Lessons on Causality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby gib » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:36 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Gib wrote:I think I'm partial to the infinite sides faction of the debate. A circle has infinite sides. Yet at the same time, I see how this is equivalent to the notion of a circle having no sides.


Circles are first and foremost objects of our experience. Yes. They are shapes that we can SEE in our everyday life. That's what they are. And we know what they are thanks to our intuition. We need no dictionary definitions. That's true.
When you say something like "circles are a set of points equidistant from some fixed point" you are providing an alterantive way of judging whether any given shape is a circle or not.
This method of judgment involves a ruler that is anchored in the center of the shape. It also involves choosing a number of points on the boundary of the shape you are measuring. And it involves rotating the ruler so that one of its ends passes through one of the selected points on the boundary. What you have to do is to measure the distance between the center and each one of the selected points. If all of the distances are equal you declare that the shape is a circle. Correct!
The other approach is polygon approximation but this approach has a weakness in that it involves the redundant concept of side. So Occam's Razor might have something to say about this. Sides cannot help us to determine any given shape is a circle or not. Sure, they could be ovals. They are quite simply useless in this regard. Where they are useful is in measuring the circumference of a circle. That is when describing circles in terms of polygons is useful.
The polygon approximation approach gives us a more complete view of circles.


So it sounds like you're saying there are at least 3 approaches to defining circles: intuition (we know a circle when we see it), point geometry (all points on the circumference are equidistant to the center), and polygon geometry (a polygon with infinite sides all at equal angles to each other).

You also say that the polygon geometry approach has the drawback of holding onto the redundant concept of side, yet you also say that it gives us a more complete view of circles. Would you say that this redundancy is a good thing then? That it allows for a more complete view of circles?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8421
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Arminius » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:08 am

Four steps:

1) Perception - based on the sense organs (subjective) and signs (objective). Pre-Knowledge (semiotic language).
2) Knowledge through linguistic skills - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1) and on linguistic language.
3) Knowledge through the pure logic of language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2) and on pure logical language.
4) Knowledge through mathematical language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2), on pure logical language (=> 3) and on mathematical language.

Now, we want to know what a circle philosophically means. Right?
For this we do not need "high" mathematics, because we do not know for sure whether mathematics is more right than philosophy or other disciplines. But we want to talk about it in a philosophical sense. Right?

If we know how and wherefore mathematicians use certain definitions, then this does not necessarily mean that they use it in order to get the truth. They are just searching for consistent statements (in their mathematical language).

The "higher" Occidental mathematics has much more to do with functions than with numbers. Its geometry has mainly become a functional theory too. But what does that tell you about the circle when it comes to the first three steps I mentioned above? No mathematician denies the meaning or/and definition of a circle giving in a currently valid dictionary. We already had a similar discussion in another thread: "Is 1 = 0.999...~?". 1 and 0.999...~ are never identical, but according to the Occidental mathematics functions have become more important than numbers, because functions do work (just: function) much better than pure numbers.

And what about the physicists? Do they say that sunrise and sunset do not exist according to your perception? Do they deny that the Sun is going up and down according to an observer? Do they insist that you have to always say that sunrise and sunset are caused by the Earth rotation? No.

In other words: Does the answer to the question whether a circle is just circular (without sides) or has sides just in order to calculate in a better, the Occidental way of mathematics not also depend on perspectives?

I mean: Would you say that sunrise and sunset do not exist, namely in the world of your perception? Certainly not.

So do we at last not have the same discussion here as almost always: subjectivity versus objectivity?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:34 am

The argument concerning whether "circle" should be defined this way or that, is an entirely different topic.

Currently a circle is defined in a very exact and ancient way, even in mathematics. If someone wants to call a 12 sided polygon a "circle" merely because it is more circular than a square, he really should specify that he isn't being precise and certainly shouldn't be telling others that they are wrong when they explain the difference. They are not wrong (but children will be children).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:23 am

Defining a circle as having every point on the circumference equidistant from its centre is sufficiently rigorous for no
other information to be required. So while it can also be defined in terms of infinite sides it is not actually necessary
to do so. The first definition is way simpler and easier to understand which is why it has survived for as long as it has
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:34 am

Gib wrote:You also say that the polygon geometry approach has the drawback of holding onto the redundant concept of side, yet you also say that it gives us a more complete view of circles. Would you say that this redundancy is a good thing then? That it allows for a more complete view of circles?


It is redundant if all you want to do is determine whether any given shape is a circle or not. We can do that without the concept of side. The concept of side does not help us in any way. That's Occam's Razor. However, if you want to do something more with these shapes, say measure their circumference, then it is certainly not redundant. The polygon approach is more complete in the sense that everything you need is there, in one place. Note that polygon approach builds on top of point approach. Polygon approach is simply point approach with points being connected by lines.

So it sounds like you're saying there are at least 3 approaches to defining circles: intuition (we know a circle when we see it), point geometry (all points on the circumference are equidistant to the center), and polygon geometry (a polygon with infinite sides all at equal angles to each other).


Yes. There is also trigonemtric approach which involves sine waves. And finally, there is my favorite approach, which involves easing functions <-- that approach is the most analytical approach of all.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:47 am

James S Saint wrote:Currently a circle is defined in a very exact and ancient way, even in mathematics. If someone wants to call a 12 sided polygon a "circle" merely because it is more circular than a square, he really should specify that he isn't being precise and certainly shouldn't be telling others that they are wrong when they explain the difference. They are not wrong (but children will be children).


Normal brains process information synthetically (a.k.a. holistically.) This means they focus on the big picture -- they don't focus on the details. Or more precisely, they focus on the details but the amount of time they spend focusing on the details is minimal. They spend more time shifting their attention than they spend maintaining it. You can say they "glance over the details". You cannot see the whole if you are focusing on the parts for too long -- you will only see a lot of parts. You cannot see the forest if you are focusing on the trees for too long -- you will only see a lot of trees. So a global thinker will see a circle where a local thinker won't see a circle (e.g. UrWrong's picture.)

When you focus on the big picture you lose the sight of the details and vice versa. When we look at UrWrong's picture we see a circle. We don't see its details, and hence, we don't see the imperfections. If we switch out attention away from the big picture and towards the details, then yes, we would be able to see the imperfections, but this won't make us abandon our earlier claim. If we did abandon the claim and if we adopted the attitude of spending disproportionately long time looking for imperfections then our understanding of circles would become so strict that most, if not all, of the shapes that we normally consider to be circles would no longer be seen as circles. That's horribly counter-inuitive.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:33 am

UrWrong wrote:The point is that definitions can be simplified, and so can causes. Humans can understand causes, pragmatically. If there is an offshore earthquake, and 100% of the time a tidal wave follows from that, then we can begin to accept the cause of the tidal wave is an offshore earthquake. Unless of course a meteor crashes into the ocean, or nuclear bomb is set off in the ocean, then those too cause tidal waves.

Some causes and effects are much more difficult to dispute and doubt than others. Some causes are very common. Some are very rare.


The problem is that there are times when the data that we possess regarding the world around us does not have what is necessary in order to be able to guide us in choosing what to assume regarding the unknown. This is the situation when every choice is as good as any other a.k.a. equi-probability. You cannot approximate (i.e. choose the closest relative) in such a situation because every candidate is equally similar to the original.

Paraphrasing what I said in another thread:

Intelligence is the search for the closest relative of some data set d within some set of data sets S.

In effect, the task of intelligence is to approximate.

(Of course, pedants will be quick to say that this is not intelligence but intuition. And not even intuition but induction. And not even induction but something else -- something I made up.

My point will be that if you want to understand intelligence then you have to understand intuition. And if you want to understand intuition then you have to understand induction. In fact, you have to understand whatever is fundamental to the process. You need to understand the foundation of intelligence. Any other approach will be horribly superficial.)

When a data set has more than one closest relative then we're speaking of randomness.

If we have a data set such as {A, A, B, B} that represents "2 occurences of A and 2 occurences of B" and if we want to find out how many occurences of A and how many occurences of B there will be at 5 occurences of either-A-or-B we will have no choice but to conclude either {A, A, B, B, B} or {A, A, B, B, A}. This is because the two data sets are equally similar to the original data set. That's randomness. The greater the number of closest relatives, the greater the degree of randomness. On the other hand, if what we want to find out is how many A's and how many B's there are at, say, 6 occurences of either-A-or-B then we will be able to give a definite answer: 3 A's and 3 B's. This is because this data set is more similar to the original data set than all others. That's order. The lower the number of closest relatives, the greater the degree of order.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:22 am

James S Saint wrote:If someone wants to call a 12 sided polygon a "circle" merely because it is more circular than a square


12-side polygons look like this:

Image

Squares look like this:

Image

Circles look like this:

Image

We can easily see, using our intuition, that the 12-side polygon has more in common with the circle than it does with the square. So the right way to call it is certainly not "circular square" but "square-ish circle".
Your claim that this shape -- the 12-sided polygon -- is merely more circular than a square quite simply wrong.
It is A LOT MORE circular than a square.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:02 am

Note that I narrowed the context. The 12-sided polygon is allowed only two relations: one with circles and one with squares. This is why I had to conclude that the best way to describe the polygon is as "squarish circle". That's true but only within that limited context. And that is sufficient to make my point -- all I wanted to say is that describing it as "circular square" is very bad. Inuitively, however, describing the 12-sided polygon as "squarish circle" sounds rather strange. This is because intuitively we consider a broader context. The best way to describe the shape is as "spiky circle". Even describing it as "triangular circle" sounds better. But we'll notice that the similarity with triangles is only in the details.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby gib » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:20 pm

The argument isn't that a circle is a 12 sided polygon anyway. It's an infinite sided polygon.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8421
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:19 pm

In order to test whether any given shape is a circle (or not) we need to decide how many points there are on the boundary. This is not an objective parameter. The boundary of the shape under the test does not have a finite number of points. Instead, it is us who has to decide, entirely subjectively, how many points there are. What this means is that testing whether any given shape is a circle or not is in actuality a test of how circular that shape is. No shape is inherently a circle. Instead, shapes are MORE OR LESS circular. When we choose a smaller number of points, we are testing for a lower degree of circularity. When we choose a larger number of points, we are testing for a higher degree of circularity. This is perfectly in line with the holistic stance that there are no absolutes, only degrees.

Sure, we can run binary true/false tests. Any given shape either passes the test or it fails the test. But what we are testing for can never be "the perfect circle". Why? Because there is no such a thing. Can anyone here define what a perfect circle is? But without taking things out of context. Don't just say "a perfect circle is every point in the plane that is equidistant from some fixed point". Such a definition does not specify the number of points that have to be tested. If you say that the number of points does not matter, then the test becomes too lax . . . nearly every shape can pass it. The 12-sided polygon? It's a perfect circle and James is wrong! On the other hand, if you say that the number of points is, say, quadrillion, then it becomes too strict . . . no shape can pass it. And the problem is not only strictness but the arbitrariness of choosing a number of points that defines the perfect circle. It's entirely subjective. Why quadrillion and not, say, quintillion? The question cannot be answered without taking context into account. The problem is that analytical thinkers, such as James, don't want to take context into consideration. They are absolutists.

When someone says that a circle is "an infinite sided polygon" what is meant is that the greater the number of sides a circular polygon (i.e. a shape with its key points being equidistant from the center) has, the more circular it is. That's all it means. Pentagon is less circular than hexagon which is less circular than octagon which is less circular than 12-sided polygon which is less circular than 24-sided polygon and so on and so forth.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:57 pm

gib wrote:The argument isn't that a circle is a 12 sided polygon anyway. It's an infinite sided polygon.

The problem is that with his interpretation of "side", every polygon and every shape is infinite sided.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:06 pm

That's the point though, Absolutism.

Some people are too absolute to admit mistakes in definitions and meaning. Like how James refuses to admit that a Chiliagon, 1000-sided shape, is a circle. He is too proud to admit a weakness in his position, his meanings. But James and Arc are missing the points. There will be many different approaches to definition, interpretation. Accuracy is important but there are gray areas wherein which some will say "this is a circle" and others will disagree and say it is not. This gray area, area of conflict, is when each side offers superior definition and increases the stringent requirements, leading to the perfect, absolute circle.

"My definition is the absolute perfect circle and YOURS ISN'T!!!"

That's not what I'm talking about. But it was necessary to show a few people here they were wrong to completely reject my, ARBITRARY definition. As if a brief definition of a circle has to do with the greater topic at hand? How about a square? A square has 4-sides and 4 right angles. Are people here going to argue with that definition as well? In order to do what? In order to dispute that if I define a cause as this or that, that those definitions must also be absolute and perfect?

That's the point, isn't it?

That for there to be "cause" of anything at all, in existence, then those causes must be defined absolutely and perfectly? Nope, that was never my implication or intention, James.


Causes, like these definitions of shapes, require lots of effort and sophistication to apprehend and understand.

Like how an offshore earthquake keeps causing a coastal tidal wave. It keeps happening, everytime, one after the other. So ought we not then deduce, and operate from the premise, that offshore earthquakes cause coastal tidal waves???

My opposition has few directions to travel, to dispute, to doubt this. And you could even say "well so what, it doesn't matter". It doesn't matter to you, but knowing the causes of things, can save lives, and to those who are swept away by coastal tidal waves, will absolutely know the difference of importance, and whether it was the 'good' thing to do, to attribute causes to natural phenomenon.

It's not imaginary, a matter of the mind only. Some humans, a few at least, attempt to find, locate, and identify causes in existence. The patterns of reality, of existence. And in so doing, they gain advantages that other people do not have. The scientist who creates a device to detect offshore earthquakes, can save countless lives, whereas those other places and people who do not, will not save lives. If you are fine with that then so be it. But cause, as a general matter, is much larger than merely offshore earthquakes and chiliagon circles.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:44 am

James S Saint wrote:
gib wrote:The argument isn't that a circle is a 12 sided polygon anyway. It's an infinite sided polygon.

The problem is that with his interpretation of "side", every polygon and every shape is infinite sided.


Yes, it is true, every polygon and every shape can be said to be infinite sided. Where I disagree is that this is a problem. I ask: what exactly is the problem? Why is it a problem?
We don't see squares and other shapes as infinite sided simply because there is no need to. There is, on the other hand, very good reason to see circles as infinite sided.
Circles have sides that are related to each other in a very specific manner.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:34 am

The only way that every polygon or shape could be described as infinite sided would be if a straight line was also described as such
But anything with edges cannot be infinite sided because they are the points where two sides converge and therefore begin or end
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:35 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes, it is true, every polygon and every shape can be said to be infinite sided. Where I disagree is that this is a problem. I ask: what exactly is the problem? Why is it a problem?

    1) It is pointless to say.
    2) It is rationally incorrect (circles have no "straight sides").
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:48 am

UrWrong wrote:Like how James refuses to admit that a Chiliagon, 1000-sided shape, is a circle.


Even a hectagon, a 100-sided shape, is very much a circle.
Polygons become difficult to distinguish from cicles once you give them more than 50 sides.

Another thing to note is that the official definition of circles does not state that circles are not polygons.
This is a common mistake.
If a definition does not state that a shape is a polygon, or that it has sides, it does not mean that the shape is not a polygon, or that it does not have sides.

JSS wrote:1) It is pointless to say.


Yes, which is why NOONE is saying it.

2) It is rationally incorrect (circles have no "straight sides").


You mean that when we look at circles we see no straight sides?
Yes, that is true, but that is merely due to the manner in which our brains process information.
A polygon appears to be a circle from a distance, for example.
In fact, any polygon can appear to be a circle if you simply don't pay enough attention to it.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:12 am

If you infinitely divide a line, what do you get?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:36 am

If you divide a line, you get two sub-lines. If you divide each of the two sub-lines, you get 4 sub-sub-lines. And so on. The angle between the adjacent sub- . . . - lines is always 180 degrees since the main line is straight.
How is this relevant?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:47 am

Circles are not polygons because that would mean they have a finite number of sides
And then not every point on the circumference would be equidistant from the centre

A polygon cannot be a circle just because it looks like a circle from a certain distance
The definition of a circle is dependent upon mathematical logic not human perception

A hexagon is not a circle but a six sided polygon. A circle has infinite sides so cannot be a polygon. It also has no
sides so cannot be a polygon. So therefore saying it has infinite sides is exactly the same as saying it has no sides
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:07 am

S57 wrote:Circles are not polygons because that would mean they have a finite number of sides


Every shape is a collection of finite number of points informational atoms (analogous to how pixels are the atoms of computer screens.)
There are no shapes that have an infinite number of points.
The word "infinite" must not be taken literally.
When I say that a circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides what I mean is that the greater the number of sides a polygon has the more circular it is.
That's all that is meant.

And then not every point on the circumference would be equidistant from the centre


When we're testing a shape whether it is a circle or not (more precisely, how circular it is) we're always checking a finite number of points.
As I've said, the larger the number of points we're checking, the higher the degree of circularity we're testing for. And vice verse, the smaller the number of points we're checking, the lower the degree of circularity we're testing for.
Once a shape is tested positive, it remains so EVEN IF we find out there are points on its boundary that do not obey the pattern of circularity.
This is NORMAL because we only tested for A SPECIFIC DEGREE of circularity. We DO NOT CARE if we find out that the shape fails at the test of higher degree of circularity.
I hope this is clear.

A polygon cannot be a circle just because it looks like a circle from a certain distance


In that case, almost nothing is a circle.

The definition of a circle is dependent upon mathematical logic not human perception


The purpose of mathematical logic is to MAP human perception.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:32 am

A young boy is asked, "What is a circle?"

The young boy then draws a circle in the sand with his finger. Is it perfect? Does it need to be? No, and no. It is a circle.

For those demanding absolute perfection, of definition, you've already lost the point about infinity and geometry. All shapes have sides. Whether or not humans perceive a certain level of detail, is a moot point. Engineers, mathematicians, architects, if you want to call them 'authorities' on what is or is not a circle, then each will give similar yet different definitions, according to their work, tools, equations, and functions.

Many in this thread are being, naive, simple, dull, childish, elementary. Even the young boy can exceed the intelligence demonstrated by some in this thread.

All you need to do is draw a circle in the sand.


The cause of this dispute, is ego, being wrong, being humiliated, admitting inferiority to the common sense of the young boy. If he can figure it out then why can't you?

Start simple, and start with reality. Shapes are approximations. Rarely or never will any person need 'perfection'. Save that for the engineers who use calculus, when it matters.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Sep 26, 2017 8:37 am

Here's some logic for those clamoring for rationality:

1) All shapes have sides.
2) Circles are shapes.
3) Therefore circles have sides.


For those claiming circles "have no sides", you imply that circles are not shapes, which is false.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:43 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:If you divide a line, you get two sub-lines. If you divide each of the two sub-lines, you get 4 sub-sub-lines. And so on. The angle between the adjacent sub- . . . - lines is always 180 degrees since the main line is straight.
How is this relevant?

That wasn't an answer. You have to pay to see the cards.

As with other questions asked of you, answer the question and then you get to see the relevance.

What do you end up with after infinitely dividing a line?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25425
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:07 am

When you infinitely divide a line you end up with . . . oh wait, you never end up with anything because you never stop dividing the line.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]