interesting topic no doubt but I'm sure you don't wanna go there.

Apparently not... it can't cause: — InPitzotl

Yup! We're on the same page.

Presumably there's at least one, if it's a first cause. — InPitzotl

:ok: Are you saying that there could be more than 1 first causes cause? Care to share why exactly? A team of gods? :chin: It seems a bit too extravagant; it's more than some of us can handle.

This got me thinking. Do the number of causes diminish as we go backwards in time? Does it have to? It would if causation is like a nuclear chain reaction. How would we measure the number of events taking place at any one time? What about the Big Bang?

I'm just using your argument to derive the impossibility of a South Pole like you're using it to derive the impossibility of a first cause. — InPitzotl

:ok: Sorry but to be honest, it didn't do anything for me.

Some might say those who badmouth the Buddha and deny that nirvana is something real & attainable are the ones actually muttering under the breath "those grapes must be sour." Foxes, damn them!

Does the position I don't know incur epistemic responsibility?

Doubt simpliciter leads to/causes mental torment: Does she love? She's just being kind! She didn't call! She hates me! Oh Gawd! This is more than I can bear!

Skepticism leads to ataraxia (tranquility): Does she even exist? Do I exist? Oh, and "surety brings ruin" as per the Delphic Oracle, no less. By the way would anyone trust the words of a person who's probably a druggie?

Interestingly, the $2^{nd}$ law of thermodynamics, being statistical/probabilistic, contains the seed of its own destruction. Even though the chances of entropy reducing is vanishingly small, it isn't nought!

:chin: Amazing! A law that, in principle, cannot be violated.

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule. — Wittgenstein (rule following paradox)

Isn't it better to treat an unequal as an equal rather than treat an equal as an equal? What are we trying to achieve here? Massaging egos ain't the solution? It only postpones the Aristotelian anagnorisis but neither prevents it nor what follows - the ouch time!

John (to his nephew Timmy): I have something for you.
Timmy: Thanks a ton uncle John! I'm so very happy!
Jack (to Timmy): That's nothing! Wait till ya see what I got for you!
Timmy: Yaay!

We're a girl with (a) balloon. and God's Banksy.

The post-shredder price was higher than the pre-shredder price! Go figure! :chin: Hmmmm...

The OP has Hume written all over it. The first cause (there are at least two active threads on it as I write this) isn't necessarily more than a first cause.

The ontological argument requires some faith. I see Anslem's argument as a meditation tool — Gregory

:up: Si señor! Si!

Nature: Genes

Nurture: Memes

Join me, ladies and gents, at my abode between Scylla and Charybdis!


You might also like :point: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Other

Hey OP,

Nature: Genes

Nurture: Memes

You might also be interested in :point: The biological status of memes.

I remember "Mister Kobyashi" and Verbal Kint. — 180 Proof

:up: Good to know it all works out in the end for you. Lucky you!

Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

I want to fix my teeth but I don't want to go the dentist! :rofl: I just want to die!

Gibberish — 180 Proof

Immanent and not transcendent, I get it! :up:

Remember Keyser Söze from The Usual Suspects? :wink:

Chomsky's late wife. — Xtrix

Husband-wife team! What could possibly go wrong!?

bilateral symmetry — 180 Proof

Humans and most animals exhibit bilateral symmetry, but mind you, only externally (superficially); our innards are, relatively speaking, a mess, symmetry-wise that is. Beauty is only skin-deep.

Returning now to what is an intriguing possibility if we take a person and look at him directly from the front or the back - two halves as if there's a mirror going right through the middle (medical professionals know this as the sagittal plane), from the crown of a person's head down to the perineal (what I call a) knot (the point where all your ass muscle fibres form a knot-like structure). What if...one half of us live in one universe and its mirror image, the other half, lives in another universe. I haven't had time to iron out the wrinkles but I'm going Goldbach, offering a conjecture for those smarter than me to figure out. :grin:

The Paradox Of Happiness.

Everybody wants happiness. That's a given.

Happiness, however, comes at a price. We have to, well, work for it. One can't just lie in bed and decide to be happy and be happy.

Now, I recall an incident in my rather dull and uninteresting life where a child wanted a piece of cake. What this child did is what's key to the paradox. She hovered around the cake, asked "cakey" questions, smiled more than could be accounted for by the prevailing circumstances, and so on. The mother figured it out. Adults! "Do you want some cake?" she queried. Qui tacet consentire videtur! "Why didn't you say so?" the mother said in a half-reprimanding tone and pushed the cake towards the now gleeful child.

Why didn't you say so?

Let's all cut to the chase, shall we?