全く間違っています。。。(mattaku machigatsu te iya masu) = you are wrong! — javi2541997

:up:

[You're] not even wrong! — Wolfgang Pauli

might be worth checking out the associated profile.

I'm interested in the intersection between Plantinga and Donald Hoffman. Hoffman is a professor of cognitive science but his main argument, about how our cognitive faculties are ineliminably shaped by evolution, has something in common with Plantinga's albeit from a different perspective. Haven't been able to find much comment on that on the interwebs but I'm sure someone has thought about it. — Wayfarer

All this might be somehow connected to the hard problem of consciousness: if objectivity is so high on the agenda (for life), why, o why, did subjectivity evolve? It should've been on natural selection's hit list and bumped off a long, long time ago.

Just did, nobody noticed. Or ever will. — Wayfarer

How does it work? Did you go into the mechanics of it? All I can recall from a video on the app is that a photon is split into two. What happens after that I haven't a clue. Google it?! :grin:

To me the distractions is life. We're not here on some kinda mission to do something specific. We're here to look around, explore, create a magnificent mandala and watch it being blown away ... into oblivion by the careless wind. This is not, I repeat this is not, a military operation! :grin:

What kind of assassin has as much agility as defense?? — khaled

I was not all there. :smile:

A given signal's information content seems to be a measure of how much noise (Shannon entropy) it has to deal with.

Again got this from Dawkins, if I say message x has 4 bits of information, what I mean is there are 16 possibilites (x itself + 15 others) ($\log_2 16 = 4$)and I need 4 pieces of information to rule out all the wrong alternatives: 1 piece/bit of information to go from 16 possibilities to 8; 1 more piece/bit of information to narrow it down from 8 to 4; 1 piece/bit of information again to pare down the options from 4 to ×; 1 more piece/bit of information, the last one, and we're done - from 2 to 1 (we've finally got the message as it were). That makes a total of 4 bits [1 + 1 + 1 + 1] of info.

:ok:

??? — 180 Proof

DNA is the medium (paper), the message (information is in the sequence of nucleotides)

Interesting read (the excerpt). Last I checked, (digital) computers are essentially analog i.e. current is continuous quantity, can assume any value whatsoever. It's just that in computers electrical current occurs in a range, say 1mV to 2mV. Then computers are instructed to treat 1 mV - 1.5 mV as 0 and 1.5 mV - 2 mV as 1 and just like that we get digital from analog.

Information is physical e.g. DNA, circuit-switches, computer programs, heat, etc. Every physical transformation is information; translating (i.e. compressing) information into an algorithm is abstraction (i.e. code). Yeah, abstract = nonphysical (insofar as 'nonphysical' means not causally related). — 180 Proof

Yeah, but if information isn't conserved and if matter & energy (physical) are then ...

Are you perhaps conflating the medium for the message?

Gettier Problem

JTB theory of knowledge
S = somebody
P = a proposition

S knows P IFF
1. S believes P
2. P is justified
3. P is true

Justification

1. Deduction: An argument that is sound (true premises + valid form). If a deductive argument is sound, it's impossible for the conclusion to be false or, phrased differently, the conclusion of a sound deductive argument is necessarily true.

In other words, P (deductively) justified implies and is implied by P is true i.e. (deductive) justification (for P) is both necessary and sufficient for truth (P is true).

In this case, criterion 3 (P is true) is unnecessary as 2 (P is justified) implies 3 (P is true). The JTB theory can be shrunk down to JB (justified belief).

2. Induction: A cogent inductive argument is one in which the premises are true and the argument strong which translates as the conclusion is likely to be true. There's no necessity that the conclusion be true i.e. the conclusion's truth is partially independent of an inductive argument, cogent or otherwise. Criterion 3 (P is true) is necessary (it must be mentioned separately).

Are Gettier problems about induction rather than deduction? Gettier problems occur when chance (re induction which is probabilistic) is invovled (re Gettier cases).

Also, if I include criterion 3 (P is true) in my definition of knowledge, I'm also claiming truth is (partially/wholly) independent of justification - this is a hallmark of induction.

Type specimen, Gettier case
Smith & Brown go for a job interview. Smith overhears the interviewer saying "White will be hired". Smith known Brown has 10 coins in his pocket. Smith then, so Gettier claim, justified to form the belief that the man with 10 coins in his pocket will be given the job¹.

Later ... Smith is the one who actually bags the prize (is hired). Smith checks his pockets - he has exactly 10 coins. Smiths belief is true.

To sum up, Smiths's belief (the man with 10 coins will be hired) is true and justifed, but then his having 10 coins in his pocket was a chance occurrence i.e. a justified, true, belief that is not knowledge (the no luck principle)

1. Is Smith justified in inferring from what he heard about Brown and what he knows about Brown (10 coins in Brown's pocket) that the man with 10 coins in his pocket will get hire?

I don't think so because there are many people with 10 coins in their pocket who haven't even attended the interview, forget about being rejected/accepted. Smith fails to realize that he himself could have 10 coins in his pocket. In other words Smith's premise $10 ~ coins ~ in ~ pocket \to hired$ is false because e.g. Jones has 10 pockets in his pocket and he hasn't even applied for the job i.e. he is definitely not going to get hired (10 coins in pocket & Not hired).

Danke mon ami, danke!

Yes master?! :chin: :grin:

Gracias mi amigo.

That information is not conserved may be the good & bad news nonphysicalists are waiting for. Energy & matter, both, are conserved and if information is not, that can mean only one thing - information is nonphysical.

Saw your relations diagram. Reminds of the seven bridges of Königsberg problem (status: solved, courtesy Leonhard Euler)

Also do read my reply to 180 Proof. Your fromulation of the self as a pattern reminds me of video game character classes like the ones you see in the Diablo series.

Assassin
1. Life 30
2. Agility 60
3. Strength 40
4. Defense 35
5. Mana: 70

Skill tree: Traps, illusions, poison, archery, daggers

:cool:

So if the self is a pattern (of information), when I read Aristotle's books, I'm in conversation, albeit one-way only, with him. But wait, his response to my questions can be inferred from his various positions on relevant issues? We can, in a sense, reconstruct Aristotle's mind from his corpus even though only partially - a half/quarter/third Aristotle. :cool:

I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things.
— Gnomon
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics? — 180 Proof

To tell you the truth, a Google search on conservation of energy was negative although there was something in The black hole information paradox (Susskind, Hawking et all).

All I can say is

1. Information is substrate (matter) independent. "I'm sorry" can be written on a rock, copied onto paper, memorized, copied onto a text/word file, the possibilities are infinite. In a sense information uses physical stuff (matter & energy) for encoding purposes.

2. If I write a message, say "Forgive me", onto a paper and then toss it into a fire, the message is lost ... forever. I see no way the information can be retrieved from the ashes (a trope in many mystery novels)

A cool app, goes by the rather modest name umiverse splitter

Well go on then, split the universe! :party:

I am not a smoker! — Jack Cummins

Stay safe Jack! :up:

Talking is a cakewalk compared to doing! The expression "put yer money where yer mouth is" is on point. Walk the talk? :smile:

Self-discipline, never had it, probably never will! Remember we talked about destiny? I was, it appears, born to die. :death:

The hit rate of advice is dismal I agree, but it ain't zero and at some point one realizes that one hasta keep shooting until you hit something right in the apricot, but of course this is a different kinda slug - it saves, not kills.

Spot on sir/madam as the case may be. One spanner in the works is habit (pick up bad ones and you've basically sealed your fate). However, difficulty level may be a factor too - reasoning is abstract, not everyone's cuppa tea if you know what I mean. Another possible component is emotion, they always get the better of me, but I'm not complaining of course even though thinking & pain/anger/depression don't mix all that well.

:up:

Would I be correct if I said praxis is the stumbling block? Many people, I for one, are unable to practice rationality despite knowing everything there is to know about critical thinking. It's not as easy as it sounds is what I mean.

In college, I encountered the acronym KABP (it was a template in socio-medical studies).
K - Knowledge
A - Attitude
B - Belief
P - Practice

I know smoking kills; My attitude is generally a don't-give-a-damn one; My belief is quitting should mean I get to see my grandchildren; My practice, chain smoker.

Isn't unification the norm? NATO, Warsaw Pact, SAARC, G20, ASEAN, BRICS, BIMSTEC, OPEC, EU, The League of Nations, and UN its successor.

:rofl:

To,

Aristotle,
Head of the Lyceum.
Greece

Dear sir,

Gracias for the prompt reply. It's heartening to know even your PA', Mr. Paris Drakos', knowledge & wisdom are as extensive as the contents of his correspondence would indicate.

However, the letter doesn't critique the argument as such although I admit I did enjoy the rather colorful caricature of people it presents.

With the hope that you'll address my argument directly - I'm fairly certain it's flawed in some way - focusing on how and where it goes wrong, I respectfully end this message.

Yours faithfully,

:cool:
Agent Smith
TPF

What? — javi2541997

:rofl:

There's a lot yet to explain in cosmology/cosmogony/astronomy. Did you read 180 Proof's reply to me? There are some mathematical models which purport to account for the low entropy state of the universe - our universe is a white hole who's low entropy state is offset and exceeded by the high entropy state of a black hole "at the opposite end". That would mean your Enformy is actually entropy (of the black hole paired with our universe).

There's this riddle if youtube videos are to be believed that scientists haven't yet solved: why was the early universe in a low entropy state? Must be the Enformer. :smile:

[The entropy is always increasing, right? So the entropy must've been lower in the past than at present. So the argument proceeds ... The Big Bang was a very low entropy state then.]

Plus the 2^nd law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases) isn't actually a law like the law of gravity is. The 2^nd law simply states that since there are more ways to be disordered than there are ways to be ordered, entropy (disorder) goes up, BUT ... there's a small, infinitesimally small (non-zero) chance that entropy decreases.

Allow me to explain:

A box, some gas particles in one corner; the gas particles move randomly (entropy increases) and the gas particles attain peak entropy when they're uniformly distributed throughout the box. That's that!

Now the interesting bit - it's entirely possible though extremely improbable that all the gas particles, by fluke and fluke alone, find themselves back in the corner where they began their last journey (entropy decreases).

Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? Read, quite interesting and might help buttress your argument for Enformy.

From the Fibonacci sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, ...
we get the following ordered pairs

(1, 1), (2, 3), (3, 5), (5, 8), (8, 13) ...

Is this some kinda pattern? :chin:

No problem. I am sure you will consume Latin and gain fluency, you are indeed a cunning linguist! — universeness

:rofl:

Why do I always think of Agent Smith, anytime I type latin? — universeness

Muchas gracias for the compliment. I'm learning Latin ... in fits and starts. Wish me luck.

An interesting take on The Matrix Trilogy. The two, Mr. Anderson, ultimately Neo, The One, and Agent Smith, later the Smith virus, were like positron (positive) and electron (negative) - polar opposites of each other. The Oracle (intuitive program as per Matrix lore) in collaboration with the Architect (reason incarnate), mother & father of The Matrix, it appears, had been planning this all along. They anticipated the Smith virus and so they needed Neo; Neo serves as a trap for Agent Smith (suicide-murder kinda deal).

Yes. — 180 Proof

It's like room cleaning. You cleaning your room = You moving your garbage elsewhere. Your room is clean, but the environment is dirty and the net dirtiness of the system (your room + the environment) goes up!

"when you discover an anomaly, look for the cause". — Gnomon

:up:

What is an anomaly? Why does it beg/demand for an explanation?

You need to watch this video $\downarrow$. Sean Carroll shares his views on entropy and complexity.



Please brush up on your math - the graphs are identical, but I know what you wished to convey and perhaps you thought your audience would be smart enough to do the math themselves. Yours and @180 Proof's (if your assessment is correct) views are indeed opposites of each other - they're, mathematically, reflections of each other and this, to my reckoning, is yin-yang at play (re BothAnd).

fyi: Order (i.e. dissipative structures / processes) emerges because of – as it increases – the asymmetric gradient of entropy. — 180 Proof

:up: Are you referring to net entropy?

Starting entropy (say) = 10

Local entropy falls (life's order) = - 2, but at a cost of +3 entropy to the environment

Ending entropy = 10 -2 + 3 = 11

Ending entropy of the system (11) > Starting entropy of the system (10)

So, in a sense, this Enformy (order) is a "pattern" in Entropy (chaos). @180 Proof would agree, I recall him saying something to the effect that order is (merely) a phase in chaos.

I performed this little experiment with an online random (chaos) number generator. The first few tries yielded no patterns, but on the third attempt this: 9, 5, 1, 2, 3, 7, 9. A pattern/order (1, 2, 3) emerges in the patternless/chaos.

I believe Bartricks wants to discuss the now very famous Dunning-Kruger effect.

I conjecture that if we take the y axis as how well one recognizes oneself and the x axis as one's competence, the plot of the data from the corresponding research should be an inverted parabola. Being incompetent, one doesn't realize one is so; at a certain level of competence, one manages to generate a fairly accurate self-report; at high competence, one again fails the mirror test so to speak.

And the cause of "The Cause" ...? — 180 Proof

A good ol' question. Hypothesis non fingo.

Ati sundar!

:up:

In my thread Is Chance A Cause?, I draw the distinction between nature of phenomena (?) and cause of phenomena (a particular combination of causal factors) . I tagged you in one of my posts (you didn't post/reply).

Anyway, to repeat ... a coin toss outcome is for all intents and purposes a chance event but each outcome has a specific cause comprised of the way you positioned your hand, how much force you applied, the strength and direction of local air currents, etc.

Some say the existence of the universe is a fluke however this only describes the nature of the phenomenon; we still need a cause of the phenonemon - some call it Allah, you call it G*D/Enformer. They're all different names for the same thing, I call it The Cause. The point of course is to shed metaphysical baggage and isolate and purify and zero in on The Cause.


In short, arguing for The Cause from improbability is unnecessary. Whether highly likely, unlikely, probable, or improbable, The Cause always exists.

On multiple-guess affiliation surveys I check the "None" box. If, however, when given a fill-in-the-blanks survey, I usually answer the affiliation question: ecstatic pandeist. — 180 Proof

:up: A stranger in a strange land, mon ami? Would you describe yerself as cosmopolitan (à la Diogenes the Cynic, but taken up a notch, a citizen of the cosmos; I tried, but failed ... miserably)?

One response to the Euthyphro dilemma that I consider is satisfactory is, avoiding the trap Gg (god is good), g = Good.

:fire: :clap: :up: :100:

I once replied to my sister who kept pestering me with the question "what is love?" with "Love is a chemical reaction". That's about all I could manage with me high school chemistry & biology (biology in college, oddly, never involved discussions/lectures on interpersonal chemistry).

Everybody's?" :chin:

Well, my list is courage, health & understanding. — 180 Proof

Speaking for myself,

Neat!

It's rather curious that Yeshua would perform miracles in all the branches of science - it bears all the hallmarks of a power display, designed as it were to intimidate science! Miracles are basically a slap in the face for scientia.

The riddle of the Triune God is again an act of domination, this time over mathematics.

In one fell swoop, all science & mathematics are demolished, reduced to rubble, razed to the ground. Only then could religion (fidei) find a foothold in our psyche. The void that was left by the death of reason (science & math) was filled by birth of faith (Christianity).