Well since we don't have a philosophical forum this will have to do...

[BigLar]

Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth will make you free.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If the barber shaves all and only the townsmen that do not shave themselves, does the barber shave himself?

That ought to be one of Russel's.

 

[Moonbeam]

As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.

You probably know left and right.

The meek shall inherit the earth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Except it can be shown that an infinite number of initial conditions can lead to the current conditions using the same field equations. Thus, unless we have actual observations at a given time and position, it is impossible to scientifically distinguish between these solutions and the question becomes purely philosophical in nature.

That isn't exactly true. While it may be that an inifinite number of parameter sets can account for present circumstances, that's not the same as saying that all parameter sets can account for present circumstances, and there is merit to falsifying certain sets of parameters in order to bring our ideas into clearer focus. This would naturally be an empirical endeavor, not a philosophical one.

Also, I seem to remember your ideas about observations were hilariously inept, as though we could not know anything about a prehistoric climate, for example, because there were no velociraptor metorologists that recorded real-time weather updates for us in the late Cretaceous. We can draw valid conclusions about the early parts of the universe from the present, and we don't even need a time machine.

 

[shira]

What is the first number which is so large that it cannot be named?

You seem to be implying that the existence of logical paradoxes necessarily has profound implications with respect to the pursuit of knowledge, rather than just being an indication that there are limitations - perhaps with no real-world consequences - in our systems of logic.

 

[Nemesis 1]

What is the sound of one hand clapping???

 

[Modelworks]

one word, "WHY ?"

Parents get annoyed when kids learn the meaning of the word and start answering WHY ? to every answer given. I wonder at what point children develop the mindset that everything has to come from something and whether it is something we are born with or if it is taught. Consider the origin of life and you get things like the big bang created the universe, then what created the big bang and why, and what created that and why, to infinity.

Try to think of something that just exist without having an origin and it is almost like the human mind cannot conceive of it, is that because of what we are taught or is it a limitation of human beings ?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You seem to be implying that the existence of logical paradoxes necessarily has profound implications with respect to the pursuit of knowledge, rather than just being an indication that there are limitations - perhaps with no real-world consequences - in our systems of logic.

Actually no, I just remembered that one and always thought it was fun. Cerpin Text knew what I was getting at, and these kinds of questions did in fact cause a bit of a problem.

Russell's Paradox. You'll see the Barber Paradox he quoted in this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

 

[Nemesis 1]

Is there a question you've heard asked that struck you as being uncommonly profound?

The one that I consider most is from everyone's favorite book, the Bible

When Jesus was on trial he said to Pilate ""To this end was I born, and for this came I into the world, to bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice."

To which Pontius Pilate responded:

"What is Truth?"

To me that is as profound a question as can be asked. It touches on the nature of reality and our ability to reconcile it with our world views. Is there an objective truth in an non trival sense? Why is it that we equate truth with beauty when at times the truth is a very ugly bastard indeed.

That's mine.

Yours?

Since you used the bible . lets take your question to next level. We are commanded by God not to swear by anything. Is that not a curiosity. Why would God command us not to swear to the trueth of a thing? Is it a matter of perspective? I think that trueth has one face but the complete trueth is NOT A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE . That is why GOD FORBIDS US FROM SWEARING TO THE TRUETH , BECAUSE WE KNOW NOT TRUETH BUT PERSPECTIVE IS WHAT WE SEE as trueth. 1+1 = 2 . Now i know many who would swear thats a trueth fact . But is it really . take 1 apple and add another. That = 2 apples.

Now if those 2 apples are not the same size . And you offer those apples to 2 greedy people they will both choose from their perspective which apple they want. If they both want the larger apple and debate who gets what apple . It seems that 1 apple + another Apple are not = to 2 apples . But 1 bigger apple and one smaller apple. Perspective is strange animal

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Since you used the bible . lets take your question to next level. We are commanded by God not to swear by anything. Is that not a curiosity. Why would God command us not to swear to the trueth of a thing? Is it a matter of perspective? I think that trueth has one face but the complete trueth is NOT A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE . That is why GOD FORBIDS US FROM SWEARING TO THE TRUETH , BECAUSE WE KNOW NOT TRUETH BUT PERSPECTIVE IS WHAT WE SEE as trueth. 1+1 = 2 . Now i know many who would swear thats a trueth fact . But is it really . take 1 apple and add another. That = 2 apples.

Now if those 2 apples are not the same size . And you offer those apples to 2 greedy people they will both choose from their perspective which apple they want. If they both want the larger apple and debate who gets what apple . It seems that 1 apple + another Apple are not = to 2 apples . But 1 bigger apple and one smaller apple. Perspective is strange animal

My understanding (and I may be wrong in this) is that oaths back in the day were considered a serious and binding thing. People had the habit of swearing on many things, therefore making what was supposed to be a serious social contract meaningless. Rather than swearing an oath, it would be simpler to say "yes" or "no" to something than going into an inappropriate show of mock seriousness.

 

[Nemesis 1]

one word, "WHY ?"

Parents get annoyed when kids learn the meaning of the word and start answering WHY ? to every answer given. I wonder at what point children develop the mindset that everything has to come from something and whether it is something we are born with or if it is taught. Consider the origin of life and you get things like the big bang created the universe, then what created the big bang and why, and what created that and why, to infinity.

Try to think of something that just exist without having an origin and it is almost like the human mind cannot conceive of it, is that because of what we are taught or is it a limitation of human beings ?

I use to believe that we learned everthing . But since my grandson was born I have doubts about that. So does wife and rest of family. Strange Child in a good way . But he knows things that he wasn't taught . Things he has never seen. Strange but pretty exciting also. Here is an example on what children pick up . The other day after wife got home . The child and wife were building a lego tower and the wife goofed and she said darn it. The child said its ok granma just FOCUs on what your doing . Now earlier in the day we were watching one of his programs and focus was a word being used . True to himself the child couldn't help but show granma the new word he learned. Thats learning . But thats nothing comparred to stuff we all know he knows without ever being taught. Now I had 2 children . They are not in the same league as this 2 year old not even close. He is amazing child all agree. He has taught me so much . I him .

 

[Nemesis 1]

My understanding (and I may be wrong in this) is that oaths back in the day were considered a serious and binding thing. People had the habit of swearing on many things, therefore making what was supposed to be a serious social contract meaningless. Rather than swearing an oath, it would be simpler to say "yes" or "no" to something than going into an inappropriate show of mock seriousness.

The time you speak of swearing to a thing was not common to Israel. and your other points tho true are also a matter of perspective. Honor is dying. To swear something truethful was a matter of Name honor. Today lieing is as common as sand on a beach .

I am sure you have heard the words Honor among theives. That honor is lost. Criminals have no honor among themselves. Nor does justice. No honor = No trueth in justice.

No honor = Telling the trueth if your a criminal and got caught and tell the trueth and rat people out who were among your kind. Perspective is a very strange animal.

 

[shira]

If the barber shaves all and only the townsmen that do not shave themselves, does the barber shave himself?

That ought to be one of Russel's.

This one's too easy: The barber is a woman, and the answer is obviously that she may or may not shave herself, but definitely not himself.

 

[shira]

Except it can be shown that an infinite number of initial conditions can lead to the current conditions using the same field equations. Thus, unless we have actual observations at a given time and position, it is impossible to scientifically distinguish between these solutions and the question becomes purely philosophical in nature.

You're confusing the inability of science of determine ANYTHING with absolute certainty with the very real ability of science to determine many things with great confidence.

For example: You find a coin sitting on its edge on the bedside table of your room at the mental institution, and the following explanations occur to you:

a) Jesus flipped this coin in AD 21; it only recently came to rest on the table, miraculously settling on its edge.

b) The U.S. mint, the IRS, and the American Psychological Association have jointly implemented a cost-saving and therapeutic process whereby new coins are crafted at a distance from air molecules just above the surfaces of the tables of mentally ill Americans due tax refunds; the coins are oriented vertically as an advertising gimmick.

c) Although you remember you placed the coin on its edge on the table, you believe your mind has been co-opted by evil liberal forces; so there must be another explanation.

Now, although from YOUR point of view all three of these are perfectly reasonable explanations as to the state of that coin, only one of them is in fact extremely likely to be true.

 

[CycloWizard]

You said:

With which I take virtually no issue. I don't think it is very clearly worded, however. I wouldn't say that axioms are "truth" (the noun), nor even that they are "true" (the adjective) other than trivially. Axioms basically define what is true within a system.

If I can infer everything from these axioms, then I would say that they are true.

I'd also note that your last sentence seems to imply that the rules are "out there" somewhere waiting to be "discovered." This is hardly the case for reasons I've explained at length already in this thread.

Now, I'm struggling to understand why you seem to object to at least one point made by me, and I don't even know which point that might be. Rather, you seem to be objecting to a position that I do no hold, and have had to repeatedly deny holding despite your continued argumentation against that strawman.

This is what I take issue with: simply because we do not know all of the rules of physics does not mean they don't exist, or that they are not true. Nor did I intend to imply that the rules were knowable at all, only that we do not know them yet. This does not mean we ever will, nor does it mean we never will.

 

[CycloWizard]

That isn't exactly true. While it may be that an inifinite number of parameter sets can account for present circumstances, that's not the same as saying that all parameter sets can account for present circumstances, and there is merit to falsifying certain sets of parameters in order to bring our ideas into clearer focus. This would naturally be an empirical endeavor, not a philosophical one.

Also, I seem to remember your ideas about observations were hilariously inept, as though we could not know anything about a prehistoric climate, for example, because there were no velociraptor metorologists that recorded real-time weather updates for us in the late Cretaceous. We can draw valid conclusions about the early parts of the universe from the present, and we don't even need a time machine.

It is exactly true. Your failure to understand it does not render it false, nor does it render my "ideas about observations... hilariously inept." The simplest initial value problem can demonstrate this conclusively:
dy/dt=c, where y is some observable, t is time, and c is a constant. The general solution is simply y(t)=c*t+c_0, where c_0 is the value at the arbitrarily-appointed time t=0. Thus, an infinite number of pairs (t=0,c=c_0) will yield identical predictions about all times past and present subject only to the selection of the initial time t=0 and the corresponding offset. Though I suppose this is only true if we admit concepts of mathematics into the discussion as being true, huh?

 

[CycloWizard]

You're confusing the inability of science of determine ANYTHING with absolute certainty with the very real ability of science to determine many things with great confidence.

No, you're confusing uncertainty with indistinguishability.

For example: You find a coin sitting on its edge on the bedside table of your room at the mental institution, and the following explanations occur to you:

a) Jesus flipped this coin in AD 21; it only recently came to rest on the table, miraculously settling on its edge.

b) The U.S. mint, the IRS, and the American Psychological Association have jointly implemented a cost-saving and therapeutic process whereby new coins are crafted at a distance from air molecules just above the surfaces of the tables of mentally ill Americans due tax refunds; the coins are oriented vertically as an advertising gimmick.

c) Although you remember you placed the coin on its edge on the table, you believe your mind has been co-opted by evil liberal forces; so there must be another explanation.

Now, although from YOUR point of view all three of these are perfectly reasonable explanations as to the state of that coin, only one of them is in fact extremely likely to be true.

Whether one is likelier than the others has nothing to do with which one actually happened. If you had spent more time in school and less time being a smug SOB, maybe you would have learned the meaning of probability. Unfortunately for both of us, you're still just an ignorant prick who thinks anyone who disagrees with him must be a Jesus Freak.

 

[shira]

No, you're confusing uncertainty with indistinguishability.

Whether one is likelier than the others has nothing to do with which one actually happened. If you had spent more time in school and less time being a smug SOB, maybe you would have learned the meaning of probability. Unfortunately for both of us, you're still just an ignorant prick who thinks anyone who disagrees with him must be a Jesus Freak.

The distinction you're trying to make is both less than worthless in the real world, and false from a theoretical perspective.

With respect to the real world, understanding the probabilities of the possible causes of events is essential to making wise decisions. And with respect to theory, probabilities actually do indicate what is or isn't likely to actually be true.

For example, you're a casino pit boss and one of the players has a run of 40 consecutive sevens (a 4 and a 3) at craps. Two explanations occur to you:

(1) The player has been amazingly lucky, given that the odds are (1/18)**40 = (about) 1 in 1.63x10**50 that a 4 and a 3 will be rolled 40 consecutive times. If this explanation is correct, you should change nothing, as the odds that the player will roll another 7 are still only 1 in 6.

(2) The dice are "loaded," in which case it is almost certain that the player will continue rolling 7's. If this explanation is correct, you should replace the dice the player is currently using with a normal set AND you should have the dice analyzed to determine if the casino should (a) keep all of the player's winnings and (b) call the cops.

According to YOU, the fact that (1) is wildly improbable does not mean it isn't actually true. But the PROBABILITY that it's actually true is virtually nil, and both science and every human on the planet but you would dismiss it as an absurdity.

Now, continue living your life as though you don't understand anything because - after all - ANYTHING might be true, if wildly improbable, and we can never be sure. That will reconcile your real-life actions with your posts, which strongly suggest that you actually don't understand anything.

 

[CycloWizard]

The distinction you're trying to make is both less than worthless in the real world, and false from a theoretical perspective.

Probability can indicate which cause was more likely for a given effect, but since happening or not happening is strictly binary (at least for observables in this universe), it can never tell us whether something did or did not happen. You can say I'm wrong until you're blue in the face, but until you can tell me how, it's just a bunch of hot air.

With respect to the real world, understanding the probabilities of the possible causes of events is essential to making wise decisions. And with respect to theory, probabilities actually do indicate what is or isn't likely to actually be true.

We're not talking about making wise decisions or what is likely to be true: we're talking about what IS true, which is something probabilities can never tell us. By your logic, if I told you I rolled two dice and you had to predict the outcome, you would say that I must have rolled a seven because that is the most probable outcome. That doesn't mean a seven was rolled.

According to YOU, the fact that (1) is wildly improbable does not mean it isn't actually true. But the PROBABILITY that it's actually true is virtually nil, and both science and every human on the planet but you would dismiss it as an absurdity.

Now, continue living your life as though you don't understand anything because - after all - ANYTHING might be true, if wildly improbable, and we can never be sure. That will reconcile your real-life actions with your posts, which strongly suggest that you actually don't understand anything.

The fanatic defending his indefensible position is easily outed. You are attempting to argue against logic. How's that working out for you?

 

[Modelworks]

True to himself the child couldn't help but show granma the new word he learned. Thats learning . But thats nothing comparred to stuff we all know he knows without ever being taught. Now I had 2 children . They are not in the same league as this 2 year old not even close. He is amazing child all agree. He has taught me so much . I him .

There is a learning tool a friend used and I had my doubts because the commercials for it seemed pretty amazing. She now has a 3 yr old that can read the little golden books by herself. I was really surprised and wondered why more people didn't use it.
http://www.yourbabycanread.com

 

[daishi5]

The distinction you're trying to make is both less than worthless in the real world, and false from a theoretical perspective.

With respect to the real world, understanding the probabilities of the possible causes of events is essential to making wise decisions. And with respect to theory, probabilities actually do indicate what is or isn't likely to actually be true.

For example, you're a casino pit boss and one of the players has a run of 40 consecutive sevens (a 4 and a 3) at craps. Two explanations occur to you:

(1) The player has been amazingly lucky, given that the odds are (1/18)**40 = (about) 1 in 1.63x10**50 that a 4 and a 3 will be rolled 40 consecutive times. If this explanation is correct, you should change nothing, as the odds that the player will roll another 7 are still only 1 in 6.

(2) The dice are "loaded," in which case it is almost certain that the player will continue rolling 7's. If this explanation is correct, you should replace the dice the player is currently using with a normal set AND you should have the dice analyzed to determine if the casino should (a) keep all of the player's winnings and (b) call the cops.

According to YOU, the fact that (1) is wildly improbable does not mean it isn't actually true. But the PROBABILITY that it's actually true is virtually nil, and both science and every human on the planet but you would dismiss it as an absurdity.

Now, continue living your life as though you don't understand anything because - after all - ANYTHING might be true, if wildly improbable, and we can never be sure. That will reconcile your real-life actions with your posts, which strongly suggest that you actually don't understand anything.

The fact that (1) is wildly improbable does not mean it is not true, but it does mean you can discard it with a very high level of confidence that it is not true. There is always a chance you have committed an error when you discard (1), even when the chance is astronomically low, it still exists. Cyclowizard is right, you do not know that (1) is false from observation. You yourself state in number (2) that you should test the dice. If you are willing to throw (1) out on just the rarity of the situation, why do you not just arrest him? If (1) could not be true and (2) must be true you already know he should be arrested and his winnings seized, the testing adds absolutely no more information to your decision.