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 Magnus Anderson » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:17 am

James S Saint wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:What EXACTLY is your problem?

My "problem" is that you seem to not be able to read.

.. not to mention avoiding answering direct questions.


No, that's not your problem. Your problem is that you suffer from Autistic Spectrum Disorder which means you have difficulties understanding colloquial language. Is it any wonder that you place so much emphasis on language? I don't think so. You take words way too literally. Whenever I talk to you I always feel like I am talking to Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory.

Let me remind you. Your point was this:

"A" affecting "B" means that A changes B through time. It doesn't mean that when A changes, B also changes nor that when B changes, A also changes ("correlation"). So from there on out, you argument is void.


In other words, your point was that A acting upon B, or more precisely, that B changes "in response to" or "due to" A, does not mean that when A changes B changes.
That's wrong.

You did not explain why you disagree with my claim.
Not at all.
You provided no counter-argument whatsoever.
Instead, you do what you usually do -- you just make declarations.
Which also happen to be empty.

Is the following your argument?

The Sun affects the growth of the flower - "A affects B".

So does that mean the flower's growth changes the Sun? Obviously not.
Does it mean that the Sun changes and thus affects the flower? No, it doesn't. Whether the Sun changes has nothing to do with the claim.


You call this an argument?
There is something I can respond to?

You're full of shit.
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: 3471
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:34 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Let me remind you. Your point was this:

"A" affecting "B" means that A changes B through time. It doesn't mean that when A changes, B also changes nor that when B changes, A also changes ("correlation"). So from there on out, you argument is void.


In other words, your point was that A acting upon B, or more precisely, that B changes "in response to" or "due to" A, does not mean that when A changes B changes.
That's wrong.

Perhaps you were never told that reading involves comprehension of content. My argument was with Brando.
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: 25423
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Brando » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:06 pm

The real world Problem of causality is perhaps a flaw. It is something like Kants critique of metaphysics: there is a drive to speak of it but it can never be captured. Perhaps we must Change the Frame to Performance. I quoted something on it regarding Butler. But in history there was a practice of Performance, which wrapps the formula: A is a cause of B. This is the imaginary (Spencer Brown would love it) - so tragedy in old ancient Greece. We see something in imaginational works, and draw a conclusion to the real world. This Connection may be the real sense of the Problem of causality. And it is performative, critisizing the myth of the given.
Brando
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:39 am

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:30 pm

Brando wrote:The real world Problem of causality is perhaps a flaw. It is something like Kants critique of metaphysics: there is a drive to speak of it but it can never be captured. Perhaps we must Change the Frame to Performance. I quoted something on it regarding Butler. But in history there was a practice of Performance, which wrapps the formula: A is a cause of B. This is the imaginary (Spencer Brown would love it) - so tragedy in old ancient Greece. We see something in imaginational works, and draw a conclusion to the real world. This Connection may be the real sense of the Problem of causality. And it is performative, critisizing the myth of the given.

This is a bunch of bullshit.

Humans know that off-shore earthquakes cause tidal flooding. For you to ignore the cause or pretend causes don't exist, when you could have used the information and prevented thousands of people from dying, is irresponsible and imbecilic.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:13 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Arc wrote:
Well it is a good thing to be able to stretch our minds by seeing a thing in more than one way

Not where mathematics is concerned because more than one way means most of them are wrong unfortunately


Here I was not speaking mathematically.
I was speaking of many things which we might be able to see/interpret in more than one way.
I was one of those who said that a circle actually does not have sides.

Aside from that, depending on how one looks at it, some will say a circle does not have sides and some will say that it does.
Literally speaking, it does NOT.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54816.html
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14835
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:50 pm

Arc is clinging to her ignorance and falsities, playing language games and semantics to cover up her humiliation.

You ought to be embarrassed to be so wrong.

Bury your head deeper in the sand. Tell me again how a million sided shape is not a circle. Here's the image by the way:


Image
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:52 pm

Shall I move upward to a billion sides are will you admit defeat?

Will you tell me a billion-sided shape is not a circle???

You're wrong, Arcturus.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:33 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Tell me again how a million sided shape is not a circle.

I have told you twice. I will tell you again:
James S Saint wrote:That shape is "circular", it is NOT "a circle".

cir·cle
ˈsərk(ə)l/
noun
1. a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center).


If there are any straight sides at all, then it is not an actual circle, but rather merely circular - close to being a circle.

There is no room in the very definition of a circle for straight sides. It is a part of the language.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Shall I move upward to a billion sides are will you admit defeat?

Will you tell me a billion-sided shape is not a circle???

It doesn't matter how many sides.

    Why are you arguing with the very definition of the word "circle"?

Who is really playing language games at this point? The definition of "a circle" forbids ANY sides at all, regardless of how small they might be. And as stated earlier, a point is NOT a "straight side" nor even a "side", merely an edge-point.
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: 25423
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:39 am

JSS wrote:Perhaps you were never told that reading involves comprehension of content. My argument was with Brando.


You argue with Brando by responding to something I wrote?
What does it matter who you argue with if you are responding to something I wrote?

The following was written by me and not by Brando:

Affectance is just a fancy term for action. And causation.
It is closely related to inter-action which is its complex variant.

What does it mean for A to affect B?
At its core, what it means is that changing A changes B.
In statistics, this is known as correlation.
Affectance, causation, etc is just a specific type of correlation.


Brando simply failed to quote me properly.
So yes, you responded to me.
I am saying this even though it's completely irrelevant.
Even if the above was written by Brando you'd still be wrong.
Change in B "due to" or "in response to" A does mean that when A changes (in some way) that B changes (in some way.)

Let me quote myself:

Magnus Anderson wrote:Change is a difference between two adjacent points in time. Thus, it is redundant to say that A changes B through time. It's enough to say that A changes B. But what does this mean? It means that B changes. It is easy to understand what it means for B to change. It means that when you compare an earlier state of B with a later state of B that there is a difference between the two states. That's what it means for B to change. However, A changes B means more than that. It means that + something else. And this something else is that B changes in response to, or due to, A. And what this "in response to" or "due to" means? It means that B changes when A changes. So yes, A changes B is a form of correlation. This does not mean it is ANY kind of correlation. It simply means that, at its base, it is correlation. So you're wrong.


And you responded to this with this:

JSS wrote:The Sun affects the growth of the flower - "A affects B".

So does that mean the flower's growth changes the Sun? Obviously not.
Does it mean that the Sun changes and thus affects the flower? No, it doesn't. Whether the Sun changes has nothing to do with the claim.


And you're going to tell me that you are not autistic?
Look how stupid your response is.
The first thing you say is that the statement does not mean the opposite of what it states i.e. that A changes B does not mean that B changes A.
I MEAN FOR GOD'S SAKE WHAT KIND OF ALTERNATE UNIVERSE AM I IN?
Why are you telling me this?
Did my statement somehow imply it?
Does the statement "when A changes B changes" imply that "when B changes A changes"?
SERI-FUCKING-HILARIOUS-LY?
And then you say that whether the Sun changes has nothing to do with the claim?
Really?
You are telling me that the Sun affecting the flower is not an inference from the experential data within which we can CLEARLY see that the presence of light is accompanied by growth in flowers and that the absence of light is not?

When there is light, there is growth.
When there is no light, there is no growth.
The Sun being the main source of light it's easy to see why change in the Sun (its position in space) is likely to be accompanied by change in flowers (the rate at which they grow.)

There is no such a thing as "metaphysical force" that "acts" between the Sun and flowers.
That's just a creative use of language.
A creative expression -- poetry.
And it's a legit expression so as long you don't take it literally.
The problem is that you DO take it literally.
This is why I think you're autistic.
You think that if there are two different expressions in language that they must mean two different things. Otherwise you scream "inconsistency". No no no. You scream "LOGICAL inconsistency" as if logic has anything to do with language.

You're a very funny guy.
There's a very good reason you keep your comments short.
They are without any substance.
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: 3471
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:45 am

Just for the record, Arcturus and James are claiming this is not a circle:

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Image


You're both wrong.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:47 am

James S Saint wrote:Why are you arguing with the very definition of the word "circle"?
Who is really playing language games at this point? The definition of "a circle" forbids ANY sides at all, regardless of how small they might be. And as stated earlier, a point is NOT a "straight side" nor even a "side", merely an edge-point.


Here's another example of James' autism. He starts with WORDS instead of starting with EXPERIENTIAL DATA. He clings onto one definition -- the one that is the most popular -- and then proceeds to accuse everyone who deviates from that definition of playing language games. If this is not a text-book example of Autism Spectrum Disorder then I don't know what is.

UrWrong's definition is a legit definition. It's not my preferrable definition -- I think that definitions can be ranked based on how fundamental they are -- but it is just as legit as the popular definition that involves equidistance.
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: 3471
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:58 am

I don't think it's the best definition either. But it's a useful definition and mathematically sound. As a shape increases its sides, it becomes "circular" to the point where people can no longer distinguish between "sided" and "round". At some point it is a circle.

Image

Are these rocks round?

But, but, but, they have sides!?!?

It's not about language games. People accept definitions and estimations pragmatically. Maybe there are gray areas. Maybe a flat rock is also round at the same time as being flat. Reality has complexity. 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.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:01 am

If you are going to just ignore the language definitions, then why not just say that a square has 8 sides. Or better yet, just say that ALL shapes have an infinity of sides and make the language completely useless.

You are both being liberal nihilists (a redundant phrase).
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: 25423
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:14 am

Here's James:

Image
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Brando » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:51 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Brando wrote:The real world Problem of causality is perhaps a flaw. It is something like Kants critique of metaphysics: there is a drive to speak of it but it can never be captured. Perhaps we must Change the Frame to Performance. I quoted something on it regarding Butler. But in history there was a practice of Performance, which wrapps the formula: A is a cause of B. This is the imaginary (Spencer Brown would love it) - so tragedy in old ancient Greece. We see something in imaginational works, and draw a conclusion to the real world. This Connection may be the real sense of the Problem of causality. And it is performative, critisizing the myth of the given.

This is a bunch of bullshit.

Humans know that off-shore earthquakes cause tidal flooding. For you to ignore the cause or pretend causes don't exist, when you could have used the information and prevented thousands of people from dying, is irresponsible and imbecilic.


Don't Forget the philosophy of the as if (Vaihinger) - even concepts of natural science are rooted in Imagination of the as if. Nancy Cartwright wrote critical about this.
Nancy Cartwright’s philosophy of science is, in her view, a form of empiricism but empiricism in the style of Neurath and Mill, rather than of Hume or Carnap. Her concerns are not with the problems of skepticism, induction, or demarcation; she is concerned with how actual science achieves the successes it does, and what sort of metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions are needed to understand that success.

Cartwright, like many working scientists themselves, takes a rather pragmatic/realist stance toward observations and interventions made by scientists and engineers and particularly toward their connections to causality: Scientists see impurities causing signal loss in a cable, and they stimulate an inverted population, causing it to lase. Given these starting points, there can be no question of a skeptical attitude toward causation, in either singular or generic form. The fundamental role (or better, roles) played by causation in scientific practice is undeniable; what Cartwright does, then, is reconfigure empiricism from the ground up based on this insight. In the reconfiguration process, many mainstays of the received view of science take a beating; especially [...] the fundamentality of laws of nature.
Brando
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:39 am

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:59 am

- You broke my heart, James.
- No, I didn't. Stop playing language games with me, you liberal nihilist.

The problem with James is that he's accusing people of violating WORDS rather than REALITY itself. In other words, he's accusing people of deviating from the norm regardless of whether their deviation is for the better or for the worse. He didn't say "yes, that's one way to define circles, and a pretty decent one at that, but it is less precise than the popular definition that involves the concept of equidistance". What he said is "you don't agree with the way Google defines circles". That's all. Note that I don't know whether UrWrong's definition of circles is less precise than the popular definition. I didn't do the analysis. Though it does appear to be so, given that it relies on the concept of side which represents a linear pattern of points in space, I am not sure. And even if it is less precise, I don't know by how much, so I can't tell whether such an imprecision is significant or insignificant.

There are many reasons why people violate established definitions. It might be because they want to find better definitions. This is what I do. I want to understand things better, in a more detailed, and thus precise, manner. Or maybe it's because their circumstances are such that a different definition is more effective at helping them achieve their ends.

You can say that a square has 8 sides. You can also say it has an infinite number of sides. But noone does so because there is no reason to. This is different with circles.
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: 3471
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:10 am

Those who have no respect for language, have no respect for thought, which means that they have no respect for truth.
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: 25423
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:40 pm

You have no respect for truth DESPITE your obsession with Google definitions. If I explained to you what circles are without resorting to the popular opinion of what they are (i.e. a set of points in a plane that are equidistant from some fixed point) you would not accept it even if my definition was superior to -- more precise than -- the popular one. Why? Because it is not conventional. From your point of view, tradition is something that is infallible and therefore unquestionable.

The purpose of language is to COMMUNICATE and not to THINK. Thinking and talking are two different, separate, processes. You can think without talking and you can talk without thinking. Thinking is about analyzing similarities and differences between observations in order to choose the best possible assumption regarding some unknown state of the universe. In plain terms, thinking is about making decisions. No language is necessary.

What's so wrong with saying that circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides? Is it perhaps the fact that it is not the official definition? Seriously? You say that circles have no sides, not because it's true, but because the official definition does not define circles in terms of sides?

You think that language precedes circles? Circles came into existence the first time we defined them? Is that how things come into existence? You define them and then they come into existence? Circles are merely words, right? Not phenomena or objects of our experience? We do not experience circles before we describe them using words? We describe them using words and then we experience them? Is that how things work?

Reality should bend to fit how you describe it using words?
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: 3471
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Yeah, yeah, "I'm rubber. You're glue..."
:icon-rolleyes:
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: 25423
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:31 pm

Logic is more important than language.

I claimed in this thread "as a shape increases its sides, hypothetically to infinity, it becomes a circle".

James claimed "a circle has no sides".

This shape has 1,000,000 sides.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Image


So to James, by language, by his own words, the shape is not a circle.

He is wrong. And Arcturus is wrong. I could provide a shape with 1 billion sides but most here will accept my position as more reasonable by now.

Semantics, arguing over definitions, doesn't affect the underlying logic. If you make a claim then won't you stick by it?


Since this matter is done, let's return to the topic of causes.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:34 pm

There is no point in arguing, or even speaking, to people in a foreign language to theirs.
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: 25423
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:13 pm

Saying a circle has infinite sides simply means that no matter how many times its circumference is divided up there will be no sides
You could divide it up as many times as were mathematically or logically or physically possible and there would be none. You could
divide it up an infinite number of times and there would still be none. Which is exactly the same as saying it has no sides. Because
if it did then it could not be a circle as it is defined. Which is that every point on the circumference is equidistant from the centre
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:00 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Logic is more important than language.

It depends on what it refers to. If it refers to education in general, then the non-logical part of language can (but mostly does not) be more important than the logical part of language. The cohesion of the language (mostly called "text") is always important.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Semantics, arguing over definitions, doesn't affect the underlying logic.

Semantics is a subdiscipline of the disciplines (1) semiotics, (2) linguistics, (3) logic, (4) mathematics. It can only deal with meanings and definitions. Each linguistic lexem (word) that can be find in a encyclopedia, a dictionary, a lexicon can only be described by its meaning and defintion, perhaps supported by other language forms (see: (1), (2), (3), (4) and the chart below), but not by more.

So if you want to know what, for example, a "circle" is, then you have to refer to (a) the meaning and definition of the word "circle" and to (b) the history of its meaning and definition, which means that they can change over time. But the result of this change (caused e.g. by an experiment) is always either a new or a renewed kind of meaning and definition.

And mathematics is a subset of logic, logic is a subset of linguistics, linguistics is a subset of semiotics, and they all are language.

l.png
l.png (28.22 KiB) Viewed 132 times

The smaller the subset is or the more properly, coherently, consistently the subsets and sets are connected, the more exact is the information.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5423
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:22 am

James S Saint wrote:Yeah, yeah, "I'm rubber. You're glue..."
:icon-rolleyes:


Don't worry about it. If you need my support, you have it.
You are the most intelligent person on this forum.
And not only on this forum, you're the most intelligent person on Earth.
And not only on Earth, you're the most intelligent Homo Sapian of all times.
There never was a Homo Sapian of your caliber.
Your are simply too good to interact with any of us here.
That's why you keep your comments short.
You are right and everyone else is wrong.
You are humble and everyone else is arrogant.
There is simply no point discussing anything with people who are wrong and arrogant.
You're a misunderstood genius.
You are way ahead of your time.
You have no choice but to wait -- to be patient -- and ignore all of the detractors.
Deep down you know that one day you will be the face of humanity.
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: 3471
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:01 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Yeah, yeah, "I'm rubber. You're glue..."
:icon-rolleyes:


Don't worry about it. If you need my support, you have it.
You are the most intelligent person on this forum.
And not only on this forum, you're the most intelligent person on Earth.
And not only on Earth, you're the most intelligent Homo Sapian of all times.
There never was a Homo Sapian of your caliber.
Your are simply too good to interact with any of us here.
That's why you keep your comments short.
You are right and everyone else is wrong.
You are humble and everyone else is arrogant.
There is simply no point discussing anything with people who are wrong and arrogant.
You're a misunderstood genius.
You are way ahead of your time.
You have no choice but to wait -- to be patient -- and ignore all of the detractors.
Deep down you know that one day you will be the face of humanity.

Well thanks. I'm glad to see that even though denied it, at least you can vaguely recognize it.
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: 25423
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]