Curious, you present yourself as understanding the concept of "4D space" and simulation much better than others but you can't solve a simple middle school equation.

Have you ever imagined that what you say is not actual understanding of something but word-salad that comes from cloudy thoughts?

Please, go to the Shoutbox and solve the equation I posed to you. Or is it beyond you?

proving that the Christian God "couldn't exist" is really just pointing out the universal historic fact that concepts are constantly being updated to keep pace with cultural evolution — Pantagruel

Proving that the Christian God does not exist, which is to say that either it is internally contradictory or contradictory with a well-established fact, does not amount to imprecise definition, as an aproximation with contradictions is not an aproximation but an impossibility.
Demokritos' atom was a wild guess that happened to be close to later confirmed empirical reality, but Demokritos' atoms do not exist because we know today that the basic constituents of matter are not solid blocks but full of empty space — fermions aside.

That this reality may be a simulation and “in every way the same” as the “real world” is simply the deus deceptor — Mikie

The simulation assumes a "physical" world, the evil genius hypothesis doubts the physical. The virtual reality hypothesis (called simulation here) is pretty much the same to the brain-in-a-vat argument, which finds its closest parallel in Descartes in the always-dreaming hypothesis — which are still different, as in BIAV the sensations are caused strictly by an outside mechanism (machine) while in the AD the sensations are caused by one's own mind and more extensively not caused by a real world (denial of extended AD implies denial of BIAV but not conversely, strict AD and BIAV are independent claims).
It reminds of Descartes, but it is not strictly the same.

A bit funny that OP made a thread that would extend over 70 pages and then dipped after 10 posts.

Nothing to do with Descartes except when equating simulation hypothesis with virtual reality hypothesis and analogising the latter with a brain-a-vat argument, which still has little to do with Descartes.
Otherwise I invite you to reference Descartes' writings.

You might be interested in my thread. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15080/grundlagenkrise-and-metaphysics-of-mathematics

In a traditional definition, Russia was never communist but socialist. It has now transitioned to an oligarchic State capitalism. The socialist economic model has shown itself to be inefficient times again, so I doubt Russia will ever go back to Soviet ways, perhaps something more like China is a possibility.

I am not a platonist, but I imagine they might say all those structures exist independently as abstract entities. If my description is right, it becomes clear how that is just formalism with extra steps (not parsimonious) and an additional ontological commitment.

Model theory makes mathematics decisively correspondentist — Tarskian

Does it?

Are you maybe taking the wiki definition "and their models (those structures in which the statements of the theory hold)" to mean real world structures? From that view, it would make sense why you think it is correspondist.

Because University of Toronto professors define such that it seems perfectly agreeable with formalism:

Model Theory is the part of mathematics which shows how to apply logic to the study of structures in pure mathematics. On the one hand it is the ultimate abstraction; on the other, it has immediate applications to every-day mathematics. The fundamental tenet of Model Theory is that mathematical truth, like all truth, is relative. A statement may be true or false, depending on how and where it is interpreted. This isn’t necessarily due to mathematics itself, but is a consequence of the language that we use to express mathematical ideas. — Fundamentals of Model Theory, William Weiss and Cherie D’Mello

Even if we do have mathematics that are supposed to match real world phenomenons — correspondist —, like ancient mathematics was, this doesn't seem to show anything other than mathematics being possibly an empirical endeavor. Or rather, that the application of mathematics is necessarily empirical — by the very meaning of the word "application" of course. We know that pure mathematics is "conclusion follows from the premises", without any need for correspondence with real world phenomenons.

There are no sets in the real world in the sense of set theory. Show me the set containing the empty set and the set containing the empty set, which is better known by its more familiar name, 2. — fishfry

That would be a defeater for immanent realism and psychologism, but not for platonism. But I agree with your overall post.

Profession corresponds strongly to background, expectation, opportunity and the economy. — Vera Mont

You just made those up.

Even the dumbest offspring of CEO's and department store magnates are aimed at university from their gold-plated cradle, through top-flight nursery school through tutors at prep school, and if that doesn't work, their parents can buy a test-stand-in or a department chair — Vera Mont

It doesn't quite work like that.




The truth is that in a volatile society (pick your examples), environmental factors will be stronger. In a more equal and stable society, like the Scanvinavian countries before the refugee crisis, we see the true extent in which genetics plays a role. The same happens between sexes, where at MENA women often pick up engineering, while in more equal societies men pick up sciences and tech while women go for health and arts.

As we see from the graph, years of education is just as or less important than intelligence. If intelligence wasn't that important, we would see much higher variation in those less privileged occupations. But it isn't so, most fall under 95, the variation is small.
Such is the reality of genetic determinism, life sucks.

Theoretically, yes.

Realistically, hmmm... it would take a very tolerant dictator, which is rare.

Surely, if I am the only entity in existence, my memories would go as far back as I want them to go? — Truth Seeker

Surely not.

If a simulation is wholly deterministic, there is no added value to run it in the first place — Benj96

There is, because

For all variables throughout the simulations play are already known by the creators. — Benj96

is wrong.

For the reason that our brains don't have the same computing power as computers, hence smart people are running simulations all the time.

:roll:

IQ is highly inheritable under normal conditions. Profession correlates strongly with IQ. Therefore, in an unskewed sample of pipe-fitters, most of them will not have intelligent children.

No, you obviously don't. A pipe-fitter can have intelligent children. — Vera Mont

Can. But most likely won't.

My primary desire is to make all organisms forever happy (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) but this is impossible for me to do — Truth Seeker

Not only is it impossible to do, but perhaps it is not desirable to make everyone happy. See for example this article https://iep.utm.edu/experience-machine/ (pleasure machine)

That's me saying something, not fishfry. — noAxioms

Oops :monkey: fixed.

then the ∞-th step is taken after that — noAxioms

The problem I was trying to point out that is that, if we admit a ∞-th step, this step should be associated with a state in one of those mechanisms Michael made up.

I agree with fishfry that there is no step that gives us 1 since by definition, any given step gets us only halfway there — noAxioms

I agree with that too. In the end, I don't think reasoning about infinity gets us anywhere.

First, if the world is simulated, why don't its 'designers' simply 'pop out' at times and leave us with some trace of their existence? — jasonm

Surely you can imagine why. What you have proved so far is that, if we are in a simulation run by conscious beings, those conscious beings don't think like us humans.

Similarly, why don't we sometimes notice violations of the laws of physics? If it's just a simulation, does it matter if the laws of physics are perfectly consistent? — jasonm

If our world is a simulation, violations of the laws of physics would be bugs. But being that the simulation is a program, it should be deterministic, and therefore consistent; so within our perspective, those bugs would just be seen as features, the only ones who could possibly identify bugs are the programmers.

An appropriate reply would elicit a lenghty discussion which is not something I want to undertake about this topic, but I will say that the argument is right in saying that if we are a brain-in-a-vat with no knowledge of the real world, our statement "we are a brain in a vat" doesn't refer to anything in this real world. But that alone — anyone can realise after a bit of introspection — does not mean we are not hooked in a simulation. That the symbol–referenced relationship in our languages can tell us anything about the real world is silly, as it takes the referenced (the world) for granted and then goes on to make an argument on the same lines of "Well, but are we really referring to dogs when we say the word dog?".

I will take the assh*le route that I do with other arguments and put it like this: if Putnam's argument was anywhere near successful, you would see that most of the philosophical community would throw their hands in the air and go "Hah, it is settled, we are not in a simulation.". But that is not the case. Solipsism will most likely never be defeated, perhaps only become obsolete.

I said no such thing!! If you like, you can think of the limit as being the ∞-th item. — fishfry

There is an ∞-th item, namely the limit of the sequence.

The sequence itself has no last item. But the "augmented sequence," if you call it that, does. We can simply stick the limit at the end. — fishfry

then 1 may be sensibly taken as the ∞-th item, or as I've been calling it, the item at ω — fishfry

Then you say.

If it is indeed accomplishing an infinite amount of steps, is there not a step where the sequence gives us 1?
— Lionino

No. — fishfry

Is there not a contrast between these two sets of statements?

I think trouble ensues when you try to apply abstract math to the physical world — fishfry

We are applying mathematics not just to this physical world but to any possible world where the physics could be different, and for that we discuss what the mathematics means in the world — as it is necessary that 1+1=2 so that everytime you take one of something and one again you end up with two.

Quine and Putnam are the kings when it comes to bad metaphysical arguments.

Edit: Quine is the king, Putnam is the bishop.

It bothers me that I don't quite know who runs the show. — BitconnectCarlos

You don't know who runs the show even when the president is mentally sane. In 2020, the ultra-fascist Trump "let" BLM riots burn down entire cities, he "let" antifa young adults take over a neighbourhood of Seattle where the government could not get in.

Well I am not sure if I have persuasive or great reasons or arguments against solipsism but I must say that I nevertheless do harbor a strong belief in the existence of the external world. Do you find solipsism to be persuasive and if so, how would you argue for it? — Max2

Long thread on that https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14787/reason-for-believing-in-the-existence-of-the-world/p27

You just linked an IEP article.

Is there a name for the logical fallacy that "P is repugnant, therefore not-P." — fishfry

Willard von Orman Quine :razz:

What are your core beliefs? — Truth Seeker

I would not say I have any core belief. Identity is something fluid, that changes, realising that may be the difference between being scarred for life or healing from a traumatic experience.
Think for yourself: what am I besides my name, my appearance, my knowledge, my titles, my accomplishments, my grades, my bank account, my belongings, my relationships, my reputation, my memories, all these things that can change?
Resting your identity on beliefs will damage your sense of self when those beliefs are challenged. If there is one thing, however, is that I am dedicated to truth and to be a spokesperson for it, while at the same time recognising that some subjects are beyond truth: culture, politics, love, friendship.

I have a duty of care to them. I have a duty of care to all living things. I do my best to save and improve all lives, but I can't save and improve all lives despite my best efforts. — Truth Seeker

You put upon yourself more duties than one can accomplish in a single life, and yet death is still desirable to you. Do you not see the contradiction here?
The more duties I realise I have upon myself, the longer I wish I would live, such that sometimes I wish I would live forever, regardless of whether that life would be pleasant or horrible.

Sorry, Lionino, that's a good point by Bitconnect. I'm really trying to understand. You've already helped me get the first part, I had wrong. Do you recognize how nevertheless you have misapplied it, and assertively? — ENOAH

I referred to that in a previous comment. Luther says that salvation is by faith. The Church says it is by faith and by deeds. That is doctrine. The structure of the institution (how many bishops, in what conditions a marriage may be cancelled, indulgences) is not about doctrine however.

He routinely makes a mockery of his own "faith." He made the sign of the cross at an abortion rally a few days ago. He stands for nothing. He is neither mentally not physically fit to hold office yet the Democrats bolster him up while others run the show. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, he clearly has dementia or something related.

non sequiturs — 180 Proof

sequuntur :up:

8. I wish I had killed myself when I was a child. — Truth Seeker

But you are still here with us. That can only be because you see a purpose in being alive, but perhaps you don't see that you see that.

I never feel good enough. — Truth Seeker

For people who are cognisant enough, it becomes clear that life is not about feeling good. This world sucks, undeniably. But that doesn't stop us from pursuing pointless things that make us feel good or make us happy despite how much suffering there is.
I think you would benefit from reading a comic series called Berserk. It is a fun read too.

How do we judge evidence if it's not happening consciously? — RogueAI

Whether something is conscious or not is different from whether it is voluntary or not.

If that belief about the evidence does not happen voluntarily, how is it happening involuntarily? — RogueAI

By mechanisms of the mind I can't afford to think about and then explain before cooking my steak for the day. You are saying that we can voluntarily choose whether a belief is good or not → we can change a belief when new evidence is available → we can voluntarily choose to believe. The problem is the first step, whether we think a piece of evidence is good or not is another belief and thus not voluntary. What is voluntary, on the other hand, is seeking arguments from one side or another of a debate and thinking more or less deeply about those arguments.

The point is that: we don't get to choose our beliefs the same way we get to choose to eat cake or pie.

Yet Luther did. — BitconnectCarlos

I think his legacy speaks for the quality of his ideas. Anyone can give their opinions about a topic, and many people may follow, but that speaks nothing of the truth of those opinions. Ridiculous example: Mormonism.

You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it. — BitconnectCarlos

I wouldn't indulgences are doctrine, more like a corrupt practice.

I still think it sounds like you wish to restrict even the opportunity to admire, enjoy, and be edified by Jesus to the teachings of the Church. — ENOAH

No, people can do as they wish from an aesthetic point of view. My point is that by admiring the teachings of Jesus you are admiring a large subset of the doctrines of the Church — the two are not separable. The story of Jesus is given to us by the Church.
Saying "the teachings of Jesus are..." and what follows is in disagreement with Church doctrine is going to be most likely an error, except if:

If your bishop approves your interpretation and the Pope sanctions it ex cathedra, fine — it won't happen anyway because whatever you may have thought of has been thought of before and addressed —, otherwise, it has been rejected by a reason — Lionino

-

The Church has given itself that authority. — ENOAH

I guess so, in the same way that JK Rowling gave herself authority over the Harry Potter IP. You see how that is distinct from simply "giving oneself authority"?

Your insistence that all talk of Jesus needs to conform to Church teachings makes no other sense to me. — ENOAH

I will go over a few premises.

The Church was founded by Peter, one of the apostles.
The current Church is in traditional succession with the early Church.
Our only source of the teachings of Jesus (not a speculative, hypothetising reconstruction of a uncertain "historical Jesus") is the Bible.
The Church edited, translated, and compiled the Bible, as such to construct a narrative that aligns with the tradition followed — as you say, the gnostic accounts were discarded for diverging from orthodox dogma.
That contents of the narrative have an intended meaning.

From these premises, it seems to follow that claiming that the teachings of Jesus are X instead of Y, as stated by the Church, is a mistake of the same nature as claiming a chapter of HP means X when JK Rowling specified from the start it means Y.

Let me start by saying my previous post here was poorly written. Now,

No. The mathematics is pristine. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1 in the same sense that 1 + 1 = 2. Two names for the same thing. May be used interchangeably. Exactly equal. Denote exactly the same real number. — fishfry

There is no ∞-th item of a series. [...] But 1 is the limit, it's not a member of the sequence. — fishfry

The series of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... equals 1. The sequence $a_{n}=1-0.5^{n}$ converges to 1, yet 1 is not part of the sequence. As you agreed, there is no ∞-th item. Cool.

The issue that I see is:
1 – if we admit that time is infinitely divisible;
2 – and we admit that $a_{n}=1-0.5^{n}$ gives us the lenght covered by Achilles in the Zeno Walk at each step;
the walk only finishes if it accomplishes an infinite amount of steps. Right?

If it is indeed accomplishing an infinite amount of steps, is there not a step where the sequence gives us 1? If not, how is the walk ever completed?; if so, is there not a corresponding state for the mechanism when the full time elapses?
In other words, by admitting that the result of an infinite series is necessarily true¹, how do you justify at the same time that the state is really undefined at 1 while also defending that Achilles can finish the run?

I want to emphasise that I am not arguing about the mathematics, but about the (meta)physical meaning of some mathematical concepts.

Does that make sense?

1 – Is that also the case for non-standard analysis and arithmetic?



–––––

How does it know where to go next, and at what speed? I think that's a more interesting puzzle. Where are velocity and momentum "recorded?" How does the arrow know what to do next? — fishfry

How much time elapses from travel to point a to point b and where is the object located during that time lapse?
Does the object leave existence between a and b and if it does, what maintains its identity during that interval? — Hanover

But there is that for an advantage of continuous time over discrete.

–––––

They are not supported to the extent that General Relativity is, but given that quantum mechanics and General Relativity are known to be incompatible, it would seem that at least one of them is false, and my money is on General Relativity being false. — Michael

Same here. General relativity is suspected to break down at high enough energies or small enough scales — where the quantum effects can't be ignored —, "like" Newtonian theory breaks down when v or Gm/R become large enough.

I understand that. My question is, do you think that my comment is contradictory with the OP?

You are right. — Truth Seeker

So do you think what I said is in agreement with your original argument, or did you change your mind from the original argument? If the latter, what conclusion did you draw?

And I will use this comment to say I agree 100% with

Especially

If objective knowledge is knowledge without reference to a mind, then it follows that no knowledge could ever be objective. But in turn, it makes no sense to have a dichotomy where one side is empty and the label "subjective" applies equally to everything. — Count Timothy von Icarus

was what I wanted to say with my comment, put more eloquently.

Thank you. I am sure my Ukrainian former girlfriend is smiling upon us. She is still alive but yeah.

Old news but still relevant and funny.

But its state is not defined at 1 — fishfry

However, how do you arrive at that conclusion? The two options that I can think of is by admitting that the sum of an infinite series is an approximation instead of the exact value, or by casting some doubt on the idea of an ∞-th item of a series. The latter seems to cause more problems than solve them for me. Did you use a different reasoning?

so we can't have counted up to infinity because there is no last number — Michael

That is exactly the Zeno Walk.

From this perspective, Achilles actually does complete all of the supertask steps in the limit as the number of steps goes to infinity. One might only doubt whether or not the standard topology of the real numbers provides the appropriate notion of convergence in this supertask.

Your objection is that:

Max Black (1950) argued that it is nevertheless impossible to complete the Zeno task, since there is no final step in the infinite sequence.

And the problem is

But as Thomson (1954) and Earman and Norton (1996) have pointed out, there is a sense in which this objection equivocates on two different meanings of the word “complete.” On the one hand “complete” can refer to the execution of a final action. This sense of completion does not occur in Zeno’s Dichotomy, since for every step in the task there is another step that happens later. On the other hand, “complete” can refer to carrying out every step in the task, which certainly does occur in Zeno’s Dichotomy.

We may not like how this train of thought goes, and we might settle for the more intuitive and less troublesome metaphysics, but the possibility of either remains, especially when human minds have issues wrestling with the infinity concept.

I'm just trying to take the subtle approach. — fishfry

That was attempted back in 2016 with the whole "DESTROYS sjw with facts and logic", it only got worse. Some of the people on that "side" are victims, I imagine they don't even have an inner monologue so they can't even filter what information is fed to them.
Regardless of whether they even know what they are saying, the time to be subtle with people who want you gone and your culture burned was long ago, nobody cares about being called racist/sexist/theosophist any longer. There is no god anymore, everything goes.