Comments

  • Errorology
    Yes?
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    How about, if I don't know what degree of precision my friend needs to complete his task, I just tell him that the value he need is pi, then he can use whatever approximation is suitable. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Ok, but there's no need for oui?
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    Has anyone read the Wikipedia entry on the so-called methodus exhaustionibus? Pioneered by Antiphon, and employed by none other than Archimedes to calculate . To my knowledge, when computing (an irrational number), all we need is a certain level of accuracy, tailored to the task at hand. So, if I were making a wheel for an ox-cart, I could use 3 as the value of , but if I were to machine a wheel to be used on a spacecraft, I'd need greater accuracy, say I'd need to use a value of correct to the fifth decimal place viz. 3.14159. As you can see these approximations can be arrived at without having to bring into the picture; all that's required is, as some have said, an arbitrarily large number.

    What sayest thou?
  • The Propositional Calculus
    ↪TonesInDeepFreeze
    :chin:
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    No, you're not. But you hold to your position even though it can't withstand easy objections. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Apolgies, I'm lazy, plus I lack the wherewithal. I hope you understand.
  • Siddhartha Gautama & Euthyphro
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    I believe we're on the same page albeit on different paragraphs. We're cool.
  • The Propositional Calculus
    If every proposition is true, then truth is trivial. It does nothing. — Banno

    Wanna run something by you if it's ok with you. True that if contradictions (p & ~p) are allowed, "every proposition is true" but every refers not to logically independent propositions like "some swans are not white" and "Socrates was bald" but to logically dependent propositions like "all swans are white" and "some swans are not white" (contradictions). So the argument from the principle of explosion ( ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) is, in fact, the circular argument: contradictions are unacceptable because contradictions are unacceptable. :chin:
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    You're claiming that there is a greatest number. It's not 186000. And there's no law of thought that says I can't use different units of measurement. And there's no law of thought that says I can't add 1 to whatever number you claim is the greatest number.

    Your view is dogmatic.     — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Well, I'm not in any way trying to say my way or the highway. Anyway, nice talking to you.
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    So what? We agree that 186000 is not the greatest number. Nor is 186000 x 1000, which is the speed of light in milliseconds. Etc. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    We would have to restrict oursleves to specific units of measurement.
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    No, I don't agree.

    The the number of states my lamp can be in is 2 - on or off. There is no counting past the number 2 when counting the number of states my lamp can be in. You can never attain more than 2 possible states for my lamp. So 2 is infinityish?     — TonesInDeepFreeze

    In some sense 2 is infinityish.

    You seem to be an expert on math so what I'm gonna say is going to sound familiar. There's the Pirahã tribe in the Amazon whose mathematics is limited to 1 and 2, anything greater is many which, to me, is .
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    ↪TonesInDeepFreeze
    Indeed, one can look at this from an individual's point of view, muchas gracias. I really wouldn't want to impose my own limitations on the world; that most assuredly would be one of the dumbest things a person could do.

    However, the speed of light (186000 miles/sec) isn't personal; it's not something I wish and nor did I order it to be so. In fact I would like it not to be true, but that's a different story altogether.

    My point is, from what I know of physics, no calculations on velocities at least will ever exceed 186000 miles/sec. In other words if there's a claculator dedicated to calculation velocities, any result for speed that exceeds 1860000 miles/sec should return ERROR.
  • Is the harmfulness of death ante-mortem or post-mortem?
    Evolutionarily speaking, life, its purpose, is enacted in relationships - some, I hear, do what is necessary, to get in bed with someone (reproduction), and after scoring, leaves the (fortunate/unfortunate) partner [die, who cares?] at the mercy of fate. C'est la vie! Life's purpose, Darwin says, is to reproduce, a polite way of sayin' to f**k! That's why marriage is sublime, more accurately a sublimation. Death then is simply life telling you in your face "that'll be all, next!"
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    Well, let's look at this from the perspective of scale - I grok 2, I've encountered it; I also grok 38768, I've met this number (it's my bank account number, :joke: ); I, however, can't grok 10100 (a googol), to do so I'd need someone to put that number in perspective i.e. it hasta be relatable in re my apperceptive mass, my experiences. In almost all videos on astronomy, scientists try to scale down the vastness of the solar sytem using tennis, soccer, basket balls, the size of football fields, etc. as points of reference we can easily grasp.

    So, in my humble opinion, there's got to be a finite number such that it's, for all practical purposes, to us. For example, did I mention this already?, the speed of light (186000 miles/sec, a finite number) behaves like - we can never attain a speed of 186000 m/sec and that, in a sense, is infinityish. Wouldn't you agree?
  • Siddhartha Gautama & Euthyphro
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    There are, as far as I can tell, only 2 reasons why God should exist:

    1. Ethics is dependent on Him
    2. God's desirable (we want Him to exist)

    Euthyphro's dilemma, what it does, is inform us that neither is acceptable, based on ethics and ethics alone.

    When I say ethics is independent of God (God is unnecessary) , I also imply false that ethics is/can be God's whim and fancy (God is undesirable). No contradiction.
  • Infinite Progress
    Danke 180 Proof.

    Causal component of the PSR: Everything has a cause

    To my surprise there's no principle that goes everything has an effect. I drew a Venn diagram and instead of following the rule to first shade in the ALL statement (all things have causes, vide supra), I tried to draw in the X (some things have no effect - try pushing a wall, nothing happens) and intriguingly, I have to put the X on the circumference of the circle that represents cause but inside the circle that's for things which basically means there's the possibility that some things have no cause.

    Is there a "last domino" in the chain of reasoning i.e. do we reach a proposition z such that it doesn't entail anything at all? Post-Agrippa's trilemma, nothing follows, not even this nor your logical reply to this ... ad infinitum.
  • Siddhartha Gautama & Euthyphro
    ↪Alkis Piskas
    Arguendo, let's say we created God. Necessity is the mother of invention i.e. God doesn't "exist" for no rhyme or reason. Euthyphro's dilemma is designed to clarify that as far as ethics goes, God is neither necessary (ethics is independent of God) nor desirable (ethics is God's whim &fancy).
  • Giradian Violence in Crowds
    Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all mankind [...] — 5:32

    Jesus' crucifxion (one man for the human race - prisoner swap). Adam & Eve.
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    De nada — TonesInDeepFreeze

    :up:
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    ↪TonesInDeepFreeze
    Much obliged, señor!
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    Oh really? What book? — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Recommend one, a simple one, to me. I have about 1.5 Terabytes of books, includes those on math.
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    And the way for you to do that is to read a book on the subject. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    Thanks for the advice! On it!
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    I will not impose upon myself a restriction from commenting on your posts — TonesInDeepFreeze

    No problemo! It only means I should improve the quality of me posts! Have an awesome day monsieur!
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    The fact that you're asking for an argument to prove this kind of presupposes the thing being proven — Kuro

    Précisément! Circular! We knew that! Doesn't it remind you of Kavka's Toxin Puzzle? One only needs to intend to drink the poison/prove logic - it's the same as drinking the poison/proving logic.

    How about if we say logic works? I am able to predict; in fact I think it's the other way round, I'm (very) predictable.
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    ↪TonesInDeepFreeze


    Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

    Please continue posting but I suggest you engage with those who have the same level of understanding or higher as/than you. I'll read your posts as and when I can. Bonam fortunam TonesInDeepFreeze.
  • Should Philosophies Be Evaluated on the Basis of Accuracy of Knowledge or on Potential Effects?
    Peircean-Deweyan fallibilism rather than Jamesian 'expedience' (or Rortyan 'relativism'). — 180 Proof

    Si, si! :up:

    This is (what I think is) the truth > This is a useful lie.
  • What matters
    Wings of the absurd (Zapffe-Camus-Rosset). — 180 Proof

    I'm in your debt señor! If you think of anything interesting do post in this thread.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    ↪god must be atheist
    Agrippa, all he does is, ask the question whether reason meets its own standards. It all starts off with infinite regress really - if reason demands justification, that justification must be justified, and the justification of the justification must also be justified. This is unacceptable, one reason being the process is endless (we'll never be able to prove anything).

    What are our options?

    1. Axioms (assume truth), but remember this is exactly that which is being rejected by Agrippa reason. No flat assertions.

    2. Circularity, but that's a big no no in logic. Again, reason applied to reason. This is a flat assertion, there's no argument, but that's a different story.

    Thus the trilemma is established - it's got to be one od these 3 and nothing else and all 3 fall short of the mark, not because Agrippa says so but because reason says so.

    Summary: Reason says reason is no good,

    If there's a contradiction then it is this: Reason commits suicide - Agrippa has crafted a logical argument that logical argumentation fails. It's not Agrippa vs. Logic as you seem to be thinking, it's Logic vs. Logic. Kinda reminds me of the omnipotence paradox: if god defeats Himself, does He win or does He lose? Both? Neither?

    The SEP article on skepticism concludes: There are no justified beliefs.

    On an intuitive level, says a professor, how good is a system that self-destructs in such a fashion? Logic doesn't need enemies, it is its own worst enemy, oui monsieur?
  • What matters
    Only in profundity. — 180 Proof

    Of course, of course.

    Life, some say, is a cruel joke :lol: (weep + laugh)

    Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher :cry: . Anicca or panta rhei (life is cruel).

    Democritus, the laughing philosopher :grin: The Myth of Sisyphus (Absurdism) by Albert Camus (life is a joke). We must imagine Sisyphus happy.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    So...according to Agrippa. His word against mine. — god must be atheist

    Sophia (wisdom)?
  • The Fine-Tuning Argument as (Bad) an Argument for God
    For the 'ontology of information' I suggest, to start, D. Deutsch's work on quantum computing (re: constructor theory) and S. Wolfram's work on computational irreducibility (e.g. pancomputationalism) and G. t'Hooft & L. Susskind's holographic principle (re: black hole information paradox). — 180 Proof

    On it! Danke!
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    ↪god must be atheist


    1. Infinite regress
    2. Circularity
    3. Axiom

    3, according to Agrippa, unsatisfactory, options. Nevertheless, the skeptics did have beliefs. Therein lies the rub! Pragmatism?
  • Should Philosophies Be Evaluated on the Basis of Accuracy of Knowledge or on Potential Effects?
    Truth is ugly. We possess art lest we perish of the truth — 180 Proof

    Amazin' stuff! :up:

    Ethics of belief by W. K. Clifford vs. William James' pragmatism

    It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. — W. K. Clifford

    It is ok to believe without evidence says William James and lists a few of the occasions when we're free to do so.

    dialectic — 180 Proof

    wellbeing and philosophy — Jack Cummins

    To the both of you

    Just as Pyrrho the skeptic once said, on any issue there are good arguments for and against i.e. everything is adiaphora (logically undifferentiated) and hence which is the truth and which is the falsehood is anepikrita (undecidable); thus epoché (withold judgment). Summing up, truths are unknowable (in your terms Jack accuracy is impossible).

    The only option then, my brain informs me, is to believe stuff that are good for my our well-being/potential effects (pragmatism wins!).
  • Should Philosophies Be Evaluated on the Basis of Accuracy of Knowledge or on Potential Effects?
    Interesting question Jack - it is a dilemma of the greatest importance. We have an obligation to find/tell the truth (accuracy of knowledge) but this might come into conflict with our other obligation which is to prevent harm (potential consequences), truth can be deadly. The free speech vs. censorship issue seems related to the larger point the OP is about.

    Imagine if we conclusively prove God doesn't exist. As far as getting to the truth is concerned we get an A+, but what are the consequences - some say chaos will follow - of atheism (re gennaion pseudos).
  • "Humanities and social sciences are no longer useful in academia."
    Although they still grow from a tree. Why not compare? — Christopher

    Mass and length can't be compared in a meaningful way? :chin:
  • The Largest Number We Will Ever Need
    Agent Smith said that said set theory allows that a part can be equal to a whole. I correctly pointed out that that is not true. (For that matter, 'part and whole' are not even terms of set theory). And I correctly pointed out that what set theory does say is that in some cases a proper subset is equinumerous with its superset. — TonesInDeepFreeze

    :up: Aren't odd numbers a part of natural numbers? Is it not true that the cardinality of the former equals that of the latter? :chin:
  • Siddhartha Gautama & Euthyphro
    If it's a profoundly good or funny, then I'll need to read it again ... and again ... and again — 180 Proof

    :up:

    I have some books I have read many times over the years. I still have not "grokked" them. In some cases, I am losing ground — Paine

    Interesting to say the least.

    ↪Alkis Piskas
    Well, this isn't about us to tell you the truth. It concerns God & ethics, whether the former is necessary/desirable.
  • The Fine-Tuning Argument as (Bad) an Argument for God
    ↪Gnomon
    You said some really important things in your post. Shannonian bits don't really capture what information actually is; his definition of information, I'm told, is adapted to electronic transmission of data across communication networks. It's reminiscent of how physicists "define" time as that which the clock measures - a snub to philosophers' concerns as to the metaphysics of time. Shannon was not in the least bit (pun unintended) concerned about philosophical information (what information means to philosophers) if you catch my drift.
  • Agrippa's Trilemma
    ↪Kuro
    Merci, but where's the argument ... that proves/suggests reason is our go-to-person if our objective is to find the truth?
  • Could we be living in a simulation?
    INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER. — Multivac
  • What do these questions have in common?
    What evidence do we have to demonstrate that humans are selfish? I still think the question emerges from an illogical reasoning in the first place. — Skalidris

    The answers to your questions can be opinions. No logic involved and hence to broach the topic of logic, a question that's specific to justification needs to be asked.
Home » Agent Smith