12Oct24

Sorry 180 Proof. I’ll put money on it. — Mikie

:ok: You stick with those MAGA-GOP talking points and I'll stick with my 22Sept24 prediction¹ that Harris-Walz will win the upcoming Roevember 5th presidential election. :victory: :party:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/934008 [1]

Harris will beat Trump, says election prediction legend Allan Lichtman² :victory: :cool: — 180 Proof

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/harris-trump-lichtman-election-prediction.html [2]

(2022)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781991

(2023)

Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too?
— Mikie
Like taking candy from a baby. :yum: — 180 Proof

I (technically) have won this bet but lost the other one that Diaper Don wouldn't be the GOP nominee. The latter, however, no doubt contributed to the former. :up:

===========

NB: Fwiw, since Labor Day I think it's reasonable to have read "mainstream" news media polls as follows –

Given that Diaper Don The Fascist Clown & his MAGA-GOP Circus Cult have pissed-off the majority of (likely) women voters so much since 2018 (then doubled down on the blatant misogyny in 2022 and again this year), I guesstimate (not counting Dems campaigns' huge money & get-out-the-vote ground game advantages) woman voters' preference for Harris-Walz & Dems is undercounted by 2% and The Clown is thereby generally overcounted by 5% in "national polls" and overcounted by 2% in swing state polls, and so I read them accordingly [adjusted]; for example:

swing states [T -2%]

Forbes 11Oct24 (latest, best #s for T)

AZ - T 51% [49] v H 46%
GA - T 49% [47] v H 48%
MI - T 45% [43] v H 47%
NC - T 46% [44] v H 45%
NV - T 47% [46] v H 48%
PA - T 46% [44] v H 45%
WI - T 48% [46] v H 46%

Electors - T216 + 21 (max) v H229 + 72 (min) :cool:

&

national [T -5%, H +2%]

FiveThirtyEight 12Oct24 national polls (avg.)

T 46% [41] v H 48.5% [50.5]

NYTimes 12Oct24 national polls (avg.)

T 46% [41] v H 49% [51]

The Economist 12Oct24 national polls (avg.)

T 46.4% [41.4] v H 50.2% [52.2]

Fox Noise 12Oct24 national polls (?)

T 48% [43] v H 50% [52]

===========

To date all (quality) polling trends favor Harris-Walz +270 Electoral College victory. Hyping election anxiety is great for motivating Democratic, Independent & GOP/suburban white women voter turnout / particpation. :strong: :mask:

>>> Roevember 24

As soon as you can write the sentence as one that contains the pattern K(#S), i.e. a property of a statement, it is philosophical. — Tarskian

That doesn't make any sense. No need to take this any further.

I don't understand you responses to my statements. Seems like you're just stretching your definition to fit my examples. — T Clark

As soon as you can write the sentence as one that contains the pattern K(#S), i.e. a property of a statement, it is philosophical.

Asserting a property of a statement is a statement about a statement.

It works out of the box for Tao and Kant's general assertion about knowledge.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao — T Clark

This goes straight to Yanofsky's characterization of the truth, i.e. most truth is ineffable:

eternal(#S) => ineffable(#S)
or
¬ ineffable(#S) => ¬ eternal(#S)

It revolves around properties of sentences. So, I think that this example is actually captured by the definition.

God will not have his work made manifest by cowards - Emerson — T Clark

toManifest(_owner, _byWhom, _work)

∀ _work ( ¬ toManifest(God, cowards, _work) )

It is a 3-argument predicate while none of the arguments are sentences. This is a similar problem as JohnSaid(#S) or Said(John, #S).

This definition can definitely not handle persons involved, such as "by whom" or "for whom".

If it were not about God, but about an arbitrary person John, then it would be about a physical fact. For example, "John will not have his work made manifest by cowards". In my opinion, "by whom" and "for whom" tend to point to physical facts.

All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason - Kant — T Clark

Knowledge(#S) <-> ( Stage1Senses(#S) ∧Stage2Understanding(#S) ^ Stage3Reason(#S) )

S has property Knowledge if and only if S has senses in stage1 and ...

In my opinion, it seems to work.

Cutting to the chase, I suggest that you need to clarify in your own mind whether you wish to capture the existing use of the term "philosophy" or stipulate a definition to be used in a specific context. — Ludwig V

I am interested in a computable predicate, i.e. a computer program or a function, that will be able to distinguish between statements that are philosophical and statements that are not. Therefore, the most important requirement is that it can be implemented as source code.

However, the output does not need to be correct all the time.

We do not require that from Google Translate either. It just needs to be correct "most of the time" or "substantially more often than not".

BTW, is meta-philosophy philosophy or not? - is that a philosophical question? It seems to be an extension of a concept that is used (and therefore defined) within a specific context, which may or may not be considered to be philosophical. — Ludwig V

Is philosophical(#S) is a statement about statement S. So, in this definition, the metaphilosophy is a subdivision of philosophy.

Dogmatically, I would start by saying that philosophy is a practice (or a family of inter-related practices), the scope of which is effectively defined by what its practitioners do when they are philosophizing. — Ludwig V

That would be compatible with the ChatGPT approach.

Let the algorithm read a large sample of philosophy, summarize it into an appropriate numerical data structure, and then get it to discriminate inputs between philosophy and not philosophy.

This approach will undoubtedly still require an underlying notion of what exactly to extract and summarize from the sample ("machine learning"), and therefore, what exactly matters when trying to distinguish philosophy from the alternative.

For example, object recognition in computer vision ultimately rests on relatively simple underlying notions such as haar-like features, without which the discrimination algorithm would not even work properly.

Therefore, without some basic notion of at least what to look for in a sentence, the philosophy-detection algorithm's ability to discriminate can be expected to be disappointingly poor.

One may compare music or the visual or performance arts, or even science itself. — Ludwig V

It is actually possible to detect if any particular sound is music or not, with a tool such as Spleeter from Deezer research:

https://research.deezer.com/projects/spleeter.html

There are, of course, more research budgets available for music than for philosophy. So, the fact that a discrimination algorithm exists for music and not one for philosophy, should not come as a surprise.

Not all sound is music. Thus, there are algorithms available that can quite precisely discriminate between music and other sounds.

The discrimination problem is not necessarily easier for music than for philosophy. It is just that there are people who have worked on a solution for music but not on one for philosophy.

And you proposed

isPhilosophical(#S) IFF S is about another statement.

And I gave examples of statements that were about other statements, but not philosophical, and statements that are philosophical, but not about other statements.

So your definition is void. — Banno

Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" is a problem. It is covered by "thinking about thinking" but not by "statements about statements". We cannot expect Godel's work to cover philosophy of the mind by using arithmetic. So, it leads to two definitions: "philosophy not of the mind" and "philosophy of the mind".

The statements about statements that are not philosophical was about predicates such as PeterSaidThat(#S). So, predicates that merely indicate the origin of a sentence may also be excluded from the definition. It just means that not all predicates are allowed. So, it may mean that there is a list of permissible predicates (or a list of excluded ones).

And you proposed

isPhilosophical(#S) IFF S is about another statement.

And I gave examples of statements that were about other statements, but not philosophical, and statements that are philosophical, but not about other statements.

So your definition is void.

So you agree it is philosophical, but it is not a statement about another statement, and so doesn't meet your definition. — Banno

The definition for philosophy is a predicate:

isPhilosophical(#S)

which is true if S is philosophical.

So, the definition of philosophy is the source code for a particular predicate.

isPhilosophical(#S) is a statement about any other statement S.

Your definition of "philosophy" seems to include things unnecessary and insufficient to philosophy. — Banno

Possibly. That requires an investigation of possible counterexamples. I think that these counterexamples should be quite interesting. Why exactly are they legitimate counterexamples? That will probably shine some more light on the issue.

Anyway, the definition you offer is trivially too broad. "John said it is raining" is about a statement, but not philosophy. — Banno

If SaidByJohn(#S) is a legitimate predicate, then your example sentence would indeed satisfy the definition proposed.

If this is a problem, then how can we exclude it from the definition?

There are precedents for excluding predicates from Godel's language. For example, true(#S) is not definable.

In fact, it would also be interesting to elaborate why exactly your example sentence is not philosophical.

Another angle would be to find a statement that is philosophical but that does not satisfy the definition.

If a statement can talk about other statements, then it can also talk about itself. — Tarskian

The long form:

If it is possible to express a statement about other statements in the language at hand, then it is also possible to express statements about themselves in this language.

A statement about another statement:

K(#S)

A statement about itself:

S <-> K(#S)

This language would only need support for the equivalence operator, i.e. the biconditional.

But then again, I doubt that a language that does not support this operator, or cannot implement it using a detour, is capable of expressing much logic at all. In the end, the equivalence operator is just a simple truth table.

A statement about a fact is not philosophical. For example:

It is raining today.

A statement is philosophical, if it is a statement about another statement. For example:

It is irrelevant that it is raining today.

This explains in simple words what the true meaning is of Godel's incompleteness theorem.

A theory is incomplete if it can express statements about its own statements. In other words, a theory is incomplete if it is capable of philosophy.

Self-referential statements are just a special case of the general case, which is the philosophical statement. If a statement can talk about other statements, then it can also talk about itself.

Philosophical statement:

K(#S)

--> Statement S has property K.

Self-referential statement:

S <-> K(#S)

--> I have property K.

Hence, philosophy is a mathematical capability of the language at hand.

This language's greatest power is also its worst deficiency, because it necessarily makes the language inconsistent or incomplete or even both.

"S ∧ ¬F(r(#S)" is not the same as "S & ~F".
"¬S ∧ F(r(#S)" is not the same as "~S & F". — TonesInDeepFreeze

I left out that detail because it is obvious. So, with the details:

(S is true and F(r(#S)) is false) or (S is false and F(r(#S)) is true)

It is more accurate but also much more impenetrable than:

(S is true and F is false) and (S is false and F is true)

The resulting syntactic noise detracts from understanding what exactly it is about. It muddies the explanation.

and lately, you confuse the predicate F with a sentence. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I simplified F(r(#S)) to just F, because I thought that it was obvious what it was about.

And I don't know why you would suppose that people would care about your synopsis of Carnap if they didn't also grasp the mathematical basis. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If that is truly the case, then the subject may not be suitable for a philosophy forum. I had hoped that it was, but you may be right.

The metaphysical implications do seem out of reach of philosophical investigation. Apparently, they have been for almost a century.

(S ∧ ¬F(r(#S)) ∨ (¬S ∧ F(r(#S))

Meaning:
(S is true and F is false) or (S is false and F is true)

Meaning:
A true sentence that does not have the property, or a false sentence that has the property, or both. — Tarskian

(1) You skipped that I pointed out that:

(S is true and F is false) and (S is false and F is true)

is never the case.

(2)

"S ∧ ¬F(r(#S)" is not the same as "S & ~F".
"¬S ∧ F(r(#S)" is not the same as "~S & F".

F

does not have a truth value. What has a truth value is

F(r(#S))

Saying "F is false" is nonsense.

(3) I agree with this:

C entails that there is a sentence S such that T proves:

(S & ~F(r(#S))) v (~S & F(r(#S))).

F expresses a property. F(r(#S)) is true if and only if S has the property expressed by F.

But:

[EDIT CORRECTION: I misread the quote. The quote was a disjunction not a conjunction. Mine is not a counterexample. No true sentence is not equivalent with itself, but every false sentence is equivalent with itself.]

Your quoted characterization did not have the specifications you are giving now. Your quoted characterization was a broad generalization about properties and sentences. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It has always been an explanation about the diagonal lemma:

S <-> ¬F(r(#S))

Meaning:
(S ∧ ¬F(r(#S)) ∨ (¬S ∧ F(r(#S))

Meaning:
(S is true and F is false) or (S is false and F is true)

Meaning:
A true sentence that does not have the property, or a false sentence that has the property, or both.

It was a choice not to provide these details because this kind of explanations quickly become impenetrable in a multidisciplinary environment.

(2) PA doesn't say 'true' and 'false'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The meaning of the S above is "a true sentence". PA doesn't say it, but that is what it means, for reasons of first-order logic.

(4) There are properties not expressed by formulas, so the generalization should be over formulas, not properties. — TonesInDeepFreeze

In that case, it is not a property in PA, because that would require a predicate in PA. In fact, Tarski's truth is also a property but not one in PA.

It is possible to precisely state all the conditions that apply, but in that case, the explanation becomes impenetrable. Nobody would be interested in a multidisciplinary forum. In order to keep it readable, there is no other alternative than to leave things out.

For certain theories T, for every formula F(x) there is a sentence S such that T |- S <-> F(r(#S)). — TonesInDeepFreeze

First, we replace F by ¬F. If F is a property then its negation is also a property. So, the following is an equivalent statement:

For certain theories T, for every formula F(x) there is a sentence S such that T |- S <-> ¬F(r(#S)).

Next, we replace S <-> ¬F(r(#S)) by the equivalent expression:

(S ∧ ¬F(r(#S)) ∨ (¬S ∧ F(r(#S))

Meaning:

(S is true and F is false) or (S is false and F is true)

Since ∨ is an "inclusive or", we can add "or both":

(S is true and F is false) or (S is false and F is true) or both.

So, it means:

A true sentence that does not have the property, or a false sentence that has the property, or both.

('r' for 'the numeral for' and '#' for 'the Godel number of')

Let C be this theorem:

For certain theories T, for every formula F(x) there is a sentence S such that T |- S <-> F(r(#S)).

Let K be:

"For any property of logic sentences, there always exists a true sentence that does not have it, or a false sentence that has it, or both."

C is not correctly rendered as K.

(1) K doesn't qualify as to certain kinds of theories.

(2) C generalizes over formulas, not over properties.

(3) C doesn't say anything about 'true'.

(4) C doesn't say that for every property of sentences there is a true sentence that does not have the property. C doesn't say that for every property of sentences that there is a false sentence that does have the property.

[EDIT CORRECTION: I misread the quote. The quote was a disjunction not a conjunction. Mine is not a counterexample. No true sentence is not equivalent with itself, but every false sentence is equivalent with itself.]

Moreover:

(5) I showed a counterexample to both prongs of K.

[EDIT CORRECTION: I misread the quote. The quote was a disjunction not a conjunction. Mine is not a counterexample. No true sentence is not equivalent with itself, but every false sentence is equivalent with itself.]

You said that my counterexample is not in PA. So what? It doesn't have to be in PA, it merely needs to be a counterexample to K. And, by the way, K is not in PA, especially since PA doesn't have a predicate 'true'. And C includes PA as one of the T's, but C itself is not in PA.

(6) And with the arithmetization of syntax, both 'is a sentence' and 'is equivalent with itself' are expressible in PA. But I didn't do that, because K doesn't specify any language or kinds of theories.

/

For certain theories T, for every formula F(x) there is a sentence S such that T |- S <-> F(r(#S)).

is not remotely anything like:

For any property of logic sentences, there always exists a true sentence that does not have it, or a false sentence that has it, or both.

Counterexample: Let P be the property: P(S) if and only if S is equivalent with S. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I guess you meant to write:

Let P be the property: P(S) if and only if S is equivalent with P(#S).

In that special case, P is actually Tarski's truth predicate, which is indeed not definable. The conclusion here is that truth is not a legitimate predicate.

Perhaps your reason 3 is the most important to consider. — Jack Cummins

The ones closest to my own experience are Reason #s 1, 5, and 7. I don't have any feeling that there is an unseen order. I was trying to make a complete list. That doesn't mean I buy them all.

It initially puts a lot of store on the issue of causality vs perceived randomness & spontaneity, as indicated by many findings from Quantum Mechanics.
— christian2017

The author suggests only 3 possibilities:-...
1. A hidden variable/cause
2. True Spontaneity – something happens without a cause
3. True Randomness - different outcomes for no reason – ie. without a cause.
— christian2017

These three are language's - philosophy's - attempt to corral the real, in this case QM, and QM doesn't yet corral. Bell experiments to date rule out #1 - that being what the later tests were testing. #s 2 and 3 are objectionable for "without a cause." The word "cause" itself requiring exhaustive definition before sense can be made of it. In a sense we're on a drunkard's search wrt QM. That leaves us nowhere, but the nowhere is, for now, a fact.

In any case and not just this one, I accept that science and philosophy are connected by "silken ties.., And only by one's going slightly taut... Is of the slightest bondage made aware." (pace, Robert. Frost). But that otherwise are different. Feynman on this, "If you think you understand QM, then you don't."

Your author is trying. That puts him into the category of entertainment - and selling books - but not science or philosophy. — tim wood

I don't know how those quotes got attached to my name. Perhaps you can restate what you were saying unpacked more.

I do agree alot of physics books are more entertainment than accurate information.

Based on what you wrote above as far as what i understand that you wrote, i agree. My initial confusion started with the quotes you posted that were attached to what i said.

The only book i mentioned recently (and i don't know if it was this forum topic) is "A brief history of time" by stephen hawkings. I am very familiar with Newtonian physics.

My one line hypothesis is that we filter information a priori from an external energy source. Much like Schopenhauer's theory of Metaphysical Will in nature... . — 3017amen

that is too supernatural for me. I'm finding a path towards qualia that is something that I can model and see a plausible utility/mechanics; that is, we are genetically coded to attribute arbitrary, yet largely consistent, value/experience/emotions to various data value phenomenon as a way to create an experience that enables a personal empathy/emotives to data values to make them real (to us as emotive/social creatures) and to share a common experience. So, for the color red, we might be genetically coded to have energetic, aggressive feelings with the data value of red, which may have come (like that for Bulls) about by evolution selecting for such defensive responses to the sight of red blood. Blue feels like a cool/cold color like ice, and peaceful like the sky. etc. To the extent data values in our perceived sensory/motor have been (genetically, by personality, or by nurture) been associated with certain emotive states then they become part of our qualia experience for it, making it feel much more real to us. I find it particularly interesting that synesthetes not only love the cross sensory invocation of emotives and colors on, say numbers, that it actually helps them greatly to process the value data (e.g., out of a vast field of random numbers, they might see all '7s as red and instantly can spot one # 7 out of 1000s of other #s). So, attaching an arbitrary qualia can even have practical utility, beyond my other point of enabling/enhancing the formation of wisdom.

Those were some clever insults there - nicely done.

But seriously, I’m a kumbaya kind of person. When I see a someone assert something that looks obviously wrong, my first impulse is to find common ground and/or to try to re-phrase what that person is trying to say in my own words so as to better explain to that person how they are mistaken. I prefer not to start out by being critical, since that puts the other person into a defensive position and it makes it harder to communicate.

That said, I can see where my approach could be perceived as being disingenuous. So let me start from the beginning.

You appear to be making some basic errors in logic, What you are calling P & Q contain hidden variables and operators. BUT I keep an open mind - it is possible that I am mistaken.

However, if you want to convince me that your logic is sound, we will need to unpack your logic. In order to do this I will be asking you a series of questions - some of which may seem really stupid - but I have to ask them in order to make sure that there is no mis-understanding.

In asking these questions I will be dealing strictly with the underlying logic. Many other folks out here have pointed out that there are some serious semantic issues with your terms, but I will not deal with those. I will be treating your terms as abstract logical variables - so there should be no need to give any real life examples.

If you are willing to do this, then my first question is this:

Going back to your #s 1->3:

1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable (if P, then Q)
2. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable (not Q)
3. Therefore moral values are not my values (therefore not P)

We need to start off with the term “moral values”. For purposes of analyzing your logic, this must be defined as a set of individual moral values; let’s call this set Moral_Values.

Moral_Values = {mv1, mv2, . . .}

This implies that there is at least one additional set of values that are not moral; let’s call this Not_Moral_Values (for want of a better term). There is then a third set called Values which is the union of Moral_Values and Not_Moral_Values. If, for your purposes, you need to further sub-divide Not_Moral_Values into, say, Un_Values & Miscellaneous_Values, that’s OK, as long as we agree that every moral value is a member of at least one sub-set and that the set Values is the union of the subsets.

I’m using italics here so the variables stand out, but if you prefer to use a different nomenclature and/or different names for these sets and variables that’s fine.

Are we in agreement so far? If not, please clarify. BTW - if you want to continue insulting me? That’s fine too.

Too bad we don't have post #s here, but can you give me at least a small text string that I can identify the post by? That way I can quickly search for it.