I'll match the energy you put into talking about Wittgenstein with me. — frank

The difference is that I am asking for definitions of specific technical terms. Terms that do not have one single agreed upon usage. Hence I asked you about your understanding of those terms. In our previous discussion, if I remember correctly, no specialized vocabulary was used. There are other differences as well, but I will leave it there.

It doesn't matter that "water" could be used to mean a mixture of chlorimine and water that might come from your tap. One is expected to discern the use here. — frank

The use of what? The term water? The difference between intension and extension?

The elements of H20 are two hydrogen molecules combined with one molecule of oxygen. This is the case in all possible worlds. Water will have the elements of H20 plus some combination of minerals and impurities. When the chemist uses the term H20 she does not mean water. She means only that substance that contains two hydrogen molecules combined with one molecule of oxygen.

Naming and Necessity, reading group?
Naming and necessity Lecture Three.

Kripke, as a child, developed a formal version fo the logic of possibility and necessity - modal logic. This book is his applying that logic to modal issues, with philosophically interesting results.

The stuff you pointed to on 2D logic builds on this basis.

Is it accessible?

This is like trying to teach table manners to a kangaroo. — Banno

I think I'm gonna have to drop out here. Sorry!

When the chemist uses the term H20 she does not mean water. She means only that substance that contains two hydrogen molecules combined with one molecule of oxygen. — Fooloso4

I use the abbreviation H20 to refer to sterile water pretty regularly. Somebody put it in a drop-down menu that I use.

For meaning, look to use.

How on Earth would this work under idealism? The ideas of hydrogen and oxygen somehow combine to form a new idea (water) that is still composed of two distinct ideas (hydrogen and oxygen)? And this works only if they can share other ideas (electrons) that orbit around it? — RogueAI

Pretty much. You have exactly the same mechanics here as you do with materialism. The only difference is that you posit those things to be composed of ideas.

As an idealist, I would say water is just part of the dream, and it will do whatever the dreamer wants it to do. ... We've all had dreams of snow and rain and clouds. Why not dreams where water appears to be a collection of tiny particles? In idealism, there really isn't "water" just like there's no "water" in our dreams. — RogueAI

I don't think this works in practice. We don't have idealists trying to fly by wishing they can fly. They still live in the same world self proclaimed materialists do, and still buy the same airplane tickets.

An idealist in a chemistry class will still note twice as much gas being collected at the negative probe as they would at the positive probe. Such consistent behaviors of the idea-of-water and the idea-of-DC-circuits, which seems independent of the wishes of the person performing the experiment, deserves names to call them for pragmatic reasons. "Hydrogen" is a perfectly good name for the gas that comes out at the negative end; that's what other English speakers call it. "Oxygen" is a fine name to call what comes out at the positive end. You could even go so far as to get a PhD in chemistry; even win Nobel prizes for it, and still be an idealist... all you're committing to is that somehow these descriptions are describing ideas.

Much appreciated.

Pretty much. You have exactly the same mechanics here as you do with materialism. The only difference is that you posit those things to be composed of ideas.

There's a difference between observed behavior and the true nature of things. An idealist and materialist aren't going to agree on the mechanics of things, because an idealist will always say, "the dreamer is the reason we're seeing what we're seeing" to the question "Why are we seeing this?". The materialist, of course, will not accept that as an answer. That's the mechanics of the issue (which I take you to mean "how things really are").

As an idealist, I'm not going to claim that water is an idea that is made up two distinct ideas joined together. For one, that's incoherent (again, there's the difference between how things appear to be and how things really are- water appears to be made of hydrogen and oxygen. Water is not actually made of hydrogen and oxygen), and for another, I don't have to claim that, because reality is a dream and the foundational substance of things is thought and ideas. Thought and idea can be literally anything, except a logical contradiction.

"I don't think this works in practice. We don't have idealists trying to fly by wishing they can fly. They still live in the same world self proclaimed materialists do, and still buy the same airplane tickets."

The fact that this is a dream doesn't entail that I think I'll be able to fly. I act just like materialists do, but at the foundational level, I don't agree with their claims, such as I don't believe water is made of anything. It appears to be that way, but it's not.

An idealist in a chemistry class will still note twice as much gas being collected at the negative probe as they would at the positive probe. Such consistent behaviors of the idea-of-water and the idea-of-DC-circuits, which seems independent of the wishes of the person performing the experiment, deserves names to call them for pragmatic reasons. "Hydrogen" is a perfectly good name for the gas that comes out at the negative end; that's what other English speakers call it. "Oxygen" is a fine name to call what comes out at the positive end. You could even go so far as to get a PhD in chemistry; even win Nobel prizes for it, and still be an idealist... all you're committing to is that somehow these descriptions are describing ideas.

An idealist in chemistry, when asked "why are you observing what you're observing", will ultimately claim, "I observe whatever the mind(s) creating this reality are projecting." The materialist chemistry teacher will not agree with that.

The materialist, of course, will not accept that as an answer. That's the mechanics of the issue (which I take you to mean "how things really are"). — RogueAI

No, that's not what I mean.

If I mix baking soda with vinegar, it will bubble. The bubbling produces a gas we call carbon dioxide. That gas is heavy; you can actually pour it into a candle holder with a lit candle in it, and put the candle out in such a fashion.

What I just described above is mechanics; there are chemical mechanics that I described and physical mechanics that I described. In describing this scenario, I did not attempt to convince you of any "true nature" of things. I did not deny the notion that baking soda is ultimately made of ideas. All I did was tell you what would happen if you do certain things.

The fact that this is a dream doesn't entail that I think I'll be able to fly. — RogueAI

Of course it doesn't! But if the fact that this is a dream doesn't commit you to think you'll be able to fly by wishing it, why do you think the fact that this is a dream commits you to think mixing baking soda with vinegar won't form bubbles, or that the resulting thing cannot be poured over a candle and put it out? I am reading you as saying that thinking this is a dream absolutely commits you to deny chemistry (aka that H2O is a thing).

But I say hogwash. It no more commits you to deny chemistry than it commits you to think you can fly by wishing it so.

An idealist in chemistry, when asked "why are you observing what you're observing", will ultimately claim, "I observe whatever the mind(s) creating this reality want me to see." The materialist chemistry teacher will not agree with that. — RogueAI

Okay, but if the mind wants me, an idealist, to see chemical mechanics, why should I deny chemical mechanics? If the mind wants me to see that the bubbles from baking soda/vinegar puts out candles, why would I deny that doing so can put out candles? If it wants me to see twice as much gas as the negative end as the positive end, why should I deny that?

I think you're too keen to connect chemistry to materialism here. Certainly it works under materialism, but it works just fine under idealism too.

If you're not talking about the nature of things, you're talking about how things seem to be. The idealist chemist will, of course, agree with the materialist chemist about what appears to be going on. If that's what you mean by "mechanics", then, yes, the idealist and materialist will agree on what they're perceiving, but that's not interesting.

I have no problem with water appears to be H2O. I have a problem with water is (=) H2O. When you unpack "water is H2O" you immediately run into a problem: "water is H2O" means, among other things, that water is a combination of things. I don't agree that water is a combination of things.

I have no problem with water appears to be H2O. I have a problem with water is (=) H2O. — RogueAI

Any description of the physical world by any person is simply a model. This includes the description "water is H2O".

When you unpack "water is H2O" you immediately run into a problem: "water is H2O" means, among other things, that water is a combination of things. I don't agree that water is a combination of things. — RogueAI

I have a deeper problem that starts when I unpack "combination of things".

I can demonstrate what I mean by water being a combination of things using electrolysis. If you agree that we can make hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis while simultaneously reducing the total amount of water in direct accordance with the model of chemistry, then in what sense does your claim that it's not a combination of things mean something?

If this is a simulation, what would you define water as? A combination of things or computer code?

If you agree that we can make hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis while simultaneously reducing the total amount of water in direct accordance with the model of chemistry, then in what sense does your claim that it's not a combination of things mean something?

It means reality is such that water is not made of particles, but is an idea. That's a meaningful statement about reality. Proving it is hard, but idealism certainly isn't meaningless.

If this is a simulation, what would you define water as? A combination of things or computer code? — RogueAI

To me, the word "water" is a label that I attach to a particular kind of thing in my environment. The stuff that comes out of my taps when I open them that I can hold with a cup... that comes clear and has a particular familiar taste, qualifies as water. The part of the question where I presume this is a simulation bears no relevance to the answer.

It means reality is such that water is not made of particles, but is an idea. — RogueAI

Under the MWI, it's not really made of particles either. Under MWI, it's not so much that it's an idea as it is that it's a portion of the universal wavefunction oriented in such a way as to interact with certain other portions of the wavefunction consistent to simulate something like classical physics. So in a roundabout way, MWI is kind of a simulation hypothesis itself.

But under MWI, I can still meaningfully talk about water being H2O. All I need mean by making such a claim is that H2O under the model of chemistry works to describe the thing in my environment that I attached the label "water" to. Per the approach I take above, I don't need to change my entire vocabulary every time I entertain a new hypothesis about what the ultimate reality is... and why should I? What do theories of the ultimate nature of reality have to do with what I call the stuff coming out of my taps?

To me, the pondering of the underlying nature of the thing is a separate concern... maybe it helps understand more fully what that stuff is that I attached the label to, but it doesn't really change it... I don't presume to start with a complete model of what water is, so I don't have anything to correct when I learn more about it.

For meaning, look to use. — frank

And this is why just any water will not do in the chem lab. What you take H2O to mean based on the use you are familiar with is not the concept, not the same substance, not the same structure, not the same meaning, and not the same use as what you will find in the lab.

Ok, that was a good discussion.

So we agree that sometimes "H20” means water and sometimes it doesn't. Right?

So we agree that sometimes "H20” means water and sometimes it doesn't. Right? — frank

From my second post:

H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20. — Fooloso4

So you believe H20 is necessarily water?

So we agree that sometimes "H20” means water and sometimes it doesn't. Right?
— frank

From my second post:

H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20.
— Fooloso4

I would argue that there are possible worlds where reality is a simulation and H2O isn't water.

Could be.

This is what I was getting at with InPitzotl: What does "Water is H2O" even mean in a simulation? All references to the external world in a simulation are just labels for bits of computer code. If simulations are even metaphysically possible, which I doubt.

I'm assuming that in a simulation, much of the world is sort of like in superposition. Things become specifiable and tangible as you go.

They could do experiments that show what water breaks down into just like we can.

All references to the external world in a simulation are just labels for bits of computer code. If simulations are even metaphysically possible, which I doubt. — RogueAI

"Bits" assumes classical computers, simulating classical universes. Try instead to imagine a quantum computer simulating classical universes. As mentioned, it's not a huge stretch to say that MWI is at least a natural version of this very thing... and MWI is at least a mainstream interpretation. This is probably close enough to consider viable and close enough to the simulation hypothesis to at least be relevant.

So you believe H20 is necessarily water? — frank

If he doesn't, I'll defend that view from the point of view of Kripke. Water = H₂O. "H₂O" is a rigid designator. Water is a rigid designator.. Hence. necessarily, Water = H₂O.

Two Dimensional Semantics may provide an alternative, and I would welcome such a discussion.

Cool. I think @Fooloso4 would enjoy that. I really enjoyed the N&N reading you and I did.

So you believe H20 is necessarily water? — frank

Yes, but water is not necessarily H20

So you believe H20 is necessarily water?
— frank

If he doesn't, I'll defend that view from the point of view of Kripke. Water = H₂O. "H₂O" is a rigid designator. Water is a rigid designator.. Hence. necessarily, Water = H₂O.

Two Dimensional Semantics may provide an alternative, and I would welcome such a discussion. — Banno

The object of a rigid designator is the same. If water is the same object as H20 they could be used interchangeably. They cannot. The molecular structure may not be identical. Water may contain minerals and contaminants. H20 does not. So despite whatever Kripke may claim they are not identical.

I know nothing of all possible worlds, but I know in this actual world in laboratory conditions you cannot simply use water in place of H20. You can, however, use H20 in place of water.

So you believe H20 is necessarily water? — frank


Yes, — Fooloso4

Why necessarily? Couldn't the laws of the universe be different such that H20 is a mineral?

This is the line of thought Kripke addresses.

Why necessarily? Couldn't the laws of the universe be different such that H20 is a mineral? — frank

Necessary in the same sense that a dog is necessarily a mammal, but a mammal is not necessarily a dog.

I cannot say what would or would not be if the physical laws of the universe were different. Apparently in your scenario they would not be so different that there would no longer be molecules of H20. Whether it was classified as a mineral would be up to whatever beings there were doing classifications. In our universe, however frozen water is classified as a mineral but not liquid water.

This is the line of thought Kripke addresses. — frank

I know very little of Kripke's line of thought.

I should have said metal, not mineral.

know very little of Kripke's line of thought. — Fooloso4

Yea, we're not really getting any closer.

Yea, we're not really getting any closer. — frank

Well, you could explain his line of thought, but you have no interest in doing so. Or, I could spend some time reading Kripke, but I have no interest in doing so.

Why necessarily? Couldn't the laws of the universe be different such that H20 is a mineral?

This is the line of thought Kripke addresses.

If H2O was a mineral in a universe with different laws, wouldn't it be H2O*? Presumably, the different laws of nature that allow H2O to become a mineral would affect either the Hydrogen, Oxygen, or chemistry of their interaction, so that you're really talking about something other than what we mean by H2O.

I was wondering if this holds true in a simulation too. Could the simulators take H2O, as it's currently understood by us, and make it become a mineral just be changing the simulation?