So, without observers, nothing is related to anything whatever. That is the thrust of the OP — Wayfarer
As per above, this question can be asked not only of patterns, but of phenomena generally..........................There are patterns that appear in inorganic nature, in crystals, snowflakes, larva formations etc. — Wayfarer
The book’s argument begins with the British empiricists who raised our awareness of the fact that we have no direct contact with physical reality, but it is the mind that constructs the form and features of objects. It is shown that modern cognitive science brings this insight a step further by suggesting that shape and structure are not internal to objects, but arise in the observer.
↪Philosophim What a cromulent response! :smile:
This just pushes the question back a level -- why is it effective? — J
Wouldn't it make more sense for you (if I've understood your thinking here) to abandon any talk of accuracy or truth? — J
Suppose bleen is "green and "first observed" during or before 2004," or "blue and 'first observed' after 2004." Could you go walk around where you live and determine what was grue or bleen? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Suppose there is a famous green landmark in your town and it got flattened by a tornado in 2006. It was rebuilt with largely with materials salvaged from the original, but has a substantial amount of new material. Is it bleen or grue? — Count Timothy von Icarus
What if only small parts of it were replaced each year since 2004? — Count Timothy von Icarus
A theorem (as opposed to an equation that's given a real-world interpretation) isn't described as effective, it's described as true, or at least provable in L. — J
Do you want to abandon that way of talking? If a correspondence theory of truth demands that we do so, I'd argue that it represents a reductio ad absurdum and should be rejected on that ground. — J
If a correspondence theory of truth demands that we do so, I'd argue that it represents a reductio ad absurdum and should be rejected on that ground. — J
What would be the point of limiting ourselves in this way? — J
If you understood the essential properties and context of what grue and bleen is, then yes
the case of grue and blue, we're not asking what the definitions should be, we already know what they mean. Our decision is then, "should we use grue or blue"? And I mentioned earlier, as long as both are accurate to the point they are not contradicted by reality, its really a personal choice. It may be as simple as, "I like one word more than another" or as complicated as, "Those dirty grueians are a stupid people that I find inferior. Blue is obviously superior and the 'right' way to identify a color."
If you understood the essential properties and context of what grue and bleen is, then yes
You can tell when things were created down to the year just by looking at them? When you drive through a neighborhood you know the year each house was built just as readily as the the color it is painted? — Count Timothy von Icarus
This seems like "because difference is not a logical contradiction it is arbitrary." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Human languages distinguish between shape and color — Count Timothy von Icarus
If someone argued that chemistry should be split into chemistry done by people with blue eyes and chemistry done by people with other colored eyes, or argued that we should divide chemistry into pre and post 1990 chemistries, or a chemistry of federally recognized holidays, they would be rebuffed for non-arbitrary reasons. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This might be filtered through "personal preference," but personal preference doesn't spring from the aether uncaused and neither do our concepts and languages. — Count Timothy von Icarus
three kids who want to play with the same toys — Leontiskos
I go to the car dealership and I am offered whole cars. They don't let me buy a half car for half the money. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.