Comments

  • Simple proof there is no infinity
    I just proved the number of unique things that can or will ever exist, both physical and imaginary, is finite. What part of the proof can you possibly doubt?Zelebg

    It is not a "proof" as meant by proof theory.

    For that purpose, you first need to list the axioms in your theory. Next, you need to show that what you have said syntactically entails from these axioms.

    Therefore, it is a problem with (the lack of) formalisms that you use.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    Consider any non-standard model of PA. How can we capture this non-standard model in a set of sentences?Nagase

    It implies that if a countable first-order theory has an infinite model, then for every infinite cardinal number κ it has a model of size κ, and that no first-order theory with an infinite model can have a unique model up to isomorphism.Wikipedia on Löwenheim–Skolem theorem

    A nonstandard model is created by throwing a symbol κ into the fray; the result of which is the creation of lots of new sentences in such extended grammar.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    Even the title of the thread you posted is wildly, clearly and egregiously incorrect:

    "You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around"
    GrandMinnow

    In terms of computability, it is not incorrect. Computability cannot handle full ZFC. In computability, everything is fundamentally just a natural number; even its pseudo-real numbers. Hence, in all practical terms, you cannot even do anything with what ZFC can do more than ZF-inf, because computers cannot handle that.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    When you write "set theory" but mean "the theory of herditarily finite sets" then you need to write "the theory of hereditaraily finite sets" and not "set theory".GrandMinnow

    I thought that this was clear by clearly mentioning what set theory it is about. "The set theory" in my post is indeed "the theory of hereditarily finite sets".

    There might be such a notion in a branch of study, but not in ordinary mathematical discussion.GrandMinnow

    I was not aware of the fact that the meaning of the terms "language" and "sentence" in computer science would be so out of place in mathematical logic. I am quite surprised by that, but I can see that it is probably true. It is mostly a question of properly qualifying these terms.

    As I see it, a model-theoretical model is a grammar (as understood in computer science) along with a set of operators that interprets a theory which is a set axioms (written in again another grammar). I find it a lot easier to understand the concept in these terms.

    In fact, I find it quite amazing that the collection of sentences (not logic ones but computer-science ones) constrained by a particular grammar can interpret a set of axioms. You get two unrelated formalisms that are to an important extent equivalent. I find that surprising and intriguing.

    That does not mean that I would be interested in everything that ever gets investigated in model theory, such as, for example, the model for the real numbers and so on. I cannot do anything with real numbers, because they are generally not computable.

    So, my post was about my understanding about the subject. It was not meant to be a particularly standard take on the matter, or an elaboration on the numerous formalisms and subtleties involved in the formal proof. For that purpose, the reader should rather use the original paper by Richard Kaye and Tin Lok Wong.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    Whatever you read on a forum, it's not ZF minus infinity that is, in a certain sense (a qualification I'll leave tacit henceforth), equivalent with first order (a qualification I'll leave tacit henceforth) PA. Rather it is ZF minus infinity plus the negation of infinity that is equivalent with PA.GrandMinnow

    The original paper by Richard Kaye and Tin Lok Wong says:

    Folklore Result.The first-order theories Peano arithmetic and ZF set theory with the axiom of infinity negated are equivalent, in the sense that each is interpretable in the other and the interpretations are inverse to each other.
    ...
    the notion of ‘ZF set theory with the axiom of infinity negated’ turns out to be ...
    ...
    For example, Chang and Keisler [5,§A.31] specify one particular choice of axiomatisation of ZF; for this axiomatisation a weak form of interpretation-equivalence of ‘ZF with infinity negated’ and PA can be proved, but for stronger notions of interpretation-equivalence a different axiomatisation of ZF seems to be required.
    ...
    By ZF−inf we mean the theory in the first-order language L∈o f set theory with all the usual axioms of ZF except infinity, which is negated.
    ...
    It was observed in 1937 by Wilhelm Ackermann [1] that N with the membership relation defined by n ∈ m iff the nth digit in the binary representation of m is 1 satisfies ZF−inf.
    On interpretations of arithmetic and set theory

    In my impression, it means that the induction-complete notion of infinity ("axiom of infinity") is not part of the ZF−inf theory. The idea to call it "ZF−inf" is apparently even older than this particular paper.

    No, PA has successor (adding one), addition, and multiplication as primitive.GrandMinnow

    Addition and multiplication are defined in terms of the successor function:

    The Peano axioms can be augmented with the operations of addition and multiplication and the usual total (linear) ordering on N. The respective functions and relations are constructed in set theory or second-order logic, and can be shown to be unique using the Peano axioms.Wikipedia on Peano's axioms

    In my impression, addition and multiplication (and their inverses) are not counted as being part of Peano's axioms.

    That seems to be your main point. And it is wildly and clearly incorrect. PA cannot prove the existence of an infinite setGrandMinnow

    ZF−inf can't either.

    No, the equivalence of PA and FINITE set theory, aka known as the theory of hereditarily finite sets.GrandMinnow

    Yes, but that should have been clear from the context. The set theory at hand is ZF−inf and not ZFC.

    Not if you're talking about basic mathematical logic. A language is not a set of sentences. A language is a set of symbols with arity functions.GrandMinnow

    I was talking about languages as seen through the lens of computer science, i.e. regular languages, context-free languages, and so on. They are not exactly the same as what is meant by language in mathematical logic. Still, they are covered by the same term, i.e. "language". For example, the natural numbers as a model can be characterized by a simple regular language.

    model is not a set of sentences. A model is a certain kind function from the symbols of a language.GrandMinnow

    A model is a set of sentences in a particular "language" (as defined by computer science). For example, the natural numbers are the set of sentences characterized by a class of isomorphic regular expressions.
  • Is society itself an ideology?
    I'm not sure how you are using the term axiomatize. However, I will say that life does not have ideas, only people do. People choose to have offspring.schopenhauer1

    All life fundamentally chooses to have offspring. That is why it still exists in the first place.

    They are following the ideology that ways of life of a society are good.schopenhauer1

    Not necessarily. I can give you a simple counterexample. Jewish minorities still had children, even though they never particularly subscribed to the non-Jewish mainstream ideology of society. They clearly had their own.

    Yeah, you can give me some fringe exceptions, but besides that this isn't sustainable as a widespread thing, these fringes are only in relation to the non-fringes, so you need both.schopenhauer1

    A fringe can easily become the mainstream. That happens all the time. In fact, most people are sheeple. Their opinion concerning the mainstream ideology, (or concerning anything at all, for that matter) does not matter at all. Nassim Taleb has written a good article exactly on that subject: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority. The opinion of most people is immaterial and irrelevant. Only intolerant people matter. Society changes its ideology according to the principle of group renormalization in line with the opinion of its most intolerant members.

    So, you can happily ignore the opinion of most people, because it is known to be worthless.
  • Sexual ethics
    You're also shitting on Turkey's national political hero, Atatürk, the reformer, who apparently is not a Muslim by your standards.fdrake

    Did I say anything about Atatürk personally?

    Yasar Yakis (a founding member of the AK Party) says that the opinion of Muslims in Turkey is rather the following:

    They are against Kemalism and the aggressive secularism which attacked Islam and banished it from public life, not Ataturk per se.Yasar Yakis on Ataturk

    Not only was his performance as a military commander in the Dardanelles quite impressive, but he also managed to put a stop to the Allied occupation of Turkey after WWI. That is why Atatürk is a national hero in Turkey.

    Furthermore, the aggressive secularism had already started during the Ottoman empire even to the point that the sharif of the Hejaz designated the Ottoman Young-Turk government as apostates and then spearheaded a successful insurgency in Arabia and the wider Middle East. I am not sure that the Sharif's choice of timing was particularly good, though. It certainly managed to undo Atatürk's achievements in the Dardanelles. The sharif may have successfully solved a problem by creating a much, much bigger one.
  • Is society itself an ideology?
    But the debate isn't about which society is bestschopenhauer1

    I think that it does not even matter which society is best. In my opinion, you can always personally succeed, as long as you do not adopt its standard collection of lies, i.e. its ideology. In fact, if you do not believe it, it will just not apply to you, because you will trivially bypass all its land mines.

    whether it is good to bring someone into any societyschopenhauer1

    You will have to axiomatize that belief. You cannot deduce it from other beliefs.

    Life in general seems to be naturally inclined to axiomatize that it is a good thing to have offspring. Otherwise, life would probably not even exist.

    If you adopt anti-natalist views, then you will not have any offspring, and then this in-existent offspring will not perpetuate your ideas. Hence, the world will be always end up being populated mostly by people who have inherited natalist opinions from their parents. It is just a question of keeping your children away from public-school indoctrination camps operated by anti-natalist cultural Marxists. Therefore, anti-natalism is an "evolutionary dead-end". Still, it is obviously your own choice.
  • How to Deal with Strange Things
    I guess I'm curious if anyone has heard of something like this, or has any ideas about what it is, or how to deal with it. I ingenously tried the psychiatric establishment, but it didn't work (even if that's my fault), and I'm not sure what else to do.csalisbury

    Religious people, such as myself, believe that prayer is a much more effective cure to mental issues than most approaches in psychiatry (but probably not all). Prayer often succeeds where psychiatry fails. However, there is a twist to that view.

    Prayer only works if you believe that it does, while you also need to be patient and keep trying until it works. It is like trying to lose weight. If you give up, you fail. If you don't give up, one day or the other, it will really work.

    Hence, prayer-as-a-cure contains an important element of autosuggestion. In that sense, prayer will never work for unbelievers. That is even how it is meant to be. As unbelievers often prefer to keep suffering, they probably should.

    So, yes, you can be saved, if only you believe that you can.
  • Is society itself an ideology?
    Would you agree that generally, a society has a "way of life", general patterns that people follow that are more-or-less the same? We generally have things like work, money, exchange, consumption, etc., right?schopenhauer1

    It is clearly an ideology but not a necessary one.

    You can happily adopt a completely different view and function perfectly well inside that society. In fact, you will most likely do better than people who adopt the mainstream ideology. Well, that has always been my impression. I believe that adopting the standard ideology in society will automatically lead to personal failure.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    First, it's not clear what is for languages to be isomorphic. A model M is isomorphic to a model N iff there is a bijection between their respective domains that respects the interpretation of the non-logical symbols. What does it mean for languages to be isomorphic?Nagase

    A formal language is a class of sentences, just like a model-theoretical model is. Such classes can be isomorphic. This is very possible.

    For example, the class of decimal representations of natural numbers is isomorphic under arithmetic to the class of binary representations of natural numbers. The translation function τ is definable and even trivially computable. Example:





    I also tend to believe that a model-theoretical model is a formal language, and that a formal language is a model-theoretical model (of sorts). It is a similar view as expressed by the Curry-Howard correspondence (CHC): "A proof is a program, and a program is a proof (of sorts)." Still, the bureaucracy of formalisms to actually prove the CHC is daunting and full of subtleties. I would certainly not be able to do it alone.

    As I remarked previously, the standard model of natural numbers can be completely captured by a really simple regular expression (=a regular language), one example being (=decimal):

    = 0 | [1-9][0-9]*

    There really is a bijection between and the Von Neumann ordinals , while arithmetic clearly is homomorphic in both directions. That is the reason why interpretes PA using arithmetic expressed in terms of set operations; simply because already does. Given the isomorphism with the standard model , there is no need to further prove that truly interpretes PA.

    The bijection really exists, because the translation function τ can be defined and is even trivially computable:





    In the expressions above, and are collections of strings. So, 9 is represented by the string "9" in or by the binary string "1001" in base 2 (or by other strings in other bases, depending on the choice of base).

    More importantly, you claimed in your first post that your procedure was meant to express the bi-interpretability of PA and ZF-Inf. What I'm saying is that this is very far from the truth. You have not shown how to define the relevant notions in PA (i.e. you have not shown that PA proves that your definitions are well-defined). You have not shown that, using your definitions, we can prove the axioms of ZF-Inf. And finally, you have also not shown that your "interpretations" are inverses, which is crucial for bi-interpretability.Nagase

    The proof sketch in my OP is obviously not a complete formal proof.

    Still, if two models are essentially the same up to isomorphism, you can reuse the proof that the definitions for the first model are well-defined to argue that the ones for second model are too, since both models are isomorphic.

    Finally, I'm confused by your use of the sign function. For any x, sgn(x) is either 1, 0, or -1, corresponding to the cases x>0, x=0, x<-1. So there are only three possible values for 1-sgn(x), namely 0, 1, 2. Hence this term can only code at best three possible objects.Nagase

    The predicate φ(x) only defines a set membership function. For example:

    φ(x) := 1 - sgn( (x-4)(x-9)(x-12) )²

    φ(x)=1 for { 4,9,2 } but not for any other value. For example, 8 is not a member of the set:

    φ(8) = 1 - sgn( (8-4)(8-9)(8-12) )²
    = 1 - sgn( (4)(-1)(-4) )²
    = 1 - sgn(16)²
    = 1 - 1²
    =0

    You can try for any value k not in { 4,9,2 } and you will find that φ(k) = 0, simply because the sgn(...)² subexpression will in that case always evaluate to 1, leading to a result that is 1 - 1 = 0.

    Hence, the number-theoretical predicate function φ(x) is capable of returning 1 when the x is in the set, and 0 when it is not. This means that φ(x) effectively represents a set within arithmetic. Since set arithmetic (⋃,⋂) can be implemented in terms of () on these predicates, it is always a model for some set theory.

    Given its bijection with the standard set-builder notation capable of representing sets in ZF-∞, it is isomorphic with the standard model for ZF-∞ under set arithmetic, and therefore a model for ZF-∞.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    So every object in the universe is built out of the empty set in a structured way. So your set {2, 4}, for example, is actually the set { { {}, {{}} }, { { }, { { } }, { { }, { { } } }, { {}, {{}}, { {}, {{}} } }Nagase

    That is the standard model and therefore the standard formal language of ZF-∞, essentially unique only up to isomorphism. Therefore, { 2, 4 } is a legitimate expression in an alternative model and formal language that is isomorphic under set calculus to the standard model.

    As a side note, given the bi-interpretability with PA, ZF-∞ is subject to Löwenheim-Skolem, and is therefore not categorical.

    The BNF grammar of the standard model would be:

    set = "{" "}" |
           "{" set "}" |
         "{" set "," tail_of_sets "}"
    tail_of_sets = set |
                        set "," tail_of_sets
    

    The BNF grammar is not sufficient to entirely validate set expressions because it is not capable of expressing that the set cannot contain duplicates. Hence, the formal language of the standard set model is not context-free. So, there is also need for a function that would be able to do the following:

    remove_duplicates({ a, a, b, b }) = { a, b }

    (2) The universes of ZF-Inf are all infinite. This is clear from the fact that ZF-Inf has the power set axiom, so that there's no bound for the size of its sets.Nagase

    Agreed.

    It is just that it does not contain induction-completed cardinals ω of infinity.

    With this in mind, note that, under Ackermann's interpretation, the empty set is coded by 0, the singleton of the empty set (i.e. {{}}) is coded by 1, the number two is coded by 11 (i.e. by 3), the number three, by 111 (i.e. by 7), and so on and so forth for every von Neumann ordinal (note that I'm considering the leftmost digit as the 0th digit, the second leftmost digit as the 1st digit, etc.). On the other hand, the set {{{}}} is coded by 10, since it does not contain the empty set, but it does contain the singleton of the empty set.

    Note that simply having a coding scheme is not nearly enough for an interpretation (let alone bi-interpretation). You also need to show that (i) the elements in this coding scheme are all definable in the theory that is doing the interpretation and that (ii) all the axioms of the target theory are provable under this coding scheme. These are not trivial matters and some ingenuity is required to see that everything works smoothly (see the chapter by Hájek and Pudlák that I linked in the previous chapter to see how it is done).
    Nagase

    It is obvious that the strategy that you prefer, works absolutely fine. It has been the general idea to work like that since the nineties anyway.

    However, that does not mean that my strategy would not work too.

    I just designed a formal language that produces legitimate number-theoretical predicates and that is isomorphic with the standard ZF-∞ language/model under the standard set operations (⋃,⋂). I like my own approach much better than the standard approach, if only, because it is much simpler.
  • Sexual ethics
    You're not a Muslim.frank

    According to Islamic law, everybody who declares that he is a Muslim, is effectively a Muslim.

    In theory, you may have to declare this before an alim, but as far as I know, that does not lead to issuing a "certificate of Islamitude".

    Takfir or takfeer (Arabic: تكفير‎ takfīr) is a controversial concept in Islamist discourse,[1] denoting excommunication, as one Muslim declaring another Muslim, or any individual, as a non-believer (kafir). The act which precipitates takfir is termed mukaffir.

    It has to be noted that Shiraz Maher do precise that the major Salafi jihadi theoreticians like Abu Hamza al-Masri, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, Omar Abdel-Rahman and Abu Basir al-Tartusi ask to exercise caution while doing takfir, as declaring a Muslim unbeliever wrongly makes the one who accuse to himself get out of the religion.[3]

    In general, the official clergy considers that Islam does not sanction excommunication of Muslims who profess their Islamic faith and perform the ritual pillars of Islam.[1]
    Wikipedia on Takfir

    Other Muslims are very aware of the takfir/mukaffir doctrine and would never say "You are not a Muslim". I never say a thing like that either.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    You ever use Spring (a java technology)?christian2017

    I very rarely use Java, C# or C++, even though I should probably be more open concerning Java in Android development. I tend to use a combo of scripting languages along with C for native libraries.
  • Sexual ethics
    How do you even come up with this stuff.fdrake

    It is the standard in Islam.

    In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

    All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
    ...
    A Muslim is always asked to keep very remote from any thing that stimulates him or stirs his sexual urge. This includes looks, gestures, or free mixing.
    ...
    Undoubtedly, the free mixing of young boys and girls, close to the period of adolescence, in the relaxed environment of a school is very serious. It is a duty of Muslims to unite their efforts to eliminate this system in their countries and to set up schools, colleges and universities for both genders. Parents should search for separate schools to enroll their children. However, if a Muslim, male or female, is pressed to study at a mixed school, then he should exert his utmost to observe the Islamic standards of morality and keep away from all unlawful things.
    ...
    Therefore, we say that co-education is Islamically unacceptable, because of what it leads to, not because of the process of teaching or of the meeting of the two sexes in a classroom.”
    ...
    In fact, the tremendous loss caused by co-education is moral degeneration.
    ...
    This reality coupled with the fact that they are mostly devoid of the supervision of any true and sincere mentor at school in that their teachers themselves do not present their students with a role model of morality, cause the innocent students to fall prey to the deadly predator of sexual impurity.
    Religious advisory on co-education

    Islamic law ("al fiqh") does not advocate to separate children based on religion for non-religious subjects.

    Therefore, children of different religion can sit in the same classes for mathematics, language tuition, literature, science and so on, but not for religion which is to be organized in separate schools, i.e. the madrasas for children of Islamic faith. Islamic law mandates that Muslim children of different genders close to the period of adolescence must be kept separate from the other gender, regardless of the various religious background in the classes.

    For Muslims, Islamic law is not subject to negotiation.
  • Simple proof there is no infinity
    The science of physical infinities is much less developed than the science of mathematical infinities. The main reason is simply that the status of physical infinities is quite undecided.

    Although some have speculated that three-dimensional space is infinite, cosmologists generally believe that the universe is curved in such a way as to make it finite but unbounded—akin to the surface of a sphere.

    In the light of the big-bang model of the origin of the universe, cosmologists generally believe that the universe has a finitely long past; whether it might have an endless future is an open question.
    Encyclopedia Brittanica on physical infinities

    Is anything infinite in the physical world? Although the concept of infinity has a mathematical basis, we have yet to perform an experiment that yields an infinite result.

    The universe could be infinite, both in terms of space and time, but there is currently no way to test whether it goes on forever or is just very big.
    NewScientist on physical infinity

    Infinity is a principle that arises while reasoning from first principles, such as in mathematics, but not while experimental testing, such as in science. Furthermore, the models for number theory and set theory are never the physical universe. These models are collections of formal language strings. They are 100% abstract only.

    Last but not least, you would not be able to prove anything about infinity in the physical universe, because you cannot prove anything at all about the physical universe. We do not have a copy of the Theory of Everything of which the physical universe is a model. Hence, there is no syntactic entailment ("proof") from theoretical axioms possible about the physical universe.
  • Sexual ethics
    None of this has to do with the simple observation that a surplus of young, testosterone-filled males is not good for a stable society.Nobeernolife

    War and breakdowns in law and order are very similar in terms of how young, testosterone-filled males behave.

    So, they may even actively want to cause a breakdown in law and order. That is something I expect them to do in the not so distant future, really. Since in my opinion the existing societal order has lost all legitimacy, I would see that kind of events rather as a solution than as a problem.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    Are you an engineer or a math major?christian2017

    A software engineer. Math is more of a hobby, actually. I would never have studied it at uni. Math is fun, intriguing, and surprising but not vocational enough as a profession.

    You can actually discover alot of stuff about mathematical principles by studying how 3d engines are made such as Blender.christian2017

    I am impossibly lousy at visual mathematics, especially, at the visual puzzling of classical Euclidean geometry ("Elements"). I can only do algebraic geometry, to a better extent, but I don't like it all that much either. I prefer symbol manipulation only. So, I pretty much never choose a math topic that is fundamentally visual. It reminds me too much of technical drawings we had to do at high school. I could never "see" the thing ...
  • Is society itself an ideology?
    This is the exact process I am describing, you are simply using "ideology" as short hand for "my ideology is right".boethius

    No, it is just standard epistemology.

    We just look at how beliefs can be objectively justified, and if they can't, then it is ideology and not knowledge.
  • Sexual ethics
    It’s because our culture continues to celebrate and encourage the ignorance, posturing and false bravado of boys and men that the education of our boys is failing them.Possibility

    That is a typical culturally-Marxist view on masculinity.

    The simplest solution to fix the problem is conclude that the ongoing experiment of co-education has failed, to abolish it, and to go back to boys-only and girls-only schools.

    It is trivial to achieve this simply by expelling the government out of education. At that point, parents become again customers who choose whatever service they prefer. As a parent, I do not want co-education. Therefore, I choose for my children another solution.

    The government has spectacularly mismanaged education, and now they must go, or else, they will be made to go.

    Furthermore, I can guarantee to you that we are not going to vote over this. If they want to force other people to swallow their misguided views on education, then they will have to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    this is usually done by way of the Ackermann interpretation, namely "x belongs to y" is defined as "the xth digit of the binary expansion of y is 1".Nagase

    So, in a universe with just 7 numbers, { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }, the subset { 2, 4 } is represented as 0010100. So, the binary representation is as long as the largest number in the subset. I don't see, however, how to represent { 2, { 3, 5} } in that scheme.

    One model of the natural numbers are the string symbols that satisfy the regular language:

    L = 0 | [1-9][0-9]*

    We can pick any arbitrary number of symbols of at least two symbols, , and represent natural numbers as:

    L = | [ - ] [ - ]*

    L is a model of PA:

    PA ( | [ - ] [ - ]* ) { +, -, x , / }

    We can also capture the Von Neumann ordinals and the constant expressions representing heriditarily finite sets as languages with (non-context free) grammars. In this approach, the Von Neumann ordinals interprete PA, simply because they are isomorphic under arithmetic with the language L mentioned above.

    I think that the simplest way to argue that there is a language, i.e. a model, representing number-theoretical predicates that interprete ZF-∞ is to just create one, and then to argue that this language is isomorphic under arithmetic with the standard set-builder notation for set literals.

    Kaye and Wong did it in another way, but I think that their approach is more complicated and less intuitive than an approach in which we treat models as formal languages.
  • Is society itself an ideology?
    Unfortunately, the disciplines of psychology and economics and large parts of medicine are simply made up for profit; this behaviour can be investigated, and trust diminished where trust is not earned, but it is a complex task. Is it all false? no, but the best propaganda is mostly true and yet yields a radically different conclusion compared to removing the small amount of lies.boethius

    Psychology and economics were never blindly trusted and are widely considered to be mostly conjectural. Medicine has also always been distrusted to an important extent.

    Nassim Taleb uses medicine as one of his primary examples, arguing that physical stress is good for you, and medicine is, with very few exceptions, bad.

    Because antifragile entities benefit from a little stress, he spends a great deal of time belaboring his wariness of “iatrogenic” effects (in which the treatment is worse than the original illness). To a point, most of us would agree. For example, if your blood pressure is only slightly outside of the range of normal, you might be wise not to choose medication as your solution. Slight stresses on the body are indeed natural. I’m not sure I’d agree that your higher reading will make you stronger, but certainly in this case the downsides of the medication may be considerable higher than the benefits it might provide.

    Taleb argues that the side effects of medication are unpredictable. We simply don’t have enough history to truly predict outcomes. Medicine is like tobacco, which when it first was introduced was purportedly good for you. There was no “proof ” to the contrary as it took decades for the evidence to accumulate. Thalidomide was prescribed as an antinausea medicine but its side effects on the unborn fetus weren’t clear for a few years.
    Derek G. Hennecke on Nassim Taleb's take on medicine

    The author, Derek G. Hennecke, is quite negative about Taleb's view on medicine, but I think that Taleb is actually right.

    Iatrogenics is when a treatment causes more harm than benefit. As iatros means healer in Greek, the word means “caused by the healer” or “brought by the healer.” Healer, in this sense, need not mean doctor, but anyone intervening to solve a problem. For example, it could be a thought leader, a CEO, a government, or a coalition of the willing. Nassim Taleb calls these people interventionistas. Often these people come armed with solutions to solve the first-order consequences of a decision but create worse second and subsequent order consequences. Luckily, for them at least, they’re never around to see the train wreck they created.Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

    As far as I am concerned, we cannot trust the interventionistas, especially, not in the subject of climate change.

    For instance, calling out the pharmaceutical industry's manipulation of the medical scientific community seems to invite casting doubt on man-made climate change and the urgency to act with respect to it.boethius

    The problem is not as much the idea of man-made climate change than the idea that we would trust politicians with the power to do something about it. I personally believe that there is not one problem that the government will not make worse. The idea that the French government would be allowed to increase taxes on gasoline has been resolutely rejected by the yellow-vest protestors. I completely agree with them on that point.

    For, if the opium crisis resulted from a corrupt manipulation of the scientific medical community, why can't we assume the climate science community is likewise manipulated?boethius

    It probably is. There are important vested interests in peddling the idea. Therefore, it does not even matter whether the climate-change idea is true or not. Some people stand to gain power and money from making sure that people believe it is true, regardless whether it is true or not.

    People who were told "opiods, totally safe, science says so" by "scientific medical authorities" and live the terrible consequences are entirely valid in doubting the next important thing scientific institutions tell them to believe.boethius

    And they are right in that regard. If there is doubt possible, they should doubt; especially when it is obvious that some people stand to handsomely profit from the fact that we believe their lies.

    In otherwords, dismissing alternatives as ideological whereas one's own position is just "clear epistemic givens" is simply to assume one's ideology is correct and the other's are incorrect without any proper examination.boethius

    This was only the case in the examples examined. It did not extend to any other subject.

    I totally distrust the government, especially, when they have seemingly paternalistic motives when trying to make decisions in your stead, for your own good. The ability of politicians, and of the population at large, to see beyond first-order consequences, is abysmal. They are just not smart enough for what they think that they will be doing. Dismissing the interventionistas is almost always the right choice.
  • You can do with numbers everything that you can do with sets, and the other way around
    ou may recognize I'm no idle flatterer, but you have presented this in a masterful way that is a delight to read (even if I don't completely get it). Very nice!tim wood

    Thanks!
  • Is society itself an ideology?
    Some people really believe it's possible to subsist without eating and that various gurus have accomplished it. "Eating to live" is very much an ideology; it's more accurate to say we just happen to think it's actually true and dismiss the alternatives. If "living off sunlight" is an ideology, then so too is the alternative of "living off material food".boethius

    The problem is the definition of the term "ideology", i.e. "beliefs held for reasons which are not purely epistemic". There is a legitimate justification for "eating to stay alive". Hence, the belief is not epistemically flawed. Concerning "living off sunlight", it would not be hard to experimentally test that a group of people exposed to sunlight would not survive longer than at most a few months. Hence, "living of sunlight (only)" is even trivially falsified. Therefore, it is a false belief.
  • Is society itself an ideology?
    survival-through-economic-means for exampleschopenhauer1

    Well, that would even turn breathing into an ideology. A lion has to hunt for larger animals of prey. So, he is forced into a survival-through-hunting ideology. I do not think that people use the term "ideology" in that sense.

    There is no way out of this ideology (of living generally to survive in some sort of economic system), once born, not even suicide.schopenhauer1

    Being tributary to biological realities does not make that person subscribe to an ideology. Better examples of ideologies are communism, fascism or democracy.

    An ideology is a set of beliefs and values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons which are not purely epistemic.[1][2] Formerly applied primarily to economic or political theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.Wikipedia on the term ideology

    Survival-through-economic-means is just a modern incarnation of survival-through-hunting. The reasons to do these things are purely epistemic. It would even be possible to experimentally test that a person not acquiring any calories at all on a daily basis ("starvation") would prematurely die. Hence, the survival-through-economic-means approach is not epistemically unsound.
  • Sexual ethics
    It’s important to note that that the intention in education has not been to ‘feminise’ boys, but to address the imbalance that has been disadvantaging girls in education for centuries.Possibility

    What a Faustian pact: destroying the boys because that makes the girls look better.

    it’s also true that while single gender education can assist academic progress, it can be harmful to a boy’s (and a girl’s) capacity to interact effectively in the real world.Possibility

    Well, I guess that is how we ended up with all these beta-orbiting, friend-zoned incels, because hey, they are so good at interacting "effectively in the real world" with the other sex. If you add up their numbers to the men in sexless marriages, or who have gone mgtow/monk, then this "interaction" does not seem to look particularly good.

    We always knew that it was a bad idea to put teenage boys and girls together in one classroom. That is why we never did it in the past ... until the cultural Marxists knew better, because hey, they were going to experiment on other people's children ... and if it does not work out, then just drug the kid with Ritalin or other fake ADHD medication.

    In the end, I don't care, because it is the parents themselves who happily hand over their offspring for destruction to the public-school indoctrination camps. As long as these parents do not expect to ever see any grandchildren to appear on their doorstep, they should be ok, I guess.

    This is particularly relevant to sexual ethics, because much of it has to do with how we conceptualise ‘biology’ and ‘acceptable’ behaviour, both in gender-specific and ‘mixed’ company.Possibility

    The problem will obviously not get solved just by doubling down on some more cultural Marxism.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

    I am quite confident that it will be the impending chaos that will fix the issue, if only, because a good catharsis is now long overdue.
  • Is society itself an ideology?
    On a daily basis this usually equates to a set work week, probably a weekend and non-work hours, maybe retirement on the horizon, educational institutions while growing up, with overlap. There's literally millions of other things to add here but I don't need to list them all.schopenhauer1

    Well, not necessarily. Most people I meet on a daily basis here in SE Asia are just like me, digital nomads and location-independent entrepreneurs. There is also the entire gig economy for people who do not necessarily want to subsist as a corporate wage slave.

    With bitcoin being my monetary instrument of reference, I do not even really rely on the mainstream concept of money. For now, most people are a bit clueless -- what's new? -- and still want paper fiat money. Therefore, I just convert a thousandth of a cent of a bitcoin to hundreds of local dollar-like paper scrip, and give them the worthless crap that they want. Why not?

    I cannot remember working from nine to five. I cannot remember commuting to an office on a daily basis.

    If you don't want this, you have becoming destitute and homelessschopenhauer1

    In my experience, it is exactly the other way around. Most people who wage slave from paycheck to paycheck in that societal ideology of nine-to-five jobs, are only one paycheck away from homelessness.

    They are in a situation with only downsides and no upside. Losing their job or getting divorced -- usually both at the same time -- will trigger an avalanche of attacks on their person and on their assets, if they even have any. They will often even end up behind on child support payments and spend time in jail. None of that could possibly affect the typical digital nomad, location-independent entrepreneur or people who cash in on the gig economy.

    So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life.schopenhauer1

    People get sucked into the mainstream dead-end because they believe the manipulative lies that float around and convince them to join in.

    The false beliefs of the mainstream, i.e. the lies that they believe in, are highly inconsistent. People get encouraged to find a job, which actually means, to find an employer. However, if everybody wants to be an employee, then who will be the employer? So, over time it becomes naturally harder to find such increasingly elusive jobs.

    I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others.schopenhauer1

    It is not really "forced" onto you. You may just get sucked in, because you believe in it.

    A shaitan is assigned to every human (with Jesus as exception), and shayatin are said to move through the blood of human. Sahih Muslim mentiones among the shayatin five sons of Iblis, who bring everyday calamities: Tir, “who brings about calamities, loses, and injuries; Al-A’war, who encourages debauchery; Sut, who suggests lies; Dasim, who causes hatred between man and wife; Zalambur, who presides over places of traffic."Wikipedia on Shaitan

    Al-A’war, Sut, and especially Dasim have gained control over western society. It is the shaitan named "Sut", the great liar, who has created the ideology that you have mentioned.

    You can gradually escape, however, from the stronghold of Sut by asking Allah for forgiveness for your sins. Otherwise, you will sooner or later be pushed out of your wage-slave existence into one that consists of camping on skid row in Los Angeles, or into a similar situation, because in that case, that is your destiny.
  • Sexual ethics
    Oh, please do clarify ‘feminise’ for me - I’m curious what it is exactly that you think we’ve been doing to these boys that is such a travesty.Possibility

    Well, The first four search results for search?q=feminization+of+boys+in+school


    search?q=feminization+fatherless+boys


    Do a quick search of “boys raised without fathers” and you’ll quickly find yourself buried under an avalanche of horrifying statistics. More likely to drop out of school, more likely to develop drug or alcohol problems, more likely to be incarcerated; the bad news goes on and on.Boys Without Fathers: 3 Myths, 3 Miracles

    In the end it does not matter, because the laws of nature will still regain the upper hand anyway.

    In a previous comment, I gave one small example of how nature does that: It is not even possible to keep recruiting security personnel out of that kind of male demographic.

    Furthermore, it creates a large male demographic that would even benefit from a breakdown in law and order. So, I do not only expect them to refuse to keep the current societal order afloat -- by dropping out in various ways -- but even to actively disturb it with a view on eliminating it.

    Next, there are the external factors too. A society full of feminized pushovers attracts outsiders who would simply enjoy to push them over. Et cetera, et cetera. The current trends are unsustainable. I think that the implosion cannot be far away. Where is the popcorn? ;-)
  • What are Numbers?
    PA and HF can be interpreted in each other.GrandMinnow

    I just wrote a post about the bi-interpretability of PA and HF. The worst problem I had in investigating this idea was to find examples of how to translate standard set builder notation into arithmetic-set notation.

    For example, { 1, 4, 7 } in set builder notation is equivalent with φ(x):= 1 - sgn((x-1) (x-4) (x-7))² in arithmetic-set notation.

    Now if you want to find even one publication where they give such example, good luck, l because I could not find even one!
  • Sexual ethics
    People become aggressive usually as a response to social conditions.Bitter Crank

    People also become aggressive just because they can.

    Especially armed men in conquered territory are notorious for that.
    (or just any man during a breakdown of law and order)

    It is not that they are angry or anything.

    No, it just pays really well to be an arsehole in that situation.

    You can get lots of gold and lots of sex just by being a bit more "unfriendly" than usual. So, why on earth would you politely ask for anything if it obviously works much better by slamming that person with your bare fists? Give me what I want, or else !!!
  • Sexual ethics
    Am I supposed to be afraid of these guys? To run for cover? Don’t worry about me - I may be ‘feminine’, but I’m no ‘pushover’. We have our means.Possibility

    The only means are men who are NOT feminized pushovers. So, yes, keep feminizing the boys and see where you will end up.

    The practice of recruiting security personnel from the same male demographic that the cultural Marxists are incessantly seeking to feminize, is why the fortifications on the Rhine river were abandoned in 406 AD, allowing tribes of more virile, Teutonic "rapefugees" to cross in to Roman empire to molest and manhandle on a catch-and-release base whatever prey they could lay their big, breast-fondling hands on.
  • Sexual ethics
    I don’t doubt that your ignorant and primitive concept of ‘male biology’ seems to be working for you personally in your isolated little corner of the world.Possibility

    It is still civilized here; much more than what it will most likely soon be in your corner of the world. Look at what kind of guys are going to lead the wolf pack:

    The Puerto Rican Mob/The Puerto Rican mafia, consists of 6 crime families, in the northeastern coast of Puerto Rico around the cities of San Juan, Puerto Rico, Carolina, Puerto Rico, Canóvanas and Loiza Pueblo. The family was founded by Quitoni Martinez, José "Coquito" López Rosario whom later split from the Family to form his own which became a family within the Puerto Rican mafia, Henry Vega, Iván Vega, and Luis Albertos Rodríguez. They had strong connections with The Cali Cartel and small connections with Los Pepes, Paulino Organization, Gulf Cartel and the Puerto Rican street gang Ñetas.[1]The Puerto Rican Mob/The Puerto Rican mafia

    Maybe explain to those guys about "ignorant and primitive concepts of male biology". They are known to thoroughly molest loosely available "prey" on a catch-and-release base, which they usually don't kill but just leave behind for dead. Also, better don't count on the feminized pushovers to lift a finger, if in the meanwhile they still have one. That is the generalized nearby future of the West.
  • Sexual ethics
    The way we conceptualise ‘male biology’ in the first place might be a good place to start...Possibility

    There is nothing to conceptualize. It just is what it is.

    Once the now disfunctional societal framework will have collapsed (the sooner the better) it will be impossible to resurrect it, because the men who will have fought in combat will simply not want it back.

    We will probably have to contend with lots of marauding gangs but that is also not such a bad thing because these gangs will prefer to pick the easy targets and thus systematically eliminate the feminized pushovers. It would be a bad idea to put a stop to the cleansing chaos of the mating season too early.
  • Sexual ethics
    But surely you’re more than just a bunch of animals ‘forced’ to comply with the socio-political framework of the day?Possibility

    I don't know.
  • Resources for identifying fake news and intentional misinformation
    You won't realise how your beliefs are shifting until you're a dogmatic Muslim living somewhere off grid subsisting solely off of Bitcoinfdrake

    Islam is something that I downloaded from the internet, just like my current linux distro and my bitcoin wallet. I wasn't born with any of that. I may now be in the middle of SE Asia but it is not particularly off-grid. I currently live in a condo building with swimming pool, gym, massage, and other amenities. I'm getting a lot for not much money, actually. Furthermore, it's rather in the suburbs of a larger city.

    I'm looking to run into more downloads. It's good stuff! Last time, I literally downloaded real money!

    you are unworthy of sexual intimacy because of the shape of your skullfdrake

    In my impression, the local version here would rather think "because of the insufficient amount of money in your wallet" but I guess that they will not openly admit that -- not in my experience -- and certainly not publicly. The theatre will rather be about "feelings that just aren't there". Ha aha ha!

    But then again, I seem to sufficiently exceed local norms. So, we are more talking about theoretical considerations than anything truly practical. By the way, why would anybody move to a place on the globe where that kind of things turn out to work less well for them than before? In the end, it is all about supply and demand. It's actually fun to talk about that in localese language. The better you can do that, the more silly things you will get to hear. Pick up a foreign dialect and you will be amazed!

    I think the only effective means of combatting this crap from influencing you (as much as possible anyway) is doing what you can to curate your exposure to it.fdrake

    One would first have to be interested in the information!

    There are exceptions, but I am probably not. I'd rather dig for interesting downloads.

    For example, I was Googling for "arithmetic set" and then I ran into a search result that mentions "the Coven-Meyerowitz Conjecture". What the hell would that be? It probably doesn't matter, but it sounds intriguingly nondescript:

    The Coven-Meyerowitz Conjecture states that being a tile is equivalent to a purely arithmetic condition on the set.Arithmetic Sets in Groups by AZER AKHMEDOV and DAMIANO FULGHESU

    Googling for nothing in particular is also how I originally ran into Bitcoin. Still, maybe the search term "arithmetic set" is just not worth it. I could even tire of it already tomorrow, or the day after that, because that happens all the time.
  • Resources for identifying fake news and intentional misinformation
    Finnish efforts to educate their public about fake newsfrank

    It is the fake news itself that will educate the public on fake news.

    That is actually an excellent thing.

    After 70 years of television culture and unwarranted trust in the caste of professional liars, generalized skepticism and a deeply ingrained, knee-jerk reaction of seeking to corroborate and verify were long overdue.

    The public will automatically apply what they have learned to the official narrative of the ruling elite, i.e. the worst fake news of all.

    In that sense, fake news is a Godsent.

    It is a Good Thing (tm) that there is no longer a government-owned monopoly on lying to the public.

    We need definitely more fake news and not less, and we certainly need much more competition in the fake-news marketplace.
  • Sexual ethics
    Procreation is a responsibility, but it is NOT a right.Possibility

    For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.

    a sexual relationship negotiated on the freely agreed terms of all participating parties is always preferable to legality, however temporary.Possibility

    That depends on a social-political framework that may or may not exist, and that can easily stop existing from the one day to the other. When the Roman legions inevitably abandoned the fortifications on the Rhine in 406 AD, it was game over for the existing societal framework. There were no debates any longer. There were only sword fights.

    The default situation in biology is the mating season. As I see it, it has the greatest legitimacy of all the various approaches because it is the default way in which biological life reaffirms itself. It just works.
  • innatism vs Kant's "a priori"
    Therefore, how can we distinguish "a priori" knowledge from innate ideas/knowledge?Meichen Fan

    Analytic a priori knowledge are definitions and possibly axiomatic rules. Synthetic a priori knowledge is what you can deduce by using analytic a priori knowledge as first principles.

    Example:
    * analytic a priori: axioms of number theory
    * synthetic a priori : Fermat's Last Theorem

    We do not know if analytic a priori knowledge would be innate. According to the intuitionistic ontological philosophy of mathematics, it somehow is. But then again, there are no reasons to believe or disbelieve these ontological views from within mathematics itself. Synthetic a priori knowledge, on the other hand, is absolutely not innate. It needs to be painstakingly discovered.

    So, we cannot distinguish between analytic a priori knowledge and innate knowledge because that would require us to (rationally) know the origin of analytic a priori knowledge, which we do not, because we have no access to the construction logic of the human mind.

    If the mind with "a priori" knowledge is not born with ideas/knowledge, what is the trigger here to adopt the "a priori" knowledge?Meichen Fan

    The mind must inevitably be born with some knowledge, if only, to bootstrap the learning process. Other analytic a priori knowledge is learned. Synthetic a priori knowledge is always learned, because its derivation from analytic first principles is necessarily performed according to conventional formalisms that are not innate.
  • Sexual ethics
    Pairing up early in one's life, not having the experience of sharing in a variety of sexual styles, preferences, wishes, wants, etc., seems like an impoverished life.Bitter Crank

    Seen in a more financial context, it may actually be the other way around.

    Men may easily hand over 70% of their income for dependents. So, if he makes $100,000 per year, for example, then (without interest), that could represents $70,000 x 40 = $2.8 million of household funding at stake.

    Sex is heavily intertwined with raw money.

    If the counterparty in the deal has routinely been giving away sexual favours for free to other men, then why would this man agree to erode away $2.8 million on that person? Why shouldn't he be getting the sex for free too? If the other guys were more deserving of freebies for reasons of preference, then this counterparty in the deal should probably just go back to these other guys.

    When money is at stake, the negotiations tend to become ruthless and merciless, while "feelings" do not matter in the least, because that is what capitalism is all about.

    Money and "feelings" don't mix particularly well.

    In other words, if someone has been giving sex away for free, this person may very well have to keep giving it away for free for the rest of their life. They can no longer become dependent on externally provided household funds, not even if they may at some point in their lives really need it.

    How's that for an "impoverished" life? ;-)
  • Religious discussion is misplaced on a philosophy forum...
    Isn't licensing an overreach of government authority in your view?Pfhorrest

    That is indeed a potential problem.

    In this case, I would be re-purposing an environment of existing licensing regulations to solve a problem, regardless of whether I like these regulations or not. Still, from the perspective of the individual believer, an existing government is merely a tool to achieve a particular goal, on the condition that the intended use is not in violation of Islamic law.

    Who else could, on the territory that they control, rein in the (unlicensed) practice of medicine without permission of the patient and against his will? In all practical terms, I am afraid that it is most likely the official mafia that will have to do it. They even seem to have set up quite an impressive infrastructure for that purpose.

    In the libertarian view, licensing is indeed a real concern, but not completely banned either. Richard Stallman created the General Public License in order to establish the copyleft regime with which he quite successfully neutralized the nefarious consequences of the copyright regime:

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.Preamble of the GPL

    Turning such regime against itself is, in my opinion, a stroke of genius. Therefore, I do not object to the copyright regime for software, simply, because the copyleft regime existentially depends on it. I am an avid GNU/Linux user and I shun copyrighted software like the plague by happily using the holier-than-thou approach invented by "Saint-Ignucius".

    Concerning government itself, I am indeed reluctant to use government services because I subscribe to the idea that there is not one problem that the government will not make worse.

    By the way, Richard Stallman sits pretty much on the radical left of the political spectrum. So, I probably disagree with him on everything else concerning government and/or morality.

    Sometimes these pesky governments even force you to make use of their services; in which case, you are obviously free from any related responsibility, unless you could easily escape the problem. In that sense, I guess that article 8 of the August 1945 London Agreement was spot on:

    The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.Charter of the International Military Tribunal - Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis