I thought this response was so comically off the mark that I replied with an emoji. — Wayfarer

It was indeed facetious, since the quote had so little to do with the issues at hand. And so we go back to where we were half a thread ago, the challenge before us becoming more endurance than enlightenment.

Is it possible to 'split' the thread? — boundless

No, but you can always start a new thread on the speculative physics. Trouble is, folk here seem adamant that the physics is somehow apposite to fairness, so I think they woudl probably stay here rather than join you. Might be best to go with the flow.

You can't have a physics that "describes" logic, because you can't have a physics unless you first have a logic in which to set it out.

All you might achieve is a preferred logic for doing physics.

I do not think that QBism or similar views are in contrast with your own view. — boundless

Cheers.



What's odd is that this is a thread about justice and fairness, yet it contains page after page of speculative quantum physics.

If we needed QBism to fathom justice, presumably the courts would be teaming with physics grads.

So I'm left with the impression that something is seriously astray here.

Hmm. "physics describes logic" is ill-formed. Nothing good will come of it.

Again, there is the bit where you give and the bit where you take back. You want consciousness to be the special thing that collapse wave functions, but you don't want it to be different to the other stuff of the universe.

Hence:

it implies the observer, who is not in scope for the objective sciences — Wayfarer

and

I reject any notion of ‘consciousness as substance — Wayfarer

But how can you have it both ways? You both physicalism and dualism.

At issue is what counts as a measurement. You presume it must involve a conscious being, because you want consciousness to be a substance within the universe. Others have different ideas. Again, mere speculation. Shut up and calculate.

Then once again, what could a "cause" be in logic?

On the other hand, yes, I agree if this is taken to mean that any reference frame can be used to discover/find some truth that is valid for all other reference frames. — boundless

Yeah, that bit. The principles of physics are to be formulated so that the frame of reference being used does not change those principles. Any frame will do. This was intended to head off the common notion that science seeks a "view from nowhere" - perhaps the view you described and disagreed with as "independent from any reference frame". Rather, science seeks a view from anywhere. A point worth making in a philosophy forum.

Yep.

Asking for a 'green', 'red', or 'blue' pen is simply picky. — javi2541997

Not when marking papers. Another lost skill.

Empiricism pertains to the content of our experiences, emphasizing that all knowledge begins with sensory input. — Wayfarer

There is the myth of the given; that mere observation, uninterpreted, is a given foundation for knowledge.

your mistake is that it is not that the existence of such realities "relies" on an implicit perspective, but that the judgement that there are (or are not) such realities is an expression of a perspective. — Janus

Yep.

Dialectical algorithms.

And these supposedly tell you what you ought to do.

But no detail.

If the future is fixed as you suggest, there is no point to this thread, or any discourse about what to do. It will happen regardless.

Which, of course, is not the case. — Banno

...according to ethical algorithms... — apokrisis

What are they?

How is deciding what we ought do algorithmic?

And so you revert back to spitting.

FIne.

Yep — apokrisis

Is that you agreeing that the question of what we ought do remains unanswered? That would be progress.

...answer the OP — apokrisis

If your question is now "what ought we do", then you might well look to ethics as well as physics.

But ethics is complicated, and not reducible to slogans.

Which thread are you addressing? the answer here is

Only if we make it so. — Banno

Time now to agree that the question of what we ought do remains unaddressed.

Yep. And?

Do you see some spooky implications of my Energy/Information/Mind hypothesis that you would not wish for? — Gnomon

It presents Energy/Information/Mind, three quite distinct concepts, in a vague and inadequate way.

I said the future is pragmatically constrained. — apokrisis

There are limits on our choices, sure, obviously. But our choices are not fixed. We have options.

My "belligerent presence" is simply pointing out that the despite the physics being settled (if that is indeed the case), there remains the question of what we ought do.

Perhaps is correct, and it's time for humanity to bow out. How do you reply? Why ought we survive?...

...and if you can address that, you might move from physics to ethics.

...this suggests to me that any description of the world must be made from a particular perspective/frame of reference. — boundless

The Principle of Relativity asks us to set out the laws of physics in such a way that they apply to all frames of reference.

That is, to aim to set out transformations such that an observation made in one frame of reference will be true, of that frame of reference, in any other frame of reference.

Hence this suggests to me that any true description of the physical world can be made from any perspective/frame of reference.

If the future is fixed as you suggest, there is no point to this thread, or any discourse about what to do. It will happen regardless.

Which, of course, is not the case.

Talking of scaling, consider migration:

2023 showed us, in countries all around the world, the deeply damaging impacts of climate change today. By 2050, those 2023 extremes will be seen as mild, with an increasing number of scientists warning that future impacts could lead to as many as 1 billion people being forcibly displaced.

Yes, 1 billion! — Migration In Hotter Times: Humanity At Risk

Notice again that understanding what is the case does not tell us what you ought do about it.

Ok.

Just more spit. Personal attacks. I wonder why.

Cobblers. If anything I seek to direct discussions of scientism towards intentionality.

I never did call it into question. — Wayfarer

I understand that. You focus on your "ineliminable subjective pole" and I on my "true statements" and we argue past each other. I have agreed that there is an "ineliminable subjective pole" to our intentional states, as set out by propositional attitudes, (contra to 's claim), but argue that there are also true statements, and in reply you seem to hold that there are no true statements, only propositional attitudes.

But that summation, at least, might indicate some progress.

Pretty much silentism.

Does "the world is what is the case" derive from Wittgenstein?

That can't be a serious question.

And I think that what you have in mind when you say that, is not what I mean by the term 'idealism', although I quite agree it's not worth another go-around. — Wayfarer

The bit where I pointed out the narcissism of small differences. I'm not convinced that what I call realism is not what you call idealism.

Why the scare quotes around reality? — Wayfarer

Simply because the word was only needed in order to link to your comment. I would have been happy leaving it out: The world - things that are the case - cannot be called into question.

The "reality" of the world - that some things are the case - cannot be called into question. There are things that are the case. There are true statements.

But this is not the Given. If you think it is you are welcome to set out your account. But I am reluctant to go into detail about Sellars in a thread that is already far, far removed from its main topic. Your invitation features a very large hole, and is declined.

Do (you) think someone cares? — apokrisis

Well, you keep replying to my posts...

Odd, then, that so much of what you direct at me is spit and name-calling. You could just ignore me, if you think my arguments so poor.

Fairness and justice are things we do, not things we find. This is a core problem with the account you offer.

Along the way the thread went quantum, and you brought up dialectic, and I pointed out a couple of problems with it. Now Way's idealist confusions are in the mix, so a discussion about justice has morphed into ontology.

That "what?" above was quite genuine - I do not understand your purpose in saying

If the world reveals itself to the degree it can frustrate our desires, then dialectically this epistemology of truth demands the existence of those desires as the other half of its egocentric equation. — apokrisis

in response to my simple "

The world just is as it is, regardless of what you think of it — Wayfarer

You are disparaging of "The world is all that is the case", but have offered nothing coherent, no alternative and certainly not a refutation. Instead you offer trivial disparaging comments.

I dunno, Apo. Seems to me you either haven't followed the thread of my discussion or can't address it adequately. That you are a smart fellow, let down by an inability to express yourself clearly and simply.

SO here is my first post:

Only if we make it so. — Banno

And yours:

Eusocial doesn't quite cover it as that applies to a social organism and hive mind at the level of ants and bees.

Humans have their biology – the eusociality of a chimp troop – but then also the further levels of semiosis that result from language and logic. So it is this further level that arguably is first and foremost these days. Well it was language until logic started to take over once science could harness fossil fuels through technology.

So the question of political organisation – what constitutes the fair and just – has ramped up through some actual sweeping transitions. We have evolved from ape troops to agricultural empires to free trade/fossil fuel economic networks.

Good and bad, fair and just, are terms that take some redefining as we move on up this hierarchy of dissipative order. — apokrisis

Have we made progress? I still think I'm right and you are not even answering the question.

If the world reveals itself to the degree it can frustrate our desires, then dialectically this epistemology of truth demands the existence of those desires as the other half of its egocentric equation. — apokrisis

What?

More dribble. — apokrisis

Then wipe your chin.

Not after two o'clock. That leads to late nights.

More spit.

For whom? — apokrisis

Are you suggesting that there are folk for whom the world is not what is the case?

PF has managed to survive more than a dozen years of me despite my best efforts.

Again, your arbitrary rules would dissuade participation.

If you think it trolling, stop trip-trapping over my bridge.

Bah. You are obsessed with rules. Looks to be an attempt to avoid the sort of spotlight @TonesInDeepFreeze shines on your logical misunderstandings and errors, an extension on your bitching about him posting too much... :rofl:

But it's a non-starter, so not much of an issue.

Yeah, it does:

1) Language matters.
Forcing someone to rabbit on at length in order to meet an arbitrary word limit is not conducive to quality.

And

Good OPs are properly focused and relevant — Baden

OPs must be more than 500 characters. — Leontiskos

I don't see any advantage in encouraging verbosity. Short is good.

Maybe highest on the list is the level of participation. — T Clark

Yep. And 's suggestions would reduce participation.

Isn't that just another way of saying that its reality is a given? — Wayfarer

No.

this is something much deeper than a matter of belief. The cognitive process of world-construction is subconscious or subliminal. I'm talking about our whole 'meaning-world', the entirety of our sense of self-and-world. That is created by the mind but not the conscious ego or self. — Wayfarer

Sure, "The cognitive process of world-construction is subconscious or subliminal. I'm talking about our whole 'meaning-world', the entirety of our sense of self-and-world. That is created by the mind but not the conscious ego or self" using the stuff around us.

Yawn.

I don't really know. — Shawn

I'm dubious concerning the use of "cause" in physics, let alone logic. Others hereabouts use "logic" quite broadly, but I am disinclined to follow.

So again, logic is a way of setting things out, while physics is something that can be set out.

If you like, "physics describes logic" is ill-formed.

And that ought be an end to it, it will not be.

"causality as imagined by logic"?

What could that possibly be?