Really? How about left? Strong:weak, but how about mild? And so on. — tim wood

What exactly do you mean by context and that the meaning of words depend on it?

Firstly, when I said,

The antonym for right doesn't change with context from wrong to something else and as far as I know this is true for all antonymical relationships. — TheMadFool

I was referring to a more general conception of context Yes, "right" may be a truth-value claim in a school examination or a direction for a pedestrian but that doesn't mean I can alter the meaning of "right" simply by framing it in different contexts. For example I may be speaking of astrobiology or or a humble sandwich but the word "right" will not suddenly acquire different meanings when I use it in these disparate topics.

To the extent that I'm aware this context-sensitive nature of the meaning of words is a byproduct of the linguistic phenomenon of polysemy - one word with different meanings.While context is important in understanding words in discourse it doesn't have a direct impact on meaning itself. What I mean by that is meaning precedes context. Let's continue with the example of the word "right". If it didn't already possess the meaning of a direction then it would never appear in the context of finding your way in a city and if it didn't mean correctness it'll never be in a teacher's vocabulary.

The meaning of a word decides which contexts the word appears in. However, to decide on the meaning of polysemous words, context is indispensable. To clarify what I mean I'd like to draw your attention to two categories that can be approximated as author and reader. When an author writes a discourse she does so with only one meaning of the words she employs. If a word has the one appropriate meaning she will use it. The meaning of the word is vital to what contexts it can appear in. In other words meaning precedes context.

However for the reader, the situation is different. Since polysemy is so common a discourse will invariably contain words with multiple meanings and so to comprehend the meanings of polysemous words she needs to study the context in which polysemous words appear in.


The essential difference between the author and the reader is context is irrelevant to the former because meaning precedes context but relevant to the latter because of polysemy.

When I said what I said I meant it for an author and not a reader. An author writes based on one meaning and doesn't need to worry about context i.e. meaning is non-contextual for the author but the reader of course needs context to grasp the meaning of polysemous words.

Secondly, I accept that, as I said earlier, that meaning changes with context but what is the relationship between the two and how does it bear on the question, "what is the antonym of nothing"?

By my reckoning you want to say that meaning is context-dependent and so both something and everything can be antonyms of nothing based on context. The two examples in the OP being "good"?? illustrations of this fact

This explanation requires that nothing, something and everything have different meanings in various contexts. I'm afraid this is false. The words, "nothing", something and "everything" have definitions in only one context viz. quantification. Imagine a scale from 0% to 100% and you can see nothing = 0%, everything = 100% and 0% < something < 100%.

Whatever other context these words are used in requires the essential quantitative nature of their definitions to be applicable. So, unlike the word "right" whose meaning will alter with context (morality or directions to the bank) the words "nothing", "something" and "everything" don't have that luxury. Their definitions are fixed as quantities across all contexts.

Therefore, that words are context-sensitive while true is not applicable here to the words "nothing", "something" and "everything". When the fact that antonyms come in pairs, i.e. they're exclusively binary, is now considered in the light of what I said in the previous paragraphs, we can see very clearly that nothing can't be an antonym for both something AND everything.

“Something” just means “not nothing”; “everything” just means “nothing not”. — Pfhorrest

Antonyms can't be expressed with the negation operator.

It isn't the case that hot = not cold or good = not bad because there's always a third alternative which here are *room temperature* and *amoral* respectively.

If antonyms were negations then the antonym of good should be not-good which includes *amoral* and we know *amoral* is NOT an antonym of either good or bad.

The point was to show that your approach is faulty. Identity is based in uniqueness, and this is the opposite of "shared properties". So you'll never get to the true meaning of "identical" through the assumption that "identicalness" is based in shared properties, because it's not, it's based in "identity", and identity refers to uniqueness.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Firstly we seem to be on the same page. Secondly you didn't read my post but that's ok because there's nothing that isn't obvious in it.

In systems analysis and design there is a concept where A might be said to be of type B but B is not in every case the same as A.

Logicians very often embrace a systems analysis and design approach. Its like when the wizard answers the question with "yes and no".

You can quantify analog systems (like a compact disc high sampling rate) with 1000s of data points to simulate a analog system within a digital system. — christian2017

True to what you're saying nothing, something, and everything, if quantified numerically then they can be interpreted in terms of an analog scale as follows:

Nothing = 0
Something = at least 1 but NOT all
Everything = all (the universal set)

Imagine a universe of 10 objects. In the context of these 10 objects the following relationship will hold:

Nothing (0) < Something (at least 1 but NOT all) < Everything

If one considers the general meaning of antonym as having opposite meaning and considers the pattern present in them it's usually the case that the extreme endpoints of what is actually a range/spectrum qualify as antonyms. For instance hot and cold are the extreme states of temperature and are linguistically regarded as antonyms; anything in between these extremes are ignored. If that's the case then the antonym of nothing is everything and not something.

None = not some = all not = not nall not
Some = not none = not all not = nall not
All = none not = not some not = not nall
Nall = not all = some not = not none not

Also look up DeMorgan duality for more on these kinds of relationships. — Pfhorrest

It was my initial impression that antonyms were logical entities expressible through negation but that isn't the case. A logical view of antonyms is as contraries i.e. they both can't be true but both can be false as illustrated by the example of "hot" and its antonym "cold" in the OP. So, using "not" - negation - which is more apt for contradictions doesn't get the job done.

In what context? The usual construction for the antonym - hmm, def.: A word that has the exact opposite meaning of another word is its antonym.

That means you have to first know the meaning. The construction I had in mind is appending "not," as in, "not-nothing." But this is logic, not meaning itself. So, give a definition of "nothing" and I suspect it won't be too hard to find an antonym. The mistake, should there be one, might well lie in supposing that language is essentially univocal when in fact and in usage and in application it is not. That is, that the antonym that you select as appropriate for your context should apply to all contexts and usages, and that just ain't language. — tim wood

Well, yes, the choice of the antonym for nothing seems to be context-dependent as illustrated by my examples but this isn't the usual state of affairs with other antonyms. The antonym for right doesn't change with context from wrong to something else and as far as I know this is true for all antonymical relationships.

Furthermore, "at least one" is not something; "at least one" is a definition of "some" in syllogisms, and in syllogisms only. In syllogisms you don't use "something". — god must be atheist

Modern quantificational logic has chosen to focus instead on formal counterparts of the unary quantifiers “everything” and “something”, which may be written ∀x and ∃x, respectively. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Why would that be a problem? I don't see anything "incomplete" here. — khaled

If I say "everything" then it doesn't contradict "at least one" right? Since something is defined as "at least one" then that means there's no difference between everything and something unless we qualify the defintion of something as "at least one but NOT all".

First, do such terms refer to anything actual.
I think that everything exists except thinghood itself.

Or else explain what is it about anything that makes it a thing rather than not. — Yohan

I refer to the commonplace usage of the words nothing, something, and everything. There is nothing special in the way I'm using these words. A lexical definition should suffice.

These are not the same.

If you asked me to hand you anything, you are not asking me to hand you everything. — Banno

You forgot to give due importance to the "not" - the negation - in "not anything". "NOT anything" negates each and every thing. There is literally no thing that nothing applies to. Surely then nothing means not everything.

Truth in beliefs? I’m sure you know better than that — Brett

:up: Belief has to be true for it to count as knowledge. Right?

I think they got just enough of an education to lead them to think they’re intelligent. — Brett

So, there's no truth in such beliefs - beliefs that there's a calamity waiting for humanity just round the corner? Geeks have it wrong then.

I chanced upon a wikipedia entry titled Survivalism and it's exactly what the OP is about. The OP discusses the extreme version of survivalism but in the broader sense that it actually has is of considerable relevance to us e.g. it's about self-sufficiency and disaster preparedness and other stuff, all of which have real-world applications and are actually practised in disaster-prone regions of the world.

What is questionable though is the leap to global disaster scenarios. I mean events that could set off a global catastrophe need to be exponentially greater than the local disasters we experience - supervolcanoes, giant asteroids, extreme global climate change, pandemics, nuclear war, worldwide politcal meltdown, etc. - and the likelihood of such events seem minuscule. Nevertheless the probabilities are non-zero i.e. even if very very unlikely, a supervolcano can erupt which would vindicate the extreme version of survivalism.

I guess it boils down to understanding probabilities of events and then making decisions accordingly. Reminds me of Pascal's wager - should I not prepare for a world-ending catastrophe because it's so unlikely or should I prepare for it because it's so lethal?

There are many people in the US who think the strategy adopted by Lif3r is appropriate for life in the US in its current state, irrespective of any worries about climate change. It's a symptom of the socio-cultural state of the nation. — Punshhh

Kindly read above.

You have a flawed understanding of expected value, it is 1*P(1)+2*P(2)+3*P(3)*4*P(4)+5*P(5)+6*P(6) = (1+2+3+4+5+6)*1/6 = 3.5

That ‘law’ states that the average of outcomes will converge towards 3.5, not towards 1/6 times the number of trials (that wouldn’t make sense). — leo

Jokes aside, the 3.5 value is obtained because the probability of each outcome is 1/6.

Firstly, what’s not obvious is that there are more ways of x happening than y. — leo

Then why did you claim it?

You have a flawed understanding of expected value, it is 1*P(1)+2*P(2)+3*P(3)*4*P(4)+5*P(5)+6*P(6) = (1+2+3+4+5+6)*1/6 = 3.5 — leo

I was expecting that but the math works out in my explanation. The law of large numbers does say that the experimental probability will approach the theoretical probability.

eople have come up with plenty of ‘laws’, are they always correct? — leo

Are you in any way challenging the law of large numbers?

A special form of the LLN (for a binary random variable) was first proved by Jacob Bernoulli.[7] It took him over 20 years to develop a sufficiently rigorous mathematical proof which was published in his Ars Conjectandi (The Art of Conjecturing) in 1713. — Wikpedia

Talk to Jacob Bernoulli :grin:

This planet is going to start rejecting humans soon. The rich don't care. They are already prepared to survive it. The rest of us are too stupid to stop buying their waste. If you are poor you are almost completely fucked. Migrations are already happening and will become larger as time progresses. Land will become scarce and jobs will become very few. The poor will take a financial hit of many trillions of dollars. It's going to be absolute chaos and we aren't going to stop it. Our children and grandchildren are going to be fighting nature and each other tooth and nail for survival. Take measures now to prepare for what is next.

Sell your beachfront property if you have one. It's not going to hold value because well...
It's gonna be under water.

Move to high ground near abundant water supply, away from highly flammable environments. Anywhere with common natural disasters will see an increase of those natural disasters. All of the weather will essentially become magnified, so you are looking for a place that doesn't have any or many natural disasters. Everywhere is going to get hotter. Climates that are cold will become mild, climates that are hot will become deserts.

Consider building an inexpensive underground bunker with state of the art air filtration. Essentially all you really need is a pantry, abundant with food, water, and clean air. This may not come in handy immediately, but it could come in handy soon for multiple reasons, or it could come in handy for your children in the future, but remember the importance of location.

Fresh water is going to become the new oil. It will be the most valuable and sought resource on the planet because it is going to become increasingly more difficult to access. You need some. As a matter of fact you need as much as you can possibly find and you should probably store it in your bunker.

I don't know what is going to hit harder, the planet itself or our difficulties in coexisting with one another as it happens. In the midst of it all I have a feeling that government will eventually fail, shift, or become non existent altogether. Buy a gun. If you are smart, buy several. Don't trust anyone, as we will all be in constant fight or flight mode, and don't ask me for help. I'm sorry, but just because I have preparation doesn't mean I have rations or weapons or time to save you. My family is my responsibility under survival conditions and your family is yours. It isn't anything against any of you, it's just the intelligent way to approach the situation. Although I try my hardest to be a decent human, I don't trust people to be decent to each other, or expect that they have my best interests in mind, especially when shit hits the fan.

Good luck. — Lif3r

A great plot for a video game or a movie but I think it's been done to death. Judging by the popularity of this genre I suspect it reflects the mainstream opinion or is the geeky lot, those who actually watch and play doomsday-themed movies and games respectively, susceptible to such bleak outlooks. Considering geeks are usually of above-average intelligence should we put stock in such future scenarios or is it that the geek-intelligence relationship is just a misconception and the future-is-disaster mindset is nothing more than an idiosyncrasy?

I see the quantum wave as an object whose mathematical (quantitative-structural) properties specify how it will interact with other objects. I don't mean that a quantum wave is less "real" than a point particle; it's just something that is there, although a different something than a point particle. The probabilistic character of the quantum wave is of course at the heart of interpretations of quantum mechanics. Currently I prefer the many-worlds interpretation because it doesn't seem to need more assumptions beyond the Schrodinger equation of the quantum wave, like wave "collapse". It just assumes that the quantum wave evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, with the mathematical consequence being that when the wave interacts with a many-particle object, parts of the wave that correspond to different possible values of a variable (for example, point position) stop interfering with each other and become separated into non-interacting parts of reality ("worlds").

A problem with the many-worlds interpretation is that an infinite number of possible values of a variable corresponds to an infinite number of worlds and it is not clear how to calculate frequentist probabilities when there is an infinite number of possibilities. Maybe a reconciliation of quantum mechanics with relativity theory will provide a solution to this problem, perhaps by limiting the number of possibilities to a finite number. — litewave

As you can see, any interpretation, wave collapse or many worlds, is clearly born of the difficulty in accepting that one object can occupy different locations at the same time or some variation of that theme. Wave functions collapse and the particle is detected in one of the many locations instead of being at all of them at once. Many worlds exist precisely because each possibility would require a different location to be actualized.

This is an incorrect example because of the deficiencies of the human capacity of identification. The law of identity places a thing's identity within the thing itself, (a thing is the same as itself), not in what we say about the thing. So A is not necessarily the same as C because your premise "there are only 4 possible properties" is a faulty premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

I only used 4 properties to simplify the issue and the number 4, in and of itself, has no bearing on the critical aspects of identicalness which is, quite obviously, based on shared properties. The only method by which we may distinguish objects is on the basis of differences in properties and the only method by which we may say two or more objects are identical is by checking if they share all properties or not.

it would be wrong to expect that the observed frequencies will always match the theoretical probabilities we’ve come up with, it would be wrong to expect that if you throw the die a gazillion times you will always get 1/6 frequency for each outcome. — leo

What about the law of large numbers which says exactly the opposite of what you're saying? The law of large numbers states that the average of the values of a variable will approache the expected value of that variable as the number of experiments become larger and larger.

If the random variable x is the probability of getting an odd number in a die throw then we could conduct n experiments of T number of trials in each and get the following values: x1, x2,...xn
The average value for x = (x1+x2+...+xn)/n

The expected value for x, E(x) = P(x) * T = (3/6) * T where P(x) is the theoretical probability[/i[ of event x.

The law of large numbers states that (x1+x2+...+xn)/n will approach E(x) = P(x) * T and this is only possible if the actual probabilities themselves are in the vicinity of the theoretical probability.

Note: my math may be a little off the mark. Kindly correct any errors

Your claim that we shouldn't expect that theoretical probabilities will not match observed frequencies is applicable only to small numbers of experiments.

It isn’t an obvious fact, it’s not easy to prove. — leo

What could be more obvious than saying if there are more ways of x happening than y then x will happen more frequently if the probabilities of all outcomes are equally likely?

Your comments are basically about practical limitations and these can be safely ignored because, as actual experimentation shows, even a standard-issue die/coin behaves probabilistically.

There's no contradiction. — Dawnstorm

That is correct.

That numerical value does not tell us the width of a point and length is the sum of widths of the constituent points / sub-line segments. — Devans99

I accept that a point as defined is zero-dimensional and has neither width nor length.

Your contention is that if the above statement is taken to true then a line segment can't exist for they're a collection of points and adding nothings (points in this case) together can never yield something/line segment.

I admit that most of the information I have on the topic of lines and points can be summarized in the following claim: there are an infinite number of points on any line segment. This can be easily proven, right? Afterall if a/b and c/d are any two points on a line segment, the point (a+c)/(b+d) will lie in between a/b and c/d: a/b < (a+c)/(b+d) < c/d. That out of the way we can now focus on the original statement: there are an infinite number of points on any line segment. Now, supposes, in deference to your concerns, we change the meaning of a point from a zero-dimensional object to something of a fixed, non-zero length. What do we notice?
1. There are an infinite number of points on a line segment (proven above)
2. Giving due respect to your objection, instead of a point being zero-length we now define a point is a non-zero length
So,
3. There are now an infinite number of non-zero length points.
So
4. Any and all lines would have to be of infinite length because we proved there are is an infinity of points AND if points are a non-zero quantity then doing the math we get infinity
5. It is false that any and all lines are of infinite length e.g. a line of 6 or 8.5 or pi centimeters is a finite line.
Ergo
6. We have to reject one of our premises
7. That there are an infinite number of points on a line is true and proven so has to stay
Ergo
8. We must reject that a point has a non-zero length
So,
9. A point is zero-dimensional and has neither width nor length and there are an infinite number of them on any line.

Doesn't it make sense? A point necessarily is zero-dimensional or else we come to the preposterous conclusion that all lines are of infinite length.

Compare the above argument with yours. You've swung the other way by attempting to show a line segment is impossible since they're composed of zero-dimensional points and no matter how many nothings there are we simply can't get something.

From here let's use some prepositional logic.
S = a line segment is structurally dependent on points
Z = a point is zero-dimensional
P = it is possible for a line segment to exist. For example a 5 cm line segment
I = all line segments are infinite

My argument is as follows
1. (S & Z) > ~P...(this is your claim) premise
2. (S & ~Z) > I...(this is part of my argument above) premise
3. ~I...premise - there are finite line segments
4. P...premise
5. ~S > (Z & P)...premise
6. S...assume for reductio ad absurdum
7. ~I > ~(S & ~Z)...2 contra
8. ~(S & ~Z)...3, 7 MP
9. ~S v ~~Z...8 DeM
10. ~S v Z...9 DN
11. ~~S...6 DN
12. Z...10, 11 DS
13. ~~P > ~(S & Z)...1 contra
14. P > ~(S & Z)...13 DN
15. ~(S & Z)...4, 14 MP
16. ~S v ~Z...15 DeM
17. ~~Z...12 DN
18. ~S...16, 17 DS
19. S & ~S...6, 18 conj (CONTRADICTION)
20. ~S...6 to 19 Reductio ad absurdum
21. Z & P...5, 20 MP

QED

Basically, the assumption that points are structural components of lines is false and their dimension being zero has absolutely no relevance to the length of a line segment and so lines are possible geometric objects even if points are zero-dimensional.

Identity can also be (and it mostly is) established by history. So two objects can occupy the same position in space at the same time and still be identified as two different objects simply because they have different histories. — Magnus Anderson

I agree but only partially because history isn't exact enough as the requirement that it's impossible for one object to be in more than one location at the same time. Imagine two paintings A and B that are in the same gallery and is the work of the same artist. The histories of both A and B are identical and that, if history defines identity, would mean A and B have the same identity which strikes me as preposterous. Every relevant parameter could be manipulated to make A and B have the exact same history and yet it wouldn't feel right to say A and B had the same identity.

Do you mean that the particle has a position in a point of space like the escaped convict and the quantum wave is only an expression of our incomplete knowledge of the particle's position? This idea was refuted by experimental tests of Bell's theorem: no local hidden-variable theory can be a correct description of quantum mechanics, where the hidden variable is a single point position of a particle, for example. This doesn't rule out non-local hidden-variable theories such as Bohm's but these theories seem incompatible with special relativity because they introduce superluminal speeds. — litewave

Thank you for the clarification. What I actually meant was just as after the search is actually conducted and the convict's location is discovered s/he will be found in one location, the particle too will be localized to one location. It isn't the case that quantum theory is claiming the particle is in two or more locations at once: the quantum wave merely indicates that the particle's position is uncertain. IF the quantum wave is actually saying the particle is in more than one location at the same time then why do we need probability in the first place? Simply say that the particle is in whatever location and also in another location.

how do you consider logic preeminent? — Mikey

This is reminiscent of the chicken and egg problem.

Is it insight that leads to knowledge and if yes, why complicate matters with logic? If logic is ultimately necessary what of insight?

We need to look into the meaning of insight. I did a cursory reading of the wikipedia entry on insight and it seems, as you suggested, that suddenness is a defining feature of insight.

That settled let's go back to logic and insight, specifically the relationship between the two. Do you think any thought would qualify as insight if it wasn't logical? In other words is there such a thing as illogical insight? I doubt there ever was/is/will be such a thing. Any thought that isn't logical would never be categorized as insight.

However, a thought maybe logical and yet not qualify as an insight. For example a lot of math problems we do in school are just routine logical rule-application exercises.

The bottomline is that logic is a necessary part of the definition of insight. No logic, no insight.

There "is" a way for insight without logic if we consider every instance of seeing something important about an issue, even if they turned out to be wrong, as insight. As you can see and as I've noticed the previous sentence evokes a resistance - something's off about it - and that is evidence, in my opinion, of our intuition that to be an insight it is necessary for it to be logical.

Just as long as what we are clear on is that probabilities only exist in the system of your mind, not in the system of dice being rolled. Determinism exists in both systems. The idea of probabilities are a determined outcome of ignorant minds. — Harry Hindu

So, probability didn't exist before there was such a thing as mind, say 9 billion years ago when the earth hadn't even formed? Everything was deterministic before minds came into being and now probability exists because there are now minds and to add, these minds can be ignorant.

Do you mean to imply that if, by some freak of nature, all minds were wiped out, probability would disappear?

Surely, you don't mean to say that do you?

If so, what exactly do you mean by "probability only exists in the system of your mind"?

I agree that the restricted domain herein, of die throwing, is ultimately deterministic and that whereof we're ignorant we can only guess and ignorance being a state of mind there is a sense in which your statement is true but if your statement means that non-determinism i.e. true randomness doesn't exist and that every instance of probabilistic behavior is simply us being forced to engage in mathematical guessing (probability theory) due to ignorance, then I need more convincing if you don't mind.

Yes, I would just add that this depends on how the object is defined. For example, in a sense it is true that my desk can occupy two locations in space at the same time - one leg here, another leg there! That's because the desk is defined as an object that is extended in space. But if by "location" we mean the spatial extension of the desk then it is true that the desk cannot occupy two locations in space at the same time - because it would violate the definition of the desk and so we would be talking about a different object than a desk.

This should be kept in mind when interpreting quantum mechanics. There is no point particle that occupies two points of space at the same time, but there is a quantum wave, defined as a spatially extended object, that occupies two or more points of space at the same time. Alternatively (and equivalently, if I understand it correctly), there is a point particle that occupies two points of space at the same time if the definition of the "point particle" allows the particle to move not only forward but also backward in time. — litewave

As far as I understand the quantum wave is just the probability of where a particle is located. That there are two different locations in the probability doesn't imply the particle is in different locations at the same time.

Imagine an escaped convict being hunted by the law. The search party would need a plan to find the escapee and it could take the following form: he needs water so he maybe along the river; he needs to avoid detection so he may be in the forest; he needs food so he maybe around a town; etc. There's a probability that he maybe in all of these locations but that in no way implies he's in all of them at once at the same time.

In situation A the probably of one outcome is also 1 or 100% once the die is thrown, it is simply our incomplete knowledge that makes us say that any outcome is possible, but the outcome that is about to be realized is already determined. — leo

The scenarios A and B in my previous post was to explain that deterministic systems can behave probabilistically and I think it accomplished its purpose.

Bear in mind though that I don't mean deterministic systems are non-deterministic. I just mean that sometimes, as when we have incomplete knowledge, we can use probability on deterministic systems.

Considering we can use probability on non-deterministic systems too, it must follow that probability theory has within its scope non-determinism and determinism,some part of which we're ignorant of.

If you want we can focus on proving that, if you finally understand that this is the only way that we can make sense of what we observe, without invoking magic or randomness, without saying that our ignorance of the initial states somehow makes the die behave differently. — leo

Yes, I believe I wrote something to that effect in my reply to Harry Hindu but that was because I thought he claimed ignorance had some kind of a causal connection to randomness. Later in my discussions with him/her and you, I realized that ignorance of deterministic systems is not a cause of but rather an occasion for, probability. I hope we're clear on that.

When we have no knowledge of the initial states, the frequencies of the outcomes are often similar simply because we pick the initial states arbitrarily, and there are many more combinations of initial states where outcomes have a similar frequency, so we pick such combinations much more often. — leo

This is an obvious fact and doesn't contradict anything I've said so far.

If two things appear to be identical they would still be different if they are in different locations for example — believenothing

Correct. The presence of a difference precludes identicalness. Two objects are identical if and only if they both possess the exact same properties. This definition uses properties as defining elements of objects; objects here meaning anything and everything.

If you agree then imagine four objects A, B, C, and D and that there are only 4 possible properties: round, square, red and black.
A is a red and round
B is red and square
C is red and round
D is black and square.

Using "=" to mean "identical to" we conclude that A = C but A not = B and B not = C and so on. Identicalness, in this sense, means all properties must match exactly.

Bear in mind the identicalness is not the same as identity. The former is a relationship between objects as we've seen above but the latter is not. Identity is, as you so rightly noted, uniqueness which in mathematical terms is one and so, because relationships require at least two objects, identity isn't a relationship.

To further clarify the difference between identicalness and identity we need to understand that identicalness doesn't consider space-time properties as relevant to its meaning. That's why when we're presented with two cars of the same model we usually say that they're identical. That the two cars occupy different spatial location is not relevant to identicalness. Similarly that one car was produced five minutes after the second car doesn't matter so long as they're the same model. In short space-time properties are irrelevant to the concept of identicalness.

When it comes to identity, matters are different and space-time properties are critical to its meaning. One object cannot occupy two locations in space at the same time and it is this impossibility that gives objects their identity. So, two/more objects can be identical because they share all properties except space-time properties but they all have different identities because one object can't occupy two locations in space at the same time.

I dont think an item or concept could be identical with itself either, because things change over time and the only way I can imagine to prove — believenothing

If we look at how I defined identicalness then it's true that any object possesses all the properties it has and so it follows that an object is identical to itself.

Remember I said earlier that relationships require at least two objects. This isn't entirely true as is evidenced by the claim above that a = a or A = A but this can be understood in terms of identicalness in identity being only reflexive - oneness preserved.

This is codified in logic as the law of identity as a = a for objects and A = A for propositions.

This is necessary for the reason that in any discourse the meaning or words and sentences shouldn't change otherwise humorous but dangerous events will occur. For example this could happen:

1. Only man is intelligent
2. No woman is a man
So
3. No woman is intelligent

In the above argument the meaning of "man" has changed from "humans" in 1 to "male" in 2 which leads us to wrong albeit funny conclusion. The law of identity exists to prevent such things from happening.

who remembers will always be different from what remembers — armonie

:up:

An old Hungarian puzzle for kids:

"What's the difference between a sparrow?
?
Both of its wings are identical, especially the left one." — god must be atheist

:lol:

This is Leibniz' principle, "the identity of indiscernibles". It states that if two objects can be said to have the very same properties, then they are identical. "Identical" means having the same identity, and by Aristotle's law of identity, this means that they are actually one and the same object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Read my reply to the OP

I explained carefully why saying that “the die behaves probabilistically” is at best meaningless and at worst a contradiction, and yet you’re saying I’m the one who is confused ... — leo

With your current understanding, you can’t explain why we can pick initial states deterministically and get outcomes with frequency 1/6 each. — leo

I think I get what you mean.

Assuming that the die is a deterministic system two things are possible:

A. The usual way we throw the die - randomly - without knowing the initial state. The outcomes in this case would have a relative frequency that can be calculated in terms of the ratio between desired outcomes and total number of possible outcomes. It doesn't get more probabilistic than this does it?

B. If we have complete information about the die then we can deliberately select the initial states to produce outcomes that look exactly like A above with perfectly matching relative frequencies.

When I said "a deterministic system is behaving probabilistically" I did so on the basis of A above. The reason for this is simple: though each outcome is fully determined by the initial state of the die, the initial states were themselves randomly selected which precludes definite knowledge of outcomes. Thus we must resort to probability theory and it seems to work pretty well; too well in my opinion in that the die when thrown without knowledge of the initial states behaves in a way that matches theoretical probability.

I'm in no way saying 2 can't be done.

However, there's a major difference between A and B to wit the probabilities on a single throw of the die will be poles apart. In situation A, the probability of any outcome will be between 0 and 1 but never will it be 1 or 100% but in situation B every outcome will have a probability 1 or 100%

A variable has an event space, and that event space has a distribution. How you pick a value for the variable determines whether the variable is independent or dependent. An independent variable can be a random variable, and a dependent variable can depend on one or more random variables.

How we retrieve the values for the variable in an experiment (i.e. if it's a random variable or not) has no influence on the distribution of the event space of the variable, but it can introduce a bias into our results.

That the same variable with the same distribution can have its values computed or chosen at random in different mathematical contexts is no mystery. It's a question of methodology. — Dawnstorm

:chin:

In my proof the rules I used were modus ponens (for step 3) and reductio ad absurdum (for step 4). — Pfhorrest

:up: :up:

:up: :smile: :ok:

c = condition
non-condition is condition = condition is non-condition = condition is not condition = It is not the case that condition is condition = ~(c = c)

1. ~(c = c)....premise
2. c = c..........I'd
3. (c = c) & (~(c = c))...1, 2 conj (contradiction)
4. ~~(c = c)..............1 to 3 reductio ad absurdum
5. c = c

I think I got it.

1. John is not John = it is not the case that John is John
j = ~j is equivalent to ~(j = j)

Similarly...

2. non-condition is a condition = it is not the case that condition is condition
(~c) = c is equivalent to ~(c = c)

It seems there's no rule as such to use here. It's simply a process of translating it in the right way.

Could you explain the symbols a bit. Thanks.

No no this is where your confusion lies. What do you mean exactly by “behave probabilistically”? — leo

There is no confusion at all. A die is deterministic and it behaves probabilistically. This probably needs further clarification.

A die is a deterministic system in that each initial state has one and only one outcome but if the initial states are random then the outcomes will be random.

Harry, the author, takes great pains to draw some kind of boundary between lies, truths and bullshit and he does that on the basis of mental states which I construe is just an attitude/orientation to truth: the liar and the truth-teller both acknowledging the value truth while the bullshitter simply doesn't care. It's probable that the author does that because he's prevented from using truth value because according to him both lies and bullshit overlap on falsehood, and bullshit being occasionally true.

That by itself isn't adequate to render bullshit as a distinctly unlikable character and so Harry must and does, in order to stop bullshit from gaining legitimacy in the world of the subjective, promulgate the existence of an objective reality the truths of which bullshit, according to him, doesn't care for.

Do I agree with Harry?

I don't know. He's made a point but is it the point - the last word on bullshit?

He mentions the conjunction of ignorance on issues and occasions of discourse that require knowing these issues as ingredients to bake the bullshit cake. This is true only if we buy into his argument but it sets the bar too high in my opinion. After all it seems like he's literally demanding omniscience before we open our mouths or put pen on paper. Discourse is not always about truth: it can be about opinion and while I hold that truth is objective it's not downloadable in . Ergo, Harry's definition of bullshit is too broad to my liking and taints what is otherwise healthy and necessary discourse with the negativity associated with bullshit. Also, he doesn't even mention, forget about making, the necessary connection with not caring for the truth, the attitude I mentioned earlier. How do we know that ignorant people don't care about the truth?

One thing that puzzles me is that while the categories of truth and lies on one side and bullshit on the other is based on the attitude to truth, Harry claims that bullshit can be both false and true. The former, that bullshit can be false is obvious enough but the latter, that bullshit can be true is harder to digest: Harry only makes an analogy with counterfeiting and refers us to how the counterfeit is made in an attempt to make his point which is probably that *true* bullshit is made in a different way than the typical truth. What does he mean by this? Is it me or is the analogy a failure? Have you ever been in a situation where bullshit was an appropriate label for truth? Maybe I'm missing something.

For me the meaning of bullshit is revealed in its usage, a usage that's unique and not shared by "lie" or "truth" and that's as follows:

Interjection

bullshit!

(vulgar, slang) An expression of disbelief or doubt at what one has just heard. — Wiktionary

Note that "bullshit" is an interjection which is something neither "lie" nor "truth" is in ordinary discoure. The status as an interjection is, for all purposes, exclusive to "bullshit". There's a conspicuous absence of a direct reference to truth value: only an allusion is made by the word "disbelief" which would imply an impression that an assertion is false. Why this is important is because the singular usage of "bullshit" as an interjection may help us know how bullshit differs from lies and truths.

Accordingly in my opinion the word "disbelief" in the definition of "bullshit" as an interjection is of prime importance. Say someone claims that mount Rushmore is the tallest mountain in the world. The listener, given that he knows of Mount Everest, will immediately cry foul - bullshit!!! This is a case of when the listener's knowledge exposes a falsehood and then we react with disbelief. These are basically times when bullshit is false: just like Harry claims.

Another situation is when a claim is an exaggeration e.g. claiming that the tallest mountain in the world is Mount Everest and it's 300 km in height. Here the listener needn't rely on any knowledge but simply count on her common sense that informs her that a 300 km high mountain is impossible. This is a case of bullshit where there is truth but it's exaggerated to such an extent that it is met with disbelief - bullshit!!!

In this view bullshit is more about the listener, his knowledge of the world and the limits of what is possible or not and how that interacts with the claims made by others, than the bullshitter. I think such an interpretation does justice to the differences in the way we use the words "lie", "truth" and "bullshit" which I hope points to something unique about each word in general and "bullshit" in particular.

*** "If you can't dazzle them with facts, then baffle them with bullshit."
8h — Bitter Crank

:rofl: :up:

The concept makes no sense. Any attempt you make to define what unconditional love is will result in conditional criteria. "Unconditional" itself if a condition. For the love to be different from conditional love, the condition is that it must be unconditional.

And yet, people will argue tooth and nail that it is a real thing. One of the most common examples is that of a mother's love for her child, but the first condition is that the child must be hers.

I believe the reason for the popularity of this concept is that it is convenient. It is akin to "the devil made me do it". It is tempting to legitimize the removal of standards and conditions on the basis of love. This kind of reasoning is not based on real love, but rather emotional appeal.

I look forward to hearing what you all think. — John Days

Any attempt you make to define what unconditional love is will result in conditional criteria. — John Days

The reasoning for the above would require as a premise the following:

1. Conditions for love are:
a. beauty = b
b. good
c. no conditions/unconditional

This means you're saying "non-conditions for love are conditions for love" which can be rephrased as "if anything is a non-condition for love then it is a condition for love" and this in logic is as follows: (x)(~Cx > Cx) where Cx = x is a condition for love. Let h = hate and we know that ~Ch = hate is not a condition for love

1. (x)(~Cx > Cx)......assume for reductio ad absurdum
2. ~Ch.....................premise
3. (x)(~~Cx v Cx)...1 MI
4. (x)(Cx v Cx).........3 DN
5. (x)(Cx).................4 Taut
6. Ch........................5 UI
7. Ch & ~Ch.............2, 6 Conj
8. ~(x)(~Cx > Cx).....1 to 7 reductio ad absurdum

Line 8 negates your premise 1c. that no conditions for love are conditions for love.

There's another way your argument fails and that's where you say "(no condition) is condition" which translates to (~c) = c if c = condition

1. (~c) = c.....premise
2. c = (~c).....commutativity
3. ~(c = c).....rephrasing of 2 (there are no rules to apply) which is a violation of the law of idenity
4. c = c identity
5. (c = c) & (~(c = c))....contradiction

Apart from that we also have to consider the scope of conditions in conditional love so that we may comprehend without tying ourselves in a knot. Conditional love, in my view, is based on some quality in the person you love - things like beauty, moral goodness, etc. Ergo, by unconditional, unconditional love simply disregards these qualities deemed by most as necessary for love and loves nevertheless.

1.d)
If we know that the die is perfectly symmetrical, then combining that knowledge with our incomplete knowledge of the initial states and outcomes described in the previous paragraphs, we can conclude that 1/6th of the initial states lead to outcome ‘1’, 1/6th of the initial states lead to outcome ‘2’, 1/6th of the initial states lead to outcome ‘3’, and so on. This is the same as saying that each outcome has probability 1/6 of being realized, that’s the definition of probability. This result isn’t obvious but it can be proven mathematically, offering us partial knowledge of the function f. — leo

This is what I've been saying all along. Deterministic systems can behave probabilistically.

Let me get this straight.

1. In a deterministic system there's a well defined function that maps each initial state (I) to a unique outcome (O) like so: f(I) = O.

2. In a non-deterministic system there is no such function because there are more than one outcome e.g. initial state A could lead to outcomes x, y, z,...

You mentioned a "function" pf(I) = O but if memory serves a function can't have more than one output which is what's happening in non-deterministic systems according to you: one initial state and multiple outcomes.

Basically in non-deterministic systems there is irreducible probability even if you have complete knowledge of the system, whereas in deterministic systems the probabilities are only a sign of incomplete knowledge, and disappear when we have complete knowledge. — leo

A fine point. :up:

So as you can see, it is not the case that in a non-deterministic system the outcomes will not exhibit any pattern whatsoever, it isn’t the case that a non-deterministic system is totally random. — leo

So, there's a difference between non-determinism and randomness but you have to admit that both can be described with mathematical probability.

Thanks for being so helpful.

I was just surprised at the statement that Philosophy can only proceed by logic. — Mikey

Insight is far more revealing, but then must be converted to logic — Mikey

These two statements seem to be contradicting each other or if not, it clearly asserts the preeminence of logic.

Although we started off by associating pattern recognition with insight, I think there's something more to it than just that.

Some issues or problems maybe unique enough to have nothing in common with anything else: this would mean that an absence of a pattern. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head but how about cyber-crime? Cyber-crime is a recent development and when the first laws were drafted there were no precedents - no patterns. In such cases we would need to identify the critical and nonessential elements of cyber-crime and work from these to laws that make sense. I think I mentioned this aspect of insight in a previous post.

Even if I'm no socialist, the real societal problem is the division of income and if there emerges a new class of povetry, those who aren't as poor as earlier, but idle and sustain an adequate, but meager lifestyle by wealth transfers. This can create a situation where the society lacks cohesion and anything unifying. Coming from a Nordic welfare state, it might be sound strange to Americans, but welfare state does create it's own problems, even if I would choose those problems rather than absolute povetry or crime. The biggest problem is alienation from the society. Imagine if not only you hadn't ever worked, but your parents and your grandparents had never worked. Unemployment carries a huge stigma and truly makes people fall into apathy as being unemployed is seen as a personal fault: there's still that job at McDonalds open.

Even if the economy can sustain this, thanks to cheap robot labour, it does create a lot of social problems.
2h — ssu

So, you foresee alienation from society via unemployment as an undesirable consequence of mechanization. Have you watched the animation wall-E? If you haven't then it's about humanity having literally trashed the earth and a sizable population of humans being sent out on a spaceship to find a habitable planet or wait for earth to recover from the damage humans have caused. The spaceship is fully mechanized; there's literally nothing for a human to do except eat, drink, and sleep. This image of the future of man and machine existing in harmony is very appealing to me. Even though the main antagonist in the movie is the AI captain of the ship, the movie breaks from tradition in depicting machines in a good light.

1. Probability expresses incomplete knowledge that we have about a system.

2. The exact same initial states in a deterministic system lead to the exact same outcome.

3. The exact same initial states in a non-deterministic system can lead to different outcomes.

What are they in your view?

Also read my previous two posts carefully, I think eventually it will click for you. I’m taking quite a lot of time to help you understand, so it would be fair if you took at least as much time to read and attempt to understand my posts. — leo

That's a great explanation. Thank you for your time and patience.

However...

In your definition of non-determinism you concede that there is something you don't know viz. the outcomes and then you go on to say that probability is about incomplete knowledge. So it must follow that non-determinism is just probability or are you claiming that there's a difference that depends on what you're ignorant about- only the initial states or only the outcomes - and probability would be an issue of ignorance regarding initial states but non-determinism would be ignorance about outcomes despite having knowledge of the initial states.

If that's the case you're making then non-determinism can't be understood in any way because the outcomes will not exhibit any pattern whatsoever. In other words non-determinism is true randomness with every outcome having equal probability and that brings us to where we began - that non-determinism = probability.

I think you’re conflating probability and non-determinism. — leo

What are the following in your view?

1. Probability

2. Determinism

3. Non-determinism

If I understand what you're implying correctly, I would say that whoever it is that privatized the "river" (in the fishing metaphor) is the one guilty of theft, and that the solution to the problem is to correct that theft and return the "river" back to public property as it originally was. — Pfhorrest

Your solution is very seductive but will it work? If one looks to history for evidence, good ideas tend to effortlessly gain a foothold and then propagate, as effortlessly, among the people. Why hasn't your solution, if it is as effective as you say, seen the light of day?

Perhaps you could ask the same of my proposal and perhaps the answer to both will reveal to us the true nature of the problem.

They are dysfunctional because they have been fucked over too many times. — Bitter Crank

You're right in that things have been just too chaotic for countries to devise effective economic strategies and even when that was done, the environment was just too volatile for implementation.

I wonder though if that's the only reason for the poor state of affairs. I mean is it necessary for the conditions to be "perfect" before anything can be done? I guess it's not a question of whether there's any green pastures for our cattle to feed on but whether we've managed to escape the wolves. The conditions are so bad.

if everybody would lose their because of automation and AI taking over, the aggregate demand side of the system would dramatically fall and nobody would make investments. — ssu

Yes, I agree. Wholesale mechanization isn't going to happen because it would obliterate the market but only if the only way to acquire money is employment and money is the only way to acquire goods.

How, in your opinion, would we make the necessary transition if complete mechanization becomes a reality and I'm thinking of true general AI here. Humans would become obsolete in the truest sense of the word and assuming such general AI wouldn't opt to exterminate humans, what would be our role in such a world?

You believe that the die behaves non-deterministically, that’s wrong. — leo

Well, what is the best way to model a die throw in your view?

1. Probability

2. Determinism

Both right?

So where would the line be between apophenia and insightful pattern recognition? — Siti

Logic never gets it wrong — Siti

What on earth is a pattern anyway? One meaning that stares us in the face is repetition e.g. a bird motif on a fabric or carpet; a certain rule being applied, again, repetitively e.g. in a mathematical sequence where the next number in the sequence is a matter of applying the same, exact rule to the preceding number.

Apophenia, as I understand it, is seeing connections where none exist. It has also come to mean the human tendency to seek patterns. The impression this definition of apophenia gives is that, in actuality, there is no pattern. Perhaps I misunderstand; correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe this is incorrect insofar as apophenia asserts that there is no pattern for the simple reason that we can perceive a pattern, even if "untrue", only if the object of consideration has the pattern perceived. As an example we see faces on objects that possess a facial pattern and not in objects whose structures preclude the lines, light and shade, etc. of faces.

Let's consider your example of the famous face on Mars. It's impossible to deny that we can see a face because, well, we do. That particular feature in the Martian terrain undoubtedly has the pattern of a human face. Apophenia can't deny the existence of a pattern but it can claim that some patterns aren't the real thing; the face on Mars isn't an actual face.

There is a danger in thinking that every object that possesses the pattern of an object, say x, is x. The object x exists in a certain environment and has relationships that can be associative and causal. x maybe cause and effect and associated with other objects. If we consider all patterns of x-type to be x then we have to accept all the relationships it has, associative and causal, and that would be erroneous. For instance the face on Mars if taken to be a human face, would force us to believe in a Martian civilization very similar to our own but dead dead and gone.

Insight, as pattern recognition but contrasted with apophenia, is simply the recognition of a pattern that is a defining feature of a class of objects. As an example Newton's realization that heavenly bodies twirling around in space and an apple falling are similar - there's a pattern - is an insight of monumental significance or so scientists say.

I'm sure you already know this but I'll say it anyway: logic is basically a pattern of thinking that leads to truths. Logic is a codification of valid forms of argumentation which are basically patterns of "correct" thinking.

Even if you concentrate on something to figure out parts of what you are seeing, it will still be the neural net that suddenly picks up the pattern and shows it to you. — Mikey

I don't know why you brought up the notion of suddenness into insight but aren't you ignoring the probably many hours, even years spent on a problem before a breakthrough. It misses the point in some respect doesn't it? After all suddenness if critical to the definition of insight completely ignores the effort that usually goes into serious thinking. Nonetheless, insight is orgasmic if thinking is likened to sex.

isn't pattern recognition that shows the similarity. It's logic. I don't think insight is great for "super patterns". — Mikey

They are like a computer asked to multiply by infinity. — Mikey

What do you mean by "super patterns"?

I like the analogy of a computer tasked with multiplying infinity. If you mean that there are limits to what our minds can do, then yes, at times, depending on our intelligence which differs from person to person, we do find ourselves faced with problems that are nothing short of an impassable barrier.

Yet I feel that incomprehensibility is a sign of a collision between the usual state of affairs and special cases. The former allows us to construct rules that govern them and understanding sets in but the moment latter are encountered we are left scratching our heads in utter confusion. Infinity is like that, a special quantity that defies all the mathematical rules that work perfectly with finite numbers.

It seems to me you believe you have understood while you haven’t really understood. — leo

Tell me what is it that I didn't understand.

You're conflating knowing one die roll with knowing all of them — Harry Hindu

Correct. Thanks.

Agreed. Case in point: in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a chronic unemployment situation. Gov's idea to solve it? In Canada? To teach people good and better job hunting skills, interview skills.

This was the stupidest thing they could think of. Sure, people would be better educated in the arts of getting a job, but everyone would be. But everyone was better educated, so nobody would be advantages — god must be atheist

I think ssu addressed your concern. One reason I didn't say "education is the solution" is because it's rather non-specific and also takes a lot of time to bear fruit which, to complicate matters, isn't guaranteed.

I was thinking more along the lines of vocational training which has a smaller, thus appropriate, time-frame and can be tailored to the employment market. It would be, as you said, stupid to train 10,000 for 10 jobs but such "solutions" reflect an understanding of the roots of poverty - a lack of any perceptible skills for gainful employment. So, it's simply a question of adapting the core idea of job-skills training to the existing realities of the job market.

If the above can't be done then the only reason for that is that the economic system doesn't have the capacity to create as many jobs as required. This reminds me of Trump. He was at one time bragging about how many jobs his administration created for Americans and although he made a big deal about it, I'm guessing it did little to reduce the poverty rate in America.

One key determinant in this imbalance between jobs available and job-seeking people is mechanization. Machines are more efficient and cheaper than a human workforce: to find employment in such an environment is nearly impossible. Also, machines seem to occupy the employment sector that requires the least of skills, their only advantage being their efficiency and cost. This ultimately means that humans can find employment in areas where machines haven't entered the scene and such jobs require a level of training and skill that is both beyond the reach of many and also highly competitive.

Mechanization is probably just one of the factors leading to poverty. Whatever other factors may be involved, it brings to relief the major role of unemployment in poverty.

This is a good idea (that is, as you say, probably being implemented somewhere already), but I would contest that the root cause of poverty is really inability to get a decent-paying job, because that translates to "inability to prove your worth to the people who control access to the resources you need to survive — Pfhorrest

I see. While I agree that there's something immoral, if that's what you mean, about the arrangement of having to make yourself deserving of survival in the eyes of those who "control access to the resources" just so that they can then give you what you need. However, the notion of deservedness is also reflexive in that we impose this condition of taking only that which we deserve on ourselves. I don't know the exact rationale behind it but the alternative is theft.

The problem that these programs face, even the most excellent ones, is that many, many millions of people live in societies that are at least somewhat dysfunctional, and no amount of programming can overcome people's disadvantages on a piecemeal basis. — Bitter Crank

How are such societies dysfunctional? Personally speaking there seems to be a malady hidden from view in the economic system which itself may have origins elsewhere. I mentioned machines and how they replace humans in the workforce as a contributory factor to poverty. Machines seem to transcend any and all differences - they're literally omnipresent in all economic systems. The Americans use machines, the Russians use machines and the Chinese use machines. No race, no creed, no religion is averse to the use of machines. While they started off as friends, making work easier, they've turned into foes - replacing us instead of assisting us.

Charities won't get money if they would help Third World countries with the slogan: "We'll transform the workforce of these poor countries to highly educated kick-ass competitive professionals so that global corporations will flock to move their factories to these countries from the US!" — ssu

That's a poor view of charities and again reflects a deep flaw in the economic system that prevents us from giving real assistance to the poor and allows us actions that keep the poor poor.