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 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:04 pm

JSS wrote:No matter how small, infinitely small, there is always an infinity of space between any two points.


The distance between any two points is infinite. This means that there is no such a thing as zero distance which in turn means that there are no points that are adjacent to each other which in turn means that all action is an action at a distance which goes against your pseudo-scientific theory which is based on the principle of locality.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:23 pm

JSS wrote:And even if accepting the physically possible circles, they don't have an infinity of straight sides either. There is no straightness of objects in the physical universe.


More of your pathetic pedantry.
Any set of adjacent points that share the same slope can ne considered a straight line.
In this sense of the word, real life polygons DO have straight lines.
Noone cares about PERFECT straight lines in the same exact way that noone cares about PERFECT circles and in general PERFECT ANYTHING.
The concept of perfection, if taken literally, is meaningless and only utter retards are seduced by 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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:28 pm

Anderson wrote:
Polygons can have a number of points on their boundary that are equidistant from their center

That is true but only circles have every single point on their circumference equidistant from their centre
There are an infinite quantity of these points on every circle although they are finite in size. In the same
way that there are an infinite quantity of numbers between any two numbers which is also a finite space
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:29 pm

S57 wrote:That is true but only circles have every single point on their circumference equidistant from their centre


That's not how things work in reality. In reality, we only check that a number of points on the boundary of a shape is equidistant from the center. This means that exceptions are permitted. You can have points that are at a different distance from the center and the shape would still be considered a circle. That's how we determine whether any given shape is a circle or not. That's how things work in reality.

There are an infinite quantity of these points on every circle


What you're saying, or at least what I hope you're saying, because otherwise there would be no meaning to what you're saying, is that the greater the number of points on the boundary of a shape the more circular that shape is. And I agree with that.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Brando » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:16 pm

I don't understand, what your post have to do with causality. Perhaps causality Points to an endless series of Events. With monads this is nested. Perhaps causality expells to monads.
Brando
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:39 am

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:40 pm

The thread derailed a while back with heated discussion about how many sides a circle has
But that has got nothing at all to do with what it is supposed to be about which is causality
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:52 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:The thread derailed a while back with heated discussion about how many sides a circle has
But that has got nothing at all to do with what it is supposed to be about which is causality

Although directly related to the cause of conflict. 8)
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: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:24 pm

Brando wrote:I don't understand, what your post have to do with causality. Perhaps causality Points to an endless series of Events. With monads this is nested. Perhaps causality expells to monads.


It has to do with people who are active in this thread. The nature of circles isn't really the point. The point is how people think. In other words, logic. You can't discuss the nature of causality, circles, infinity, etc if we do not agree on how thinking works. If people are illogical then the first thing to do is to discuss logic before proceeding to discuss more complex subjects. If people think that words are more important than reality or that words are permitted to have no reference point in reality then we have a SERIOUS problem that has to be tackled BEFORE we can proceed to discuss the subject of the thread.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:30 pm

Words are not more important than reality even though they can describe reality
And when they are used for such a purpose they need to be as precise as possible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:00 pm

Imagination is a rearrangement of what was previously experienced. When we speak of zombies, for example, we are speaking of things we have experienced in the past but in a different arrangement. The concept of zombies is meaningful even though we have never experienced a zombie as a whole. We have experienced every single element zombies are made of but we haven't experienced these elements in the arrangement that defines zombies. It is a meaningful concept because it is possible for us to experience zombies. At the present date, we only have an experience of their imitations. Imitations being objects that have a number of features but not all of the features that the object they are imitating -- the original -- has. It is rightful to say that when you see a zombie on a computer screen or at a halloween party you are seeing an imitation of zombies and not real zombies. But there are also words that are meaningless in the sense that they do not refer to anything that can be experienced. The concept of perfect circles, for example. It is meaningless because it is not something that we can experience. It is neither something we have experienced in the past as a whole nor a rearrangement of what we have experienced in the past. You cannot imagine a perfect circle. You can only pretend that you can. And because of this, there can be no approximations of perfect circles. You cannot approximate what the word refers to when the word does not refer to anything. I can be proven wrong, sure, but this would require that someone demonstrates to me that it is possible to experience perfect circles. If you DENY that words are meaningful only if they refer to something that can be experienced then we have a serious problem. A very serious problem.

Another word that most people throw around without understanding what it really means is "universe". The word, if it means anything, means a model of reality or quite simply a theory. Or it might mean whatever set of assumptions one holds to be true. Assumptions being guesses regarding something we haven't experienced. A theory is nothing but a set of instructions on how to calculate (or determine) what's going to happen next based on what happened in the past. In fact, it is a broader concept than that. It is quite simply a formula i.e. a set of instructions on how to calculate (or determine) some output values based on some input values. A theory can be quite simply a mathematical function that relates a point in time with a set of events that happen at that point in time. Now, when people speak of "the universe having a beginning and an end" they are in fact speaking about theories that have a specific feature. Namely, they are speaking of a category of theories that calculate events only for a finite range of points in time e.g. a theory that takes a point in time as an input but only within a specific range. Say if time is measured relative to some event, the function may accept only real numbers between -6000 to +billion where 1 represents a single day, positive numbers days after the pivotal event and negative numbers days before the pivotal event. So far so good. What they are saying is meaningful. What these people are doing is they are asking a very simple question that has the form "if there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works, does this theory have a time limit?" Let us acknowledge that these people do make a difference between what people think is how the universe works (i.e. theories that people have that do not necessarily exactly represent how the universe works) and how the universe REALLY works independently from what anyone thinks. The problem is that they IGNORE how humans create theories. In other words, they ignore EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES. They are stuck speculating about what's possible i.e. they are stuck exploring possibilities. In this particular case, exploring all the possible theories that can exist. They never, for example, ask whether the theories they come up with can be INFERRED from any kind of evidence that is imaginable. Why bother exploring "what ifs" that can never be proven? For example, suppose that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works, how can we determine which one of the infinitely many theories is the one that represents exactly how the universe works? There is no way to do so. We don't know what we HAVE to do because the procedure is undefined. Basically, such a theory cannot be inferred from any kind of evidence we can imagine. The actual theories they come up with are not meaningless. What is meaningless is the assumption that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works. It's a meaningless phrase.

The problem with the universe having a beginning and an end is not merely that there is no evidence to back it up but the fact that no evidence can back it up.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:12 am

The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS and although it is just three words is absolutely true. And as far as theories are concerned not every single one is testable
but it does not stop physicists from speculating about what could be true. Now strictly speaking they cannot be regarded as scientific but long as they are treated
as purely hypothetical then there is no problem. There will always be a limitation on how much knowledge science can be in possession of at any time but it does
nonetheless increase over time and so this could lead to a more accurate model of reality and more specifically in areas where hypotheses can actually be tested
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:42 pm

S57 wrote:The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS and although it is just three words is absolutely true.


I don't care what words you associate with the word "universe". When you explain "universe" in terms of "all there is" what you are doing is you are replacing one meaningless phrase with another. Show me this "all there is". Tell me what kind of experience it refers to. Don't just bombard me with words.

And as far as theories are concerned not every single one is testable
but it does not stop physicists from speculating about what could be true.


It obviously does not stop them. My point is that it is pointless to explore "what ifs" that cannot be proven.

Now strictly speaking they cannot be regarded as scientific but long as they are treated as purely hypothetical then there is no problem.


The problem is that they are not honest about what they are doing. They are ignoring the reason humans create theories. They do not want to admit that theories are merely instruments that humans use in order to predict the future to the best of their ability. People who say that the universe might have a beginning and an end do not understand that there is no evidence that can put a time limit on our theories. This is because the purpose of theories is to help us determine the set of best guesses regarding any kind of unknown event we are interested in. For example, I might be interested in what's going to happen tomorrow or I might be interested in what's going to happen 1,000 years from now on. Maybe even a billion years from now on. Or a quintillion years from now on. There is no limit. No evidence can impose such a limit. Evidence only limits what counts as the best guess regarding any given unknown event.

There will always be a limitation on how much knowledge science can be in possession of at any time but it does nonetheless increase over time and so this could lead to a more accurate model of reality and more specifically in areas where hypotheses can actually be tested


I have a feeling that you're not listening to what I am saying. There can be no productive discussion between the two of us if one of us does not listen to what the other is saying.

My point is that it is meaningless to say that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works. This is because such a theory cannot be found. There is no test that can separate such a theory from all the rest.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:58 pm

Yes, surreptitious, explain the universe but DO NOT use words.
:-? :lol:
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: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby gib » Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:21 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:What does "all points on the circumference" mean?
You need to ask yourself this question.


It means any point you pick, so long as it is a certain distance D away from the center C (another point you can pick), that point will be on the circumference of a circle with radius D and center C.

Magnus Anderson wrote:What it means is "all the points on the circumference you are focusing on".
You might be focusing on 16 points.
Or you might be focusing on 1024 points.
It is your choice.


It encompasses more than just an arbitrary number of points you may be focused on, but yes, the points you are focused on will be part of the total set of points.

Magnus Anderson wrote:This means that polygons can meet the definition of circles.
Polygons can have a number of points on their boundary that are equidistant from their center.
If you're focusing on these points and ignoring all other points then they will pass the test.


Well, this is why I say it must encompass more than just the points you are focused on. I don't think we should be calling a pentagon a circle just because we are only focusing on five points that happen to be equidistant from some center point and each of their immediate neighbors.

Magnus Anderson wrote:That's what you are PRETENDING is not the case.


Pretending?

gib wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:With that establish, we can now move back to the question of cause and responsibility and resolve that puppy!

Nothing can be resolved if people you are talking to do not know how to think.


Well, first of all, that was a joke. Second, this point is reminiscent to Ur's point that we must exercise our rational thinking skill by trying to resolve (and come to consensus on) the problem of whether circles are made of lines or not, to which I responded: why that problem? Why not the problem of cause and responsibility itself? Kill two birds with one stone?

But then again, do people really learn anything about how to think rationally in these kinds of debates? Or do they just learn how to defend their erroneous (or roneous) views better, using whatever sophistical tricks they can?

James S Saint wrote:Yes, surreptitious, explain the universe but DO NOT use words.


He may just have to paint a picture.
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
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:58 pm

Anderson wrote:
My point is that it is meaningless to say that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works

Theories are mathematical models and so are only representations of how the universe works. The only thing that represents exactly how the
universe works is the universe itself. But that is not very practical as a model which is why other means have to be used instead. Because the
model is not perfect the map should never be mistaken for the terrain. One might be a representation of the other but they are not the same
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:08 pm

S57 wrote:Theories are mathematical models and so are only representations of how the universe works. The only thing that represents exactly how the
universe works is the universe itself. But that is not very practical as a model which is why other means have to be used instead. Because the
model is not perfect the map should never be mistaken for the terrain. One might be a representation of the other but they are not the same


Theories cannot be representations of "how the universe works" because "how the universe works" is a meaningless phrase.

As I've said earlier, you cannot imitate, approximate or represent what the word refers to if the word does not refer to anything.

We can approximate zombies because we know what zombies are i.e. it's a very well defined word even though we never observed zombies, real zombies, in real life.
This is NOT the case with "how the universe works".

So basically, you are running in circles.

JSS wrote:Yes, surreptitious, explain the universe but DO NOT use words.
:-? :lol:


He is allowed and is in fact encouraged to use words but not meaningless words i.e. words that do not refer to something that can be experienced. This is a forum after all. We can only use words. But that does not mean there is no difference between meaningful and meaningless words and that anyone can use words any way they want.

How can we experience how the universe works?
We can't.

People are protective of meaningless words and phrases merely because they are used to them i.e. because their bad habits are too strong.

Gib wrote:It means any point you pick, so long as it is a certain distance D away from the center C (another point you can pick), that point will be on the circumference of a circle with radius D and center C.


How can you test (i.e. verify or falsify) that any point (that you can pick) that is at a certain distance D away from some fixed point C is on the boundary of the shape?

It encompasses more than just an arbitrary number of points you may be focused on, but yes, the points you are focused on will be part of the total set of points.


But in order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must focus on a finite number of points. Otherwise, you cannot determine whether any given shape is a circle or not because you would be testing an infinite number of points which means you would be running your test infinitely i.e. forever. You will never be able to complete it.

Well, this is why I say it must encompass more than just the points you are focused on. I don't think we should be calling a pentagon a circle just because we are only focusing on five points that happen to be equidistant from some center point and each of their immediate neighbors.


That's what we do in practice but not exactly in the manner that you describe here. We focus on a larger number of points. Five isn't enough. This is why a pentagon is not perceived as a circle but a hectogon is. Roughly speaking, we are checking at least 50 points on the boundary of the shape before deciding whether it is a circle or not.

Pretending?


Yes. In other words, you are dishonest.

Second, this point is reminiscent to Ur's point that we must exercise our rational thinking skill by trying to resolve (and come to consensus on) the problem of whether circles are made of lines or not, to which I responded: why that problem? Why not the problem of cause and responsibility itself? Kill two birds with one stone?


You can pick any problem you want. If one does not work then you can pick another.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby gib » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:08 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:How can you test (i.e. verify or falsify) that any point (that you can pick) that is at a certain distance D away from some fixed point C is on the boundary of the shape?


Why do you need to test it? I'm talking about the definition of a circle, not its verfication. I'm say: assume the point is at a distance D from the center. Then it belongs in the set of points defined as those that are a distance D from the center. All such points in that set can be said to be on the circumference of the circle whose radius is D. What I mean by "all points on the circumference of the circle" is: the members of that set.

Magnus Anderson wrote:But in order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must focus on a finite number of points. No, you can't focus on a point (something with no dimensions), you can focus on segments. Otherwise, you cannot determine whether any given shape is a circle or not because you would be testing an infinite number of points Or a finite number of segments. which means you would be running your test infinitely i.e. forever. You will never be able to complete it.


You are talking about how to identify a circle through perception. We do so by identifying segments, not points (and now that I think about it, I think the brain just identifies circles as is). We only theorize that the circle is made of points simply because we can ask ourselves "what do these segments which I perceive break down into?" and we imagine the segments being broken down as far as possible, and that brings us to the idea of points. But at this point, we have left actual perception and (paradoxically) skipped an infinity of divisions such as to arrive at the concept of a points.

Magnus Anderson wrote:That's what we do in practice but not exactly in the manner that you describe here. We focus on a larger number of points. Five isn't enough. This is why a pentagon is not perceived as a circle but a hectogon is. Roughly speaking, we are checking at least 50 points on the boundary of the shape before deciding whether it is a circle or not.


Again, you are talking about how we perceive circles, not the definition of a circle. And even with respect to perception, I don't think we perceive points pe se, but segments (curves in particular).

Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes. In other words, you are dishonest.


Dishonesty requires knowing that you are dishonest. I can guarantee you I believe in every word I say. You could say I am mistaken, but there I will challenge you to show me how.

Magnus Anderson wrote:You can pick any problem you want. If one does not work then you can pick another.


True, but I still question why deviate from the main topic in the first place. Ur's point was that he had a reason for digressing the topic of cause and responsibility onto that of circles (whether they are made of lines or not)--namely, to exercise our skills at rational thinking (either that, or the question of whether circles are made of sides or not really is pertinent to the question of cause vs. responsibility). I'm just skeptical of Ur's excuse. I think he just got caught by the debate--he had to prove himself simply because he had already dug his heels in and the discussion veered onto the topic of circles, and one doesn't just pick up one's heels when the topic changes. <-- This is my theory of the "migration of value" as I call it.
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
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:47 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:But in order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must focus on a finite number of points. Otherwise, you cannot determine whether any given shape is a circle or not because you would be testing an infinite number of points which means you would be running your test infinitely i.e. forever. You will never be able to complete it.

You merely look for any points that are not the right distance from the center.
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: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:49 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:But in order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must focus on a finite number of points. Otherwise, you cannot determine whether any given shape is a circle or not because you would be testing an infinite number of points which means you would be running your test infinitely i.e. forever. You will never be able to complete it.

You merely look for any points that are not the right distance from the center.


How long do you have to look for a point that is not the right distance from the center?
You can keep zooming in on the shape. But for how long? When do you say enough?
If you never say enough you can never finish the test.
If you say enough then you're testing a finite number of points.

You can never verify that an infinite number of points is the right distance from center.
You can only falsify that an infinite number of points is the right distance from center (provided that you find the point that is not the right distance from the center within the set timeframe.)

In reality, what happens is that people test a finite number of points and then make judgments based on that.
For example, you take a look at a thousand points that lie on the boundary of the shape and then you judge whether the shape is a circle or not based on whether every single point is the same distance from the center of the shape or not.
If even one point is not the right distance from the center, then you declare the shape is not a circle.
If you then perform a test that involves a higher number of points and realize that the shape does not pass it, you do not declare that the earlier test is faulty.
You simply declare that the shape does not pass the test of higher degree of circularity.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:22 pm

Gib wrote:Why do you need to test it? I'm talking about the definition of a circle, not its verfication.


A word is supposed to be attached to certain phenomena (i.e. you should be able to point at some phenomenon and say "this is what I mean when I use this or that word!") and detached from other phenomena (i.e. you should be able to point at some phenomenon and say "this is NOT what I mean when I use this or that word!")

Testing phenomena is necessary if you want to determine whether this or that word should or should not be attached to it. In other words, testing is necessary if you want to determine whether this or that phenomenon meets the definition of the word or not.

I'm say: assume the point is at a distance D from the center. Then it belongs in the set of points defined as those that are a distance D from the center. All such points in that set can be said to be on the circumference of the circle whose radius is D. What I mean by "all points on the circumference of the circle" is: the members of that set.


That's a manner of thinking that is detached from reality.

No, you can't focus on a point (something with no dimensions), you can focus on segments.


I see that James has succeeded in confusing you. Of course you can focus on a point. We do it all the time. When you take a ruler and place one of its ends at the center of the shape, and you put the ruler at some angle of your choice, then, if the ruler is sufficiently long, the ruler will cross the boundary of the shape at some point. That point at which the ruler crosses the boundary of the shape is, well, a point. That's what is meant by the word point. The point is that the ruler can cross the boundary of a shape in many different ways. In order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must pick a finite number of ways in which the ruler crosses the boundary of the shape.

You are talking about how to identify a circle through perception.


Yes, I am. We identify circles through perception. There is no other way.

We only theorize that the circle is made of points


Maybe you do. I don't.

Again, you are talking about how we perceive circles, not the definition of a circle. And even with respect to perception, I don't think we perceive points pe se, but segments (curves in particular).


Defining circles means describing how we determine whether any given shape is a circle or not.

If definitions have nothing to do with perception then they are quite simply meaningless.

Dishonesty requires knowing that you are dishonest. I can guarantee you I believe in every word I say. You could say I am mistaken, but there I will challenge you to show me how.


I can only do so much.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:42 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:But in order to determine whether any shape is a circle or not you must focus on a finite number of points. Otherwise, you cannot determine whether any given shape is a circle or not because you would be testing an infinite number of points which means you would be running your test infinitely i.e. forever. You will never be able to complete it.

You merely look for any points that are not the right distance from the center.


How long do you have to look for a point that is not the right distance from the center?

Technically, you only have to find one in order to know that you are not looking at a perfect circle. The degree of perfection is determined by relatively how many are at a wrong distance. If a shape is made entirely of straight sides, regardless of how many, almost all points will be at a wrong distance.
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: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:56 pm

JSS wrote:Technically, you only have to find one in order to know that you are not looking at a perfect circle.


If you do not limit your search you might never reach the conclusion. What if you spend a lifetime looking for a point that is the wrong distance from the center?

Ultimately, it does not matter. What matters is that you can never prove that any given shape is a perfect circle. Not because there are no perfect circles in reality but because the concept is meaningless. There is no procedure, no test, that can prove that a given shape is a perfect circle.

The degree of perfection is determined by relatively how many are at a wrong distance. If a shape is made entirely of straight sides, regardless of how many, almost all points will be at a wrong distance.


And yet, that's not how things work in reality. In reality, a chiliagon is perceived as a circle. This is quite simply because not all points matter. Only key points matter. All other points can be any distance from the center whatsoever.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:05 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
JSS wrote:Technically, you only have to find one in order to know that you are not looking at a perfect circle.


If you do not limit your search you might never reach the conclusion. What if you spend a lifetime looking for a point that is the wrong distance from the center?

The points that are not at the right distance are the easiest to spot. They literally "stand out". But if you have to look for very long, you are probably looking at something that is close enough for your interests. It is merely your interests that limit your priorities.

Magnus Anderson wrote:What matters is that you can never prove that any given shape is a perfect circle.

That is obviously false.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Not because there are no perfect circles in reality but because the concept is meaningless.

Again, this is mere silliness. If the term had no meaning, you wouldn't even be able to talk about it, much less debate whether it referenced anything that exists.

Your whole, "if it is abstract, it has no meaning" is just nonsense.

The ability of the mind to utilize abstract concepts is an essential element of intelligence. Even you unwittingly do it quite often. You just don't know it. The ability to understand the use of abstraction is still a higher sign of intelligence. Apparently one that you completely lack.
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: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:19 pm

JSS wrote:The points that are not at the right distance are the easiest to spot. They literally "stand out". But if you have to look for very long, you are probably looking at something that is close enough for your interests. It is merely your interests that limit your priorities.


They stand out if you are focusing on them. If you are not focusing on them, you will not spot them.

That is obviously false.


You have the chance to demonstrate to us the procedure with which we can determine whether any given shape is a perfect circle or not.

In fact, you had this chance all along and yet you didn't take it.
Why is that?

Again, this is mere silliness. If the term had no meaning, you wouldn't even be able to talk about it, much less debate whether it referenced anything that exists.


You just said that there is no such a thing as meaningless words.
You just said that in order to arrange words in a sentence they must already be meaningful.
Which is what is real silliness.
And this coming from someone who declares to understand everything.

Your whole, "if it is abstract, it has no meaning" is just nonsense.


That's not what I am saying.
That's what you think I am saying because to you the word "abstract" means "meaningless".

The ability of the mind to utilize abstract concepts is an essential element of intelligence. Even you unwittingly do it quite often. You just don't know it. The ability to understand the use of abstraction is still a higher sign of intelligence. Apparently one that you completely lack.


You are a moron.
There is no escaping it.
It does not matter what you think you are, what you have told yourself over the years.
The fact is that you're a moron.
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: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:33 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
JSS wrote:The points that are not at the right distance are the easiest to spot. They literally "stand out". But if you have to look for very long, you are probably looking at something that is close enough for your interests. It is merely your interests that limit your priorities.


They stand out if you are focusing on them. If you are not focusing on them, you will not spot them.

That would be a sign of severe attention deficit disorder (ADD or ADHD), perhaps even Autism.

Or perhaps:
You are a moron.
There is no escaping it.
It does not matter what you think you are, what you have told yourself over the years.
The fact is that you're a moron.
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: 25774
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users