The inevitability of everlasting experience

[SelfSim]

Many words work great only so long as discussion occurs within the box they are suited for.

We should not try to leverage their common meanings to make statements about domains where their applicability may well break down.

Good point.
So I wonder what exactly is the context for @childeye 2's 'positives' and 'negatives'?
(I don't think that's ever been clearly established .. has it?)

 

[sjastro]

I've also noticed, (from around my neighbourhood), that wherever there's one cat .. there's always more cats!?!

Cats also appear to violate the conservation of angular momentum which is not the case as this video illustrates.
(Warning cat lovers may become distressed).

 

[SelfSim]

Cats also appear to violate the conservation of angular momentum which is not the case as this video illustrates.
(Warning cat lovers may become distressed).

Hmm .. cool!
(Not sure how I can take advantage of that in helping me with my with my over abundance of roaming cats issue though .. unfortunately ).

 

[childeye 2]

Many words work great only so long as discussion occurs within the box they are suited for.

This is true. The box I'm referring to, is at its base level of comprehension, what we all call "Reality". Objectively, it includes all things realized and unrealized. Anything outside the box, is by definition, unreality, unreal, fiction.

We should not try to leverage their common meanings to make statements about domains where their applicability may well break down.

What do you mean "leverage" their common meanings? What do you mean may well breakdown? You must be confusing objective and subjective views.

If I assume that you mean to say that what the term "reality" means objectively, does not confidently constitute what reality is; then I don't see how, since the term "reality" in its objective view includes all knowns and unknowns.

We're talking about a sentiment/thought that's objectively comprehensive only in its positive/negative aspects, which already concludes we don't comprehend everything that's real from our subjective view. We have to stay inside the box objectively, otherwise we're not referring to an objective reality, but a subjective reality. Consider that if we were to believe that reality could break down, then what would it breakdown into, fiction? Objectively, reality can't breakdown, since it would only breakdown into unreality, which creates a contradiction in reasoning. I mean, was it ever really real in the first place? Does that mean unreality is becoming more real than reality as reality breaks down? The only way reality can breakdown into unreality is if it's a subjective view of reality that was never real in the first place. Why? Because all of reality is some form of energy and energy is real, not fiction.



An epistemologist sat down at a bar next to a professor of linguistics. The epistemologist turns and strikes up a conversation with a loaded question:

Epistemologist: "Did you know we don't actually know anything?"
Professor of linguistics: "So then how would we know that?"
Epistemologist: "No, I mean we can't be 100% sure what reality is, not what reality means".
Professor of linguistics: Oh really? Are you for real?
Epistomologist: Ha ha, funny. Seriously, I'm not sure.
Professor of linguistics: Now that's the first thing you've said that is halfway coherent.

 

[childeye 2]

Agreeing on what is real and therefore what is unreal, by way of definition, is a moot point in physics.
What counts in physics, is what can be demonstrated by way of the scientic method.
Objective demonstrations are the basis of physics .. even where such demonstrations are based on mere semantic differences.

Science doesn't depend on words that rely on agreed truths (or your 'positives'). There's a long history in science of how that way can retard understanding.

For what it's worth, objectively speaking, they're not my positives any more than they're my protons. Therefore, I guarantee you, that by definition, reality is not based on consensus.

 

[Astrid]

Many words work great only so long as discussion occurs within the box they are suited for.

We should not try to leverage their common meanings to make statements about domains where their applicability may well break down.

The grim vice of equivocation

 

[SelfSim]

Objectively speaking, they're not my positives any more than they're my protons. Therefore, I guarantee you, that by definition, reality is not based on consensus.

Many other like thinking scientists know how to distinguish a proton from other sub-atomic particles, regardless of their 'sentiments'.

Your distinction of 'positives' from 'negatives', based on 'sentiments', appears to require believed-in 'true' dichotomies(?)
It looks like its rule (or experience) based .. and not what results from following a widely taught and published method, like science is.
How does one avoid mistaking a 'true' dichotomy from a 'false' one?

 

[childeye 2]

Many other like thinking scientists know how to distinguish a proton from other sub-atomic particles, regardless of their 'sentiments'.

The point you probably intend to make is that scientific method intends to be objective, not subjective. Scientific method is an expressed sentiment, (a way of thinking) just as the terms subjective and objective infer.

Your distinction of 'positives' from 'negatives', based on 'sentiments', appears to require believed-in 'true' dichotomies(?)
It looks like its rule (or experience) based .. and not what results from following a widely taught and published method, like science is.

I appreciate the question. I never meant that positives/negatives in linguistics are based on a sentimental belief in true dichotomies. I'm simply saying that to draw a distinction between two opposing things one must create a dichotomy. In psycholinguistics this is an organizing thought, a way of thinking, or in other words a sentiment, that is then expressed in words which may or may not accurately depict the intended distinction. For example, you conveyed your sentiment/feelings/thoughts, that trusting in scientific method is a sound means to give definition to reality in physics.
sen·ti·ment
[ˈsen(t)əmənt]

NOUN

1. a view of or attitude toward a situation or event; an opinion:
   "I agree with your sentiments regarding the road bridge"
   SIMILAR:
   view
   point of view
   way of thinking

How does one avoid mistaking a 'true' dichotomy from a 'false' one?

In linguistics a true dichotomy is two terms which represent true opposites either in degrees or absolutes (Drawing a clear distinction). A false dichotomy is when the two terms have a deviation between the two that makes it imprecise (typically found in propaganda) which means it will ultimately end in a contradiction. So objectively, when a base dichotomy is viewed as a positive/negative for the purpose of reasoning, pro/con, true/false, the negative is always the absence of the positive in connotation and denotation. This will switch polarity in a left/right dichotomy, but I don't want to complicate the matter. Suffice it to say that in the dichotomy real/unreal we're talking about a base sentiment (way of thinking) where every scientist would understand that reality is always real and never unreal. Scientific method sets out to prove or disprove a hypothesis typically formed through inductive or deductive reasoning. Similarly in linguistics the intention is to form thoughts in terms that are irrefutable both in deductive and inductive reasoning.

 

[SelfSim]

The point you probably intend to make is that scientific method intends to be objective, not subjective. Scientific method is an expressed sentiment, (a way of thinking) just as the terms subjective and objective infer.

The scientific method's purpose is be of practical use. I might agree that scientific thinking is a deliberate way of thinking.
I use the term 'objective reality' to distinguish the remarkable consistencies achieved by using the scientific method, as compared with all the other ways of deciding what's real. Objective isn't some kind of mind independent 'thing' .. its the 'how' and it requires a human mind to do that. Both terms 'subjective' and 'objective' entail human thinking .. as does how we envisage 'reality' as being.

I appreciate the question. I never meant that positives/negatives in linguistics are based on a sentimental belief in true dichotomies. I'm simply saying that to draw a distinction between two opposing things one must create a dichotomy.

Does pattern recognition require a 'dichotomy'? I can perceive 'moving' from 'stationary' in natural backdrop .. I'm not sure if I'd say I've created a dichotomy to do that, though(?)

In psycholinguistics this is an organizing thought, a way of thinking, or in other words a sentiment, that is then expressed in words which may or may not accurately depict the intended distinction. For example, you conveyed your sentiment/feelings/thoughts, that trusting in scientific method is a sound means to give definition to reality in physics.

I don't think I said anything about 'trusting in the scientific method' to do that(?) Either way, the scientific method ain't perfect, (we already know that), but its better, (when it comes to giving what's real a meaning), than all the other ways we know of doing it.

sen·ti·ment
[ˈsen(t)əmənt]

NOUN

1. a view of or attitude toward a situation or event; an opinion:
   "I agree with your sentiments regarding the road bridge"
   SIMILAR:
   view
   point of view
   way of thinking

In linguistics a true dichotomy is two terms which represent true opposites either in degrees or absolutes (Drawing a clear distinction). A false dichotomy is when the two terms have a deviation between the two that makes it imprecise (typically found in propaganda). So objectively, when a base dichotomy is viewed as a positive/negative for the purpose of reasoning pro/con, the negative is always the absence of the positive in connotation and denotation. Suffice it to say that in the dichotomy real/unreal we're talking about a sentiment (way of thinking) where every scientist would understand that reality is always real and never unreal. Scientific method sets out to prove or disprove a hypothesis typically formed through inductive or deductive reasoning. Similarly in linguistics the intention is to form thoughts in terms that are irrefutable.

I'll have a think about all of that when I can make a little more time .. (thanks for your response in the meantime).

 

[durangodawood]

What do you mean "leverage" their common meanings? What do you mean may well breakdown? You must be confusing objective and subjective views.

If I assume that you mean to say that what the term "reality" means objectively, does not confidently constitute what reality is; then I don't see how, since the term "reality" in its objective view includes all knowns and unknowns.

Exactly. Reality includes all unknowns. And the nature of reality as a whole may well be unknown or even unknowable to minds such as ours. We cant make reliable statements about utter unknowns. Perhaps if we were privy to it, we we'd have the opposite intuition from "Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing". Just because we have a word for "everything" doesnt mean the everything is truly intelligible. The word is just a placeholder.

...Objectively, reality can't breakdown, since it would only breakdown into unreality, which creates a contradiction in reasoning. I mean, was it ever really real in the first place? Does that mean unreality is becoming more real than reality as reality breaks down?...

This is pretty close to what I mean by leveraging the common meaning of words. You invoke some colloquially useful terms "reality" and "unreality". But they are not hard concepts with definite borders as applied to our world. They often evoke intuitions about things rather than concrete objective notions, as we feel that portions of reality may well exceed the grasp of our reasoning. In fact, theres a certain hubris in assuming we're qualified to reason about all aspects of reality. We're well suited to our niche as beings in linear time and space, and thats about it.

Therefore, I feel confident in rejecting concrete conclusions like: we can manipulate the meaning of these words into proving theres an eternal being.

 

[SelfSim]

Exactly. Reality includes all unknowns.

And the nature of reality as a whole may well be unknown or even unknowable to minds such as ours. We cant make reliable statements about utter unknowns. Perhaps if we were privy to it, we we'd have the opposite intuition from "Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing". Just because we have a word for "everything" doesnt mean the everything is truly intelligible. The word is just a placeholder.

'An unknown' can be concluded (via inference) as being consistent with a testable definition of 'a belief', using the scientific method. 'Unknowns', therefore, are temporarily ignored (and excluded) from science's objective reality because science works from operational, (ie: already tested), definitions.
(I think I'm leaning in @childeye 2's direction on this point?)

A prediction for example, (either untestable or even untested), is still a belief (from the scientific viewpoint).

'Unknowable', too, is a conjecture I think, where a conjecture is something that is thought to be a logical equivalence to its postulates/axioms (or their negatives), but is not known to be, because the logical connection has not been shown rigorously. It is suspected, because other things that can be proven from those same postulates seem to point in that direction, or perhaps there are lots of examples that follow the conjecture of unknowability, so it is suspected on inductive grounds, but is not proven as a deduction from the postulates.

Hmm .. interesting!

 

[childeye 2]

Exactly. Reality includes all unknowns.

Okay, we agree that the term reality objectively contains all knowns and unknowns when understood properly. And so, objectively it is a sound term for reasoning upon.

And the nature of reality as a whole may well be unknown or even unknowable to minds such as ours.

I agree, and the record shows I've said the same thing already. But that doesn't mean facts cannot be learned. It doesn't mean we can't know anything. Particularly the base understanding that reality is real and not unreal. It's certainly not logical to claim that reality is fiction because we don't know everything.

We cant make reliable statements about utter unknowns. Perhaps if we were privy to it, we we'd have the opposite intuition from "Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing". Just because we have a word for "everything" doesn't mean the everything is truly intelligible. The word is just a placeholder.

All words are placeholders for an expressed thought. Even the statement that something is unknown is a reliable fact so long as what it refers to is an unknown about reality, but it's still real. The term unknown still implies something knowable whether it's utterly unknown or in degrees. And where something is unknowable, it still doesn't imply that it's unreal when qualified as such by the incapacity to comprehend. In such circumstances we must reason upon a belief, wherein we project a preference on some basis.

This is pretty close to what I mean by leveraging the common meaning of words. You invoke some colloquially useful terms "reality" and "unreality". But they are not hard concepts with definite borders as applied to our world. They often evoke intuitions about things rather than concrete objective notions, as we feel that portions of reality may well exceed the grasp of our reasoning. In fact, theres a certain hubris in assuming we're qualified to reason about all aspects of reality. We're well suited to our niche as beings in linear time and space, and thats about it.
Therefore, I feel confident in rejecting concrete conclusions like: we can manipulate the meaning of these words into proving theres an eternal being.

I see. So, is this why you reject that something can't come from nothing? You feel you're being manipulated into accepting something Eternal? Just so you know, I'm already on the record stating that I think it's futile to try to prove a line goes on forever, by definition.

Edit: A circle could theoretically be an exception, (see pi).

 

[durangodawood]

Okay, we agree that the term reality objectively contains all knowns and unknowns when understood properly. And so, objectively it is a sound term for reasoning upon.

Its a sound term for manipulating by reasoning. Im fine with the word games. I just have no basis for confidence that the game can reveal anything about actual reality, as opposed to just our understanding of the word.

I think our capacity for labeling things and concepts has given us a massive overconfidence in our capacity to understand.

I agree, and the record shows I've said the same thing already. But that doesn't mean facts cannot be learned. It doesn't mean we can't know anything. Particularly the base understanding that reality is real and not unreal. It's certainly not logical to claim that reality is fiction because we don't know everything.

Some quite smart people think our reality may be a simulation conducted by an actually real civilization. Of course we would still be part of "reality" in one sense. But many competent users of our language would say "no, thats not reality. its a simulation, a fiction played out by a machine."

I see. So, is this why you reject that something can't come from nothing? You feel you're being manipulated into accepting something Eternal? Just so you know, I'm already on the record stating that I think it's futile to try to prove a line goes on forever, by definition.

I think people are manipulating themselves into unreasonably firm conclusions based on nothing more than the phantom fixedness of words.

 

[childeye 2]

Its a sound term for manipulating by reasoning. Im fine with the word games. I just have no basis for confidence that the game can reveal anything about actual reality, as opposed to just our understanding of the word.

If misused, it's sound enough for manipulation (negative connotation) but it's still sound. Every term is an expressed thought, and thoughts are energy in reality. When we speak our thoughts, they are influential in some reaction by those who hear and contemplate them. There's no doubt that words can be used to manipulate (negative connotation). But it doesn't follow that reasoning upon the term reality equates with manipulation. Otherwise just teaching a child 1+1=2 could be misconstrued as manipulation, which is unreasonable and manipulative of itself. Besides, when we parse the semantics of propaganda (manipulation), we will find something unreasonable, a contradiction in reasoning.

I think our capacity for labeling things and concepts has given us a massive overconfidence in our capacity to understand.

That thought is an energy. Where did the thought come from? What happens when it's pondered and believed upon? My testimony upon hearing it, is that it evokes a reason for skepticism to which I then apply my own skepticism, and I will be wary how much belief to put into it lest I cross a line into some form of cynicism by either you or me. Personally, I think you mean to convey humility which is qualified by the term 'overconfidence'.

Some quite smart people think our reality may be a simulation conducted by an actually real civilization. Of course we would still be part of "reality" in one sense. But many competent users of our language would say "no, thats not reality. its a simulation, a fiction played out by a machine."

Essentially, that's also what the scriptures intimate. We were created as a vessel for God's Spirit (let us make man in our image). But the terminology is presented as temporal and eternal Life. Now would I claim that you've manipulated me into talking about the Eternal? No, I'd instead say it was an inevitability. Anyway, even in quantum computing the problem for constructing algorithms is basically about how to ask the right questions. So, there too terminology matters to be functional.

I think people are manipulating themselves into unreasonably firm conclusions based on nothing more than the phantom fixedness of words.

I agree that we can only know some of reality as pertains to our limited capacity to fathom our existence. So, I'd say that's true on one end of string theory and not true on the other. Hence, there are theories about how to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. And similarly, we contemplate a difference between the subjective and objective view. That's why I said all communication and logic will breakdown if we don't stay in the objective box.

 

[SelfSim]

Anyway, even in quantum computing the problem for constructing algorithms is basically about how to ask the right questions.
...
I agree that we can only know some of reality as pertains to our limited capacity to fathom our existence. So, I'd say that's true on one end of string theory and not true on the other. Hence, there are theories about how to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics.

What is all that supposed to mean?
Ie: all algorithms are derived from a description of requirement .. quantum computing has nothing to do with that.

What are you talking about with the 'string theory' diversion there?

Your posts have now deteriorated into complete drivel/woo (!?)

 

[sjastro]

What is all that supposed to mean?
Ie: all algorithms are derived from a description of requirement .. quantum computing has nothing to do with that.

What are you talking about with the 'string theory' diversion there?

Your posts have now deteriorated into complete drivel/woo (!?)

The Many Worlds thread provides a useful primer on how quantum computing works.

 

[childeye 2]

What is all that supposed to mean?
Ie: all algorithms are derived from a description of requirement .. quantum computing has nothing to do with that.

You're actually making my point. The context is whether reality (mankind) is a simulation. Some advanced quantum algorithms can perform deduction using probabilities, but as you pointed out, even a basic computer still needs to understand the question to function as designed. Hence it wasn't something unreal that created a simulation that could make a calculation to serve a cause and a purpose.

What are you talking about with the 'string theory' diversion there

The meaning was qualified here: "That's why I said all communication and logic will breakdown if we don't stay in the objective box".
I'm making a point that the words we use are only stable in what we know about everything, and I alluded to string theory (a theory of everything) and also subjective and objective views as an example.

Your posts have now deteriorated into complete drivel/woo (!?)

I appreciate your desire for clarity.

 

[SelfSim]

The context is whether reality is a simulation. I'm pointing out that some advanced quantum algorithms can perform deduction using probabilities, but a computer still needs to understand the question to function.

Its not the computer that needs to understand that .. Human minds understand .. its demonstrably a testable property of the model used for distinguishing: 'what a human mind is'.

The model for what 'Artificial Intelligence is', (for eg), is under development, as AI evolves.

Hence it wasn't something unreal that created a simulation that could make a calculation without serving its own ends.

The notion of reality being a simulation, is a complete waste of time, as it can be shown to lead nowhere of practical use.

I'm making a point that the words we use are only stable in what we know about everything, and I alluded to string theory (a theory of everything) as an example.

I'm still totally unconvinced that 'reality includes all unknowns'.
We can't know 'all unknowns', in order for us to include that when conveying our demonstrably (objective) meaning of: 'current models of reality'.
And string theory has nothing to do with any of that.

 

[SelfSim]

The Many Worlds thread provides a useful primer on how quantum computing works.

Sure .. (just clarifying here for myself, more than anything): They say in that video, that in order to see one of the solutions of some problem, (in quantum computing), depends on creating a deterministic set of qubit gates to boost its amplitude (probability). In normal computing, standard logic gates are used in calculating the solution to some mathematically expressed problem .. using standard (binary) mathematics.

Both paradigms require the problem to be stated before developing an algorithm to solve it .. I see no reason to single out, for emphasis, that 'even' quantum computing's problems require functional descriptions using language(?) There's a hidden assumption which wasn't stated in the post, that quantum computing somehow differs in this regard .. (which I would reject).

Every notion, once described using language, becomes a model, which is either testable, or untestable .. (regardless of computing methods used in solving problems predicted from those models).

The reference made to string theory, was just incongruous, (for me), in the way it was brought up.

 

[Chriliman]

The Big Bang event is the (theorised) cause .. in so far as we know all causes and events.

I know this. Not sure why you’re saying this, based on my convo with Kylie…she’s the one who said a decaying radio active atom has no cause… I was saying the Big Bang was a cause.