math.stackexchange.com/question … on-vs-infi
I am still not getting the logic of it. Can you not drag the hexagon at a certain point to make it infinitely larger but at the same time, it will not become a circle but an infinitely larger hexagon.
This is what I see when I look at it. I think it all just comes down to one’s perception.
You are not paying attention to what I am saying.
By “underlying order” I mean “order that is not immediately apparent”. Whatever piece of information your brain is analyzing there is a degree of order contained within it. The degree of order contained within the information does not become apparent until one employs intelligence. Intelligence DISCOVERS how much order there is in information. If there is very little order in the information that your brain is analyzing then there is simply very little order in the information that your brain is analyzing. No IQ can help you see a degree of order that is not contained within the information your brain is analyzing. That was my point.
I never said or implied that the universe begins and ends with me. This is something you made up. And you made it up because:
You need to stop projecting your psychology onto me.
You are the one with the childish tantrums.
If that makes you feel good about yourself, then fine, you are right and I am wrong.
But I will take the chance to show you how confident I am in most of what I’ve been saying in this thread by making a bold statement that with regard to this particular subject I show far more intelligence than you do.
You are quite simply an arrogant moron.
That’s what you are.
The concept of “objective existence” is meaningless. If you’re asking what is “objective existence” then you’re asking a meaningless question and that means a question that cannot be answered.
You have a chance to prove me wrong by DEFINING what “objective existence” means and that means explaining to me what it refers to.
Note that words must refer to what was previously experienced.
If they do not refer to something that was previously experienced, then they are MEANINGLESS.
In other words, they do not refer to anything.
It is US who determine what exists and what does not exist.
The only question is HOW.
There are many ways to determine what is true and what is not.
In other words, there are many different PATTERNS OF REASONING.
I agree that we can say that there is a division between SUBJECTIVE patterns of reasoning (that are based on personal preferences or are otherwise counter-factual) and OBJECTIVE patterns of reasoning (that are evidence-based.)
Evidence simply means personal experience.
When your conclusions are in alignment with your personal experience, then we say they are objective (or more precisely, reached through an objective pattern of reasoning.)
When your conclusions are in contradiction with your personal experience, then we say they are subjective (or more precisely, reached through a subjective pattern of reasoning.)
I don’t know what you’re looking for.
Maybe you’re looking for an “underlying order” too?
In other words, maybe you’re looking for a theory of everything i.e. theory that can explain all experience?
Do you agree that just because you are 100% certain that some event X will happen at some point T in the future does not mean that that event X will happen at that point T in the future?
Do you agree with Hume’s statement that “the future is under no obligation to mimic the past”?
For example, do you agree that just because 1,000,000,000 out of 1,000,000,000 swans you observed in the past were white does not mean that every swan in the future will also be white?
Forget swans. Do you agree that just because every event you experienced in the past had a cause does not mean that every event in the future will also have a cause?
But before that, do you agree that the concept of uncaused event makes sense? that it is not meaningless as some claim?
If you answer YES to all of these questions, then you’re clean. At least, more than UrWrongx1000.
If you answer NO, then we’re in trouble.
You really need to understand, and accept, that existence precedes human consciousness. Everything exists before you are aware of it. Awareness is late, a product of evolution, intelligence. The mind depends upon the body, a foundation. The body precedes the mind, builds upward to the mind.
Therefore no ‘observation’ is required, for existence and “objectivity”. When you put human observation as the predicate, that in order for something to exist that it must first be observed, then that is solipsism. You imply that events revolve around human consciousness when this is false. Human consciousness revolves around events.
A hurricane does not stop when you close your eyes to it.
If this matter is settled, then the topic can move forward. What is the cause of the hurricane? It is a large process of nature. There are many causes and many effects. To recognize the causes which lead to the formation and delivery of a hurricane, is science. Science studies causes. If you believe Bertrand Russel claims otherwise then present your case better and clearly. It’s very obvious, common sense really, that science studies causes. Otherwise how can meteorologists track and predict them so well? Isn’t it obvious that science catalogues data, information, events, and history, and then finds patterns within these events?
If a tidal wave always follows from an offshore earthquake, with 100% correspondence, then ought humanity start hypothesizing that offshore earthquakes cause coastal tidal waves?
We already have. And they do.
Go ahead and argue otherwise.
You can but you can also have the size remain static while the sides become infinite to make a circle
No it does not because it is objectively true that a circle has infinite sides so it has nothing to do with perception
The term objective existence is only meaningless in the sense that existence by definition is objective and so it does not have to be referred to as such for there
is no such thing as subjective existence. There is subjective interpretation of objective existence but that is not subjective existence but something else entirely Existence is simply all there is so can only be objective and nothing else
But do you …
… have an answer to me question?
Definition - “Existence” is that which has affect. If it has affect upon anything, it exists. If it has no affect upon anything, it doesn’t exist.
And “objective” merely means that it has affect whether I am cognizant of it or not. Whether I could prove if something is having affect doesn’t alter whether it is having affect. Whether I believe that something is having affect doesn’t alter whether it is having affect. And whether I even know the concept of it doesn’t alter whether it is having affect.
Some questions:
That’s not what existence is. “Existence” is quite simply a word we assign to the group of assumptions that we consider to be correct. That’s all it is. For example, there are currently no trees within my field of view. Nonetheless, I think that at this very point in time there is a tree in my garden. In other words, I categorize this tree, which is nothing more than just an imagination in my head, as “existent”. You can say I am placing it in the group that is labelled “existence” instead of placing it in the group that is labelled “non-existence”. And I am doing so by employing induction which itself employs what of my personal experience remains in my memory. The choice to categorize this imagination as “existent” rather than as “non-existent” is not random – in this particular case. And it is certainly not “subjective” i.e. it is not a product of my desires. It is simply a product of induction. And the reason we do such categorizations is in order to determine which ideas will inform our actions and which won’t.
This is important because things can exist without being affected by something else and without affecting something else.
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.
You can also say that it is a specific type of relation between objects of experience.
Yes, it is something that is contained within our experience.
So if you say that experience is subjective then you must say that affectance, causation, etc is also subjective.
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.
You can also say that it is a specific type of relation between objects of experience.
Yes, it is something that is contained within our experience.
So if you say that experience is subjective then you must say that affectance, causation, etc is also subjective.
[/quote]
So affection is a term which states motivational causality. And causality is a Special case of correlation. We are motivated in the case of correlation and causation. For example: I choose this cake which is nearly the same as that from my grandmother. And: I am motivated to eat it,
Yes, just as physical forces affect objects and cause action, so too do those same forces cause and affect biology and human behaviors. Gravity acts on both rock and mammal alike. Biological organisms have survival instincts and avoid falls from extreme heights, causing pain or death. Thus the ‘causes’ of organic life are much more complex than how gravity acts upon a rock. A rock does not have a survival instinct. A rock is not an organism.
Life complicates causality because life has evolved intelligence. Life represents a sophistication and specialization of causes, fragmenting causes within biology, beginning with the genetic survival instinct/impulse. Thus a core, or the core motivation of life, is to survive, first and foremost.
Clarify these questions for me, they sound like college classroom questions. What is a “myth of the given in causation” and “statistical regularities”? The former sounds to me like regular human expectation. People assume things, behaviors, reactions, movements, forces, about existence, although people are sometimes wrong. There’s a difference between intuiting causes “knowing a cause” versus hypothetical cause. The latter sounds like mere probability. As mentioned in the thread already, randomness does not necessarily disprove Causality. Randomness and chaos only prove human ignorance, and how intelligence attempts to make sense of existence, and predict outcomes of events.
Prediction is a process of identifying patterns in existence, regular patterns can lead to what humanity determines as the ‘cause’ to distinct events, actions, behaviors, etc.
You are claiming that assumptions > Existence, which is wrong. Existence does not bend and move according to what a person assumes. Rather what a person assumes, depends on existence.
Existence is the predicate, not the conclusion. Existence > assumptions. Existence exists before assumptions. Whatever a person can possibly presume, depends on existence first.
It is only ever the things that humans claim “does not exist” that demonstrate the basis for such assumptions.
In other words, put simply for you, whatever exists or does not exist (nothing), does not require your perception, your “permission” to exist.
Humans have evolved a distinct ‘direction’ and “motion” of time, based on abrahamic (christian, jew, muslim) indoctrination. There is the “past, present, and future”. The past is set in stone. You “cannot change the past”. Thus the past is immutable. The present is changing now. And the future is even more chaotic and unpredictable, representing the highest amount of change and fluctuation. So to put it simply, this ‘linear’ notion of time is as follows: past is least changing (absolutely still) versus future which is most changing (absolutely random).
Thus humanity has imaginations of causes. The causes of the past cannot be changed, thus they are easier to know and accept. Knowledge depends on the past, on past experiences, on memories, etc. Furthermore with abrahamic indoctrination, humans tend to believe that there is some “absolute cause, absolute beginning” of the universe and everything. Modern liberal-leftists call it the “Big Bang Theory” which is a copy, a secularized form (Newspeak) of Catholicism. Catholicism is built on universalism, the ideal that “all begins from one thing”, or “All begins from God”, or simply “God caused all to exist”, Creationism.
Creationism and “The Big Bang Theory” are the same thing.
Humans are simple animals and require simplifications of complex phenomenon, even if it’s false, or especially if it’s false. Therefore it doesn’t really matter, to anybody, that the universe has a beginning or First Cause. Instead people have an instinct to feel safe and secure. And because of this instinct (to cling to safety), people cling to the premise of an absolute cause and order. Thus average people cling to Big Bang Theory or Creationism (same premise). They believe that “the universe must have a cause” otherwise nothing would make sense. This is only half-true. Yes nothing can be made sense of without “first causes”.
But the largest logical and intellectual error is that “all causes lead to a shared beginning”. Or that there must be “One Cause” for everything, the universe, existence.
To some, to most, the fact that much of the past remains ‘unknown’ is deeply unsettling, and they would rather cling to a lie than to explore the aspects of the past (or even the present or future), which are disturbing.
Thus the point I’m making here, is that much of Causality and Causation does revolve around human emotions, and what people would prefer to believe, what is emotionally soothing, rather than premises which directly admit that “we don’t know shit about anything”. Again, it’s deeply unsettling to admit that “we simply don’t know” about primary causes. And because we don’t know much about the past, logically, we won’t know much about the future either.
Any knowledge and predictability of the future directly corresponds with knowledge and memorization of the past. Humanity, or any evolved biology, uses knowledge gained from experience, of the past, to adapt to the present environment, and gamble on future changes to that environment, and other environments.
You were doing okay up to there.
“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.
Close enough.
A very specific case, that of a 100% time related correlation.
But I agree with you there insofar as the infinite goes. This is what I was trying to say. Urwrong seems to think that you can draw a circle around a hexagon (I think it was a hexagon) and come up with a circle.
But can we actually say that a circle has infinite sides since being infinite means that it IS limitless and non-ending?
You cannot say the same of a rectangle or hexagon or square, can you? You can see where one begins and one ends, even though each beginning point is also an ending point.
Everything is about perception.
How many different causes might come up about an automobile accident? We all look through different lens and interpret things differently.
Nope, it isn’t void.
You are not paying enough attention.
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.
Let me give you an example. We’re going to use strings composed of characters A, B and - to represent a configuration of space at a point in time. The size of the space will be 4 i.e. there will be exactly 4 positions in space. A and B will represent matter and - will represent void.
Consider the following information:
A - - B
Each row represents one point in time. The first row represents the first point in time and the last row represents the last point in time. Each row also represents space of size 4.
A and B have only one property that can change and this property is their position in space. Thus, the only kind of change they can exhibit is that of motion since motion is change in position in space.
We can notice that A is moving (i.e. its position is changing with every subsequent point in time) and that it is moving towards B, which is resting in place, and that it stops once it reaches the position that is adjacent to B. At this point in time, with the information that we have, we cannot determine whether A decides “on its own” to stop moving once it gets near B or whether it is “forced” or “caused” to stop by B. We need more information.
Consider the following information:
A - - B
A - B -
A B - -
A B - -
A B - -
A B - -
This sort of information suggests that B “forces” or “causes” or “affects” A to stop. In other words, B acts upon A by halting its movement. We can conclude this because changing B (its position) changes A (the position at which it stops moving.) In other words, because the position at which A stops is a function of position of B.
We can call it “halt” pattern. I can also demonstrate “push” pattern (A displacing B by moving into it) and “pull” pattern (A attracting B i.e. making it move towards itself.) I can also demonstrate inter-action in the form of “collision” pattern. But are these really necessary?
The point is that these are higher level concepts. They are extracted from experience. They do no underlie experience. Experience is not dependent on any of these patterns. It can live perfectly without them. And as experience changes, and as it changes according to the will of nature, which does not have to obey any structure, we would do well to be prepared to adapt accordingly.
I suspect the reverse, but…
It is obviously not enough when the person has conflated correlation with causation.
Yes, I think that we all knew that.
Well congratulations, you just confirmed what I had said.
And now you screwed up.
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.
Since what I said was:
… obviously your accusation is wrong.
Your example was irrelevant to the issue. You seem to be arguing on my side rather than against me.
But then again, you are seriously in error about that. Without causation, the brain itself could not function, much less any mental talent.
I had asked you a related question, twice. You haven’t answered.
Do you believe that something can come from nothing?