JWST Mission Objectives (in a nutshell)

1. Detect first stars (astronomy)

2. Detect first galaxies (astronomy)

3. Atmospheric studies of potentially habitable exoplanets (colonization)

It looks like old habits die hard (3). Worse, all of us will be doing what we kvetch that some (Europeans) did to others (Indians, Africans, Asians).

it's not all wordsalad — jas0n

:lol:

I suppose the OP is designed not to discuss religion per se but the Wittgensteinian take on language and its implications vis-à-vis philosophy, specifically the nature of/problem with meaning/definitions.

If we are to construct a Venn diagram with religions, there is nothing in the region where all the circles overlap. That would be what I understand to be the essence of religion, its defining feature. Lacking such a unifying common factor, how do we understand the meaning of the word "religion"?

The meaning is to be found elsewhere then, necessarily so, oui! Wittgenstein claimed that meaning is use. What exactly this means is probably lost in translation, Wittgenstein wrote in German. :smile:

probabilistic view of metaphysics — apokrisis

:up:

And as I tried to impress on you, a curve is not even close to a multitude of straight lines. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now, you're joking, right? :smile:

Now you're getting the idea. Yes, I agree, that anyone who scrapped that stuff would be greatly handicapped at this time of scrapping the stuff. But necessity is the mother of invention, and what would develop out of the scrapping, making a fresh start, knowing what we know now, would be a great improvement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Show us then a different method of measuring the length of a curve if not using infinitesimally small straight lines. I bet you can't and so infinitesimals and infinity it is. Nevertheless we'll wait, with baited breath, for you to discover a new way of tackling curves.

jas0n
191
So, if we're to avoid the pitfall of talking past each other, we must come to an agreement as to what the words we use mean,
— Agent Smith

To do so would require that we use words, yes? Hence the hopelessness of starting from scratch. And what works in math won't work in philosophy. 'Language is received like the law,' and meaning evolves historically. — jas0n

I don't get how Wittgensteinian philosophers can be so certain of their claims when they simultaneously also assert that the very thing they're making the claims with - language - is inadequate for this purpose.

If they say they've achieved clarity, then they're wrong about language, oui?

If the opposite - things are as hazy as before - why put stock into their statements? Nothing has changed.

Well, there are lots of ambiguities in mathematical symbolism. The equal symbol for example, then the idea of transforms and transformations, etc. In advanced math one has to consider context to interpret accurately. — jgill

I believe you mean polysemy (a feature) and not ambiguity (a bug).

:smile:

"The Old Shadow" (Freddy N.) – Erdős was merely projecting. :wink: — 180 Proof

What is so fascist about God? Late Paul Erdős is not alone in this particular or rather peculiar point of view in re the God-human relationship. The late Christopher Hitchens refers to YHWY as a, get this, celestial dictator. There are others like Mikhail Bakunin who supposedly said "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."

Why do people fear a theocracy? Look at Iran, look at North Korea. I don't know how clear my ideas about theocracies and autocracies are but in my mind both these countries are associated with the color dull grey - such systems suck the life out of you; truth is (I got this from an article on how technology - MRI scans, CT scans - can virtually unwrap mummies) religions and dictatorships are tools that are used to conduct virtual lobotomies of entire populations, numbering in the millions. :chin:

I hope I haven't derailed this thread to the point of it becoming irrecoverable. There's a mention of color and infrared (JWST) is a color, it's just that only our skins can "see" it, not our eyes. :grin:

The issue is that this type of approximation produces the illusion that we understand what a curve is, when we really do not. There's a fundamental incommensurability between two dimensions of space, which makes things like pi and the square root of two irrational ratios. What it indicates is that we lack a proper understanding of space.

The fact that we are in the habit of reducing straight lines at angles to each other to curved lines through the application of infinity, Is evidence that we simply ignore this deep misunderstanding, and proceed as if we think that we understand. I would argue that the "damage control" which you claim, is basically non-existent, because those employing the principles actually believe themselves to have an adequate understand, when infinity proves useful, therefore wouldn't even seek damage control. The problem is prevalent all through modern physics, with vectors and spins, etc. — Metaphysician Undercover

All I can say is

Le meglio è l'inimico del bene — Voltaire

Please note mathematicians are under no illusion that a curve is in fact made up of infinite straight lines. They are, as I tried to impress upon you, estimations (not exactly a curve, but close). I'm reading this book on mathematics and there's a chapter on the dome of the Hagia Sophia which required the construction of a square. The architects had to find the length of the diagonal (actually the $\sqrt 2$) and they did that using an ingenious method which involved the use of a rational approxomation much like how Archimedes stopped at $\frac{22}{7}$ as the value of $\pi$.

It would be wise not to underestimate the intelligence of people, mathematicians included.

Actually "infinite-sided polygon", to me, can only be interpreted as an incoherent object — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because your conception of $\infty$ doesn't allow you to to make sense of it. Different strokes for different folks. to each his own, eh?

I'm sure you're aware of this but how different is a curve from a straight line between two points that are infinitesimally close to each other? Try drawing a chord between two points on a circle. As the two points come closer, the chord and the arc subtended by these two points approach each other. Extrapolate that unto infinity and you'll get an idea of what mathematicians are trying to convey here.

The idea, it seems, is to reduce the error to an arbitrarily small value and what better way to do that than using infinitesimally small straight lines which results in a corresponding infinity of straight lines (smaller the straight lines, more of them you'll need to measure the circumference).

Please note, I have only a rudimentary grasp of mathematics; although I love the subject, it's not exactly my strong suit. Just sharing my intuitions on the matter.

Also, you're correct about how no matter how small you make straight lines, they can never be curves. It depends then, doesn't it, how stringent one's criteria are. If you want to split hairs then all mathematics that depend on infinity and infinitesimals need to be scrapped. We would be much handicapped if we were to do that.

The way out of this would be to accept that infinities can be used for increasing the accuracy of our estimates but then we need to make it clear that no matter how good our estimate it still is never going to be the real McCoy.

What say you?

Well, all that I can say at this moment is I don't quite follow your language game. Did you get a handle on mine?

Each word has a form of life that maybe private (enough) to be incomprehensible to an other. So, if we're to avoid the pitfall of talking past each other, we must come to an agreement as to what the words we use mean, but then that's impossible for it seems the notion of private languages applies also to groups/socieites/tribes if you will.

It's possible that you and your favorite philosophers, some of whom you mention by name, could be participants in a language game I'm not familiar with. The same applies to you however, I'm playing my own language game, a simple one in all likelihood but still one that'll you have to work out for yourself, assuming you feel that's worthwhile.

As for me, I'm trying my level best to get an idea of what you're trying to say here. Do you mean, à la Wittgenstein, that language is inadequate for philosophy? If yes, why make all this effort to convey your thoughts? If no, why bring up Wittgenstein at all? :chin:

Coming to what I said about logic, semantics is irrelevant. If so, Wittgenstein is too, oui? I don't need to know the meaning of words to do philosophy, a rational/logical enterprise, so long as I'm consistent, ja? P and Q in $P \to Q$ must mean the same thing as in another statement like $P \land Q$ in the same argument. Note here that P and Q can be anything at all - semantics is not an issue.

The vacuum cannot not reveal "Himself". — 180 Proof

Let's give the supreme fascist a chance! Let's not get too cocky surey! :lol:

No. That's like a fish giving up water. We think metaphorically, maybe only metaphorically. The point is to not be trapped unwittingly in a metaphor — jas0n

You want me to eat the cake and have it too. :grin: I like that although you have my sympathies, having painted yourself into a corner like that. That's what happens to all philosophers in the end. They tend to exit one cage only to walk into another. My personal point of view; could be way off the mark. The question is am I?

Philosophers (and regular folks) still don't agree what 'God' means, what 'exist' means, what 'intervene' means (at least in this context), and of course what 'mean' 'means.' Meaning is social and therefore ambiguous. We mostly ignore this, because we mostly stick to practical talk. Start talking religion and politics and things get ugly. Somehow the other fellow just doesn't 'see' it (the folly of his ways, his bad logic, etc.) — jas0n

Don't conflate disagreement with problems with meaning. Indeed, differences in definition is a cause of many quarrels, but then to oversimplify it as being only a definitional issue is not, in my humble opinion, a very sensible thing to do.

I have my concepts, my own logic, and I can understand them within the constraints and freedom therein present. You can't tell me I'm confused and nor can I say the same thing about you, oui?

If I catch your drift, I had an inkling of that then. Observe, how physical, how tangible, the words "grasp" and "see", synonyms of the word "understand" are. How "craving" is "clinging", how "justification" is "bedrock", how "perspective" is an "angle" and so on.

Indeed, we still seem to be in the grips of such metaphors if they are that to begin with.

Do you mean to recommend that we abandon this figurative language? How will that advance our cause which is to comprehend the universe and ourselves? If we discard all these familiar modes of expression, we're left with absolutely nothing! Then, perhaps, we can think in pictures, wordless images.

Intriguingly, language did begin as pictures (pictography): the letter "A" is actually a sketch of an ox (head). You'll have to invert "A" to notice that. Similarly the letter "w" is supposed to capture the waves on/in water or something like that.

Only later did language evolve to become what it is - abstract sound-based symbolism. Why? Probably because it made language more versatile, complex enough to express ideas and describe the world. So, when I write "A", I ignore the ox noggin that it actually is, and latch onto, instinctively as it were, to what it is now (a certain sound) and what meaning it has been ascribed, if any.

What about how logic is semantics-independent? The form of valid arguments use variables (p, q, r, etc.) that can be replaced with actual propositions with constituent concepts/words (constants).


Modus Ponens
1. If p then q
2. p
Ergo
3. q

Suppose an argument about God:

Argument X
1. If God exists then God intervenes (in human affairs)
2. God exists
Ergo,
3. God intervenes

If you're a theist, the argument will make sense to you (the conditional, statement 1 in both arguments). However, if a deist, statement 1, the conditional, is false.

In other words, homing in on the actual meaning of "God" is a matter of logic. If disagreements pop up, one reason could different meanings for the same word. We can then analyze the argument and reconstruct the definition which one's interlocutor is employing.

Also, logic doesn't care about semantics, just make sure you're consistent in usage of words and it's smooth sailing.

To put it simply, we can altogether ignore semantics just so long as you get the grammar/syntax of logic correct. In other words, Wittgenstein, whose philosophy is semantics-oriented, is taken out of the equation as it were. :grin:

think you underestimate their force and prevalence. Lakoff, Hofstadter, Wittgenstein. Folks have been trying to tell us that we think in pictures, often without realizing it. See what I mean? (With your inner eye.) Do you grasp what I'm saying? (With your intellectual hand?).

How can abstract thoughts get themselves established in the first place? — jas0n

We think in pictures? Perhaps, but still in the dark about how.

All I can tell you is this. Once rationality or to be precise, logic, enters the picture, semantics is no longer part of the game. Logic has its own syntax and that's all that matters. Validity, as you'll recall, is all about form, the content is of zero significance. When I think logically, it's all syntax and no semantics.

Ergo, I feel justified to say, Wittgenstein is irrelevant to philosophy as it's wholly a logical exercise. It doesn't matter what I think p or q means so long as we both agree that modus ponens holds like so:

1. If p then q
2. p
Ergo
3. q

If the argument above makes sense to me with what I substiute for p and q, is it the same for you with your own assignments for p and q, their specific values?

:confused:

I do recall coming across that particular story. How does that help in furthering the discussion? So, there's this carpenter and his help, a coupla words, and basic syntax, all the necessary ingredients for a simple language. Now what? What's the point?

over simplification — apokrisis

What's that? I mean what's oversimplification? So simple that it fails to give an accurate account? Childish stick figures?

Too much money and too many generational careers have been dedicated to this mission for it be a "random shot in the dark". Like gravity waves, Higgs bosons, black hole imagery, thousands of exo-planets (Hubble, Kepler, etc), acceleration of cosmic expansion, etc – just in the last quarter century alone, my man, like "The Killer" himself sang, "there's a whole lotta shakin' going on" in so-called "Big Science". — 180 Proof

When scientists do something, it's certain that years of planning have gone into it. Expect success rather than failure, almost all relevant contingencies have been taken into account! Only Divine interference can mess things up for science. Either we relax and enjoy the ride or God will reveal Himself! Win-win! Eh?

Some have claimed that our technical/abstract terms are just dead metaphors, their blood having been drained till they are imageless. — jas0n

:up: Did we extract the essence therein or was all of it just a waste of our time?

Well, you have a point although you didn't answer my question which is what's the difference between contexts and language games? It's perhaps being to narrow-minded to say they're the same, but if they're distinct concepts, no one till date has clarified as to how.

As for metaphors, I have nothing against their use - it makes for interesting reading, adds zest to what otherwise would be a dull and boring interaction among ourselves to say nothing of how it makes certain subjects/topics more relatable, oui?

How would you have it? Minus the metaphors would you even grasp the basics (of any subject)? It's hard to say how much of culture is mistaken for nature: people seem to call it as they see it, in my humble opinion. If a known cultural pattern is apposite, I see no harm in using it to make sense of nature. Also, I feel there isn't that much of a difference between culture and nature - each seems to inform the other until they blend to the point of being an inseparable whole/unity - where does culture begin and where does nature end?

Wittgenstein, does he use a lot of metaphors in his work? I haven't been able to get my hands on his later book (Philosophical Analysis or something).

A maximally great being exists: $(\forall x)(Mx \to (\exists y)(y = x))$

If god is the maximally great being then god exists = $Mg \to (\exists y)(y = g)$

What's the difference between $(\exists x)(Gx)$ (God exists) and $(\exists x)(x = g)$ (there exists something and that something is god) where g is God?

(∀x)(DOGx→(∃y)(y=x)) — MLP

If x is a dog then there exists a y such that y = x.

Nice! Simpler than my formulation which isn't wrong per se, but is cumbersome.

Most language is too meaningful, too suggestive, explosively untamed. It needs context, context, context. Philosophy still doesn't know what it means by 'meaning.' But (practical) math requires much less context and yet delivers far more clarity. Math is 'hard' because...most people find it too boring for the necessary concentration ? Or they drag in too much meaning and can't just see it as a calculus? I think it's harder to understand Hegel or Derrida or Wittgenstein than to learn calculus. I don't claim to have mastered any of those thinkers. The dialogue is endless. — jas0n

Mathematics is overrated then, oui? I don't know how to respond to that, math being my hobby and all.

I can say this though: Mathematics helps reduce vagueness (Wittgenstein's family resemblance is ultimately that, oui?).

As for context, I've oft repeated that Wittgenstein hasn't said anything new and I fail to see why all this fuss about his so-called language games. If you disagree you need to tell us how contexts differ from language games. Are you up to the task?

If I tell you that a tower of infinities actually exists in something like a Platonic realm, what does that mean for you and me? If you tell me that you do believe in but not , what am I to make of that? Does it mean you therefore aren't interested in it? But perhaps a skeptic studies the system to debunk it. On the level of math, it's dry logic, something like a symbol game. This tower exists within that 'fiction,' just as the bishop exists in the rules of Chess. It's not clear what is being denied or asserted when we are talking about the outside of this game. Does the denier mean to indicate that his intuition has peeked into Platonic heaven and only found infinity classic? Or is it a matter of taste? Utility? Maybe a mix of things. In any case, ambiguity — jas0n

I'd say you're taking Wittgenstein a bit too far. There are clear-cut definitions in mathematics which don't allow either ambiguity or vagueness. Mind you I'm familiar with high school math only; perhaps it's different at PhD level.

Remember math is a constructed world and in being that it has an advantage viz. precise definitions which, for me, makes no intuitive sense at all. That's just how the game is played I guess.

Math is brilliantly stupid — jas0n

:lol: Explain yourself.

In my humble opinion, Wittgenstein sets the bar too high. As the title of his book, On Certainty, it becomes clear that he's critiquing, what he probably believes is, the impossible standards of philosophy (impossible in the sense too rigid, lacking flexibility, exacting, stringent, you get the idea).

This, mayhaps, isn't Wittgenstein, but rather other philosophers who put a premium on precision in re words, which, as per Wittgenstein, boils down to getting a fix on the essence of words which he claims is an illusion.


Mind you, I've never really understood Wittgenstein. He feels wrong and so I've decided to skip him in my qyest to understand philosophy.

That's math, though, a game of symbols, a generalization of chess, one might say. One can be ultra-precise in this limited domain. — jas0n

"limited domain"? Perhaps you're on the mark, but, from personal experience (haven't had much of that to be frank), I'd say mathematizing issues (transforming it into a mathematical one) goes a long way towards resolving them.

Science is math, if not it can't be a science (physics envy).

That said, it's still unclear to me how and where Wittgenstein is relevant vis-à-vis science. I've stumbled upon a very basic point of contention (ostensive definitions), but science is known for stipulative, operational and theoretical definitions. I'm not sure how all that relates to Wittgenstein-Popper in re science-philosophy.

All that comes to mind is that science seems to be employing a host of ostensive definitions - we can point to stuff that science deals in (rockets, shells, and so on). Wittgenstein had issues with ostensive definitions but then science, on the face of it, isn't inconvenienced by them (there's no doubt as to where a shell or a rocket will land once we specify the values of the variables in the correct equation). In short the precision of science (to, some say, the 15^th decimal place) is against the Wittgensteinian view that language is imprecise.

Yes. And for me the issue of whether there are 'really' various infinities leads inexorably what we could mean if we say so. All roads seem to lead to the 'problem' of the meaning of 'meaning. — jas0n

I lost the scent there buddy.

It all depends on how you define "circle-like". — Metaphysician Undercover

:chin:

IMO, there would be no difference at all. The phrase 'infinite-sided polygon' is typically interpreted as a circle. (Nonstandard interpretations are possible, of course.) — jas0n

Yep! Thanks for letting me know. @Metaphysician Undercover will find this tid bit right up his alley.

What I would like to stress on is if it's (genesis of the universe and life) is goimg to be, as you claim, bottom-up (for me this means going from the simple to the complex), there really is no need to posit an intelligence. It could proceed quite naturally, on its own accord, without the intervention of a "higher power".

That said, I've always wondered, when it comes to anything, anything at all, what defines genius, the ability to create complexity directly (e.g. creating humans fully formed) or indirectly, via small, simple, cumulative increments à la evolution? If I were to present to you two (computer) codes, one is simple but can evolve complexity over time and the other complex from the start, which is cleverer?

As for information being the building blocks of reality, I can detect no inconsistency; in fact we have proof of concept in the form of simulated universes e.g. as alluded to in The Matrix movies (re video games).

You might like this :point: Uncovering the codes of reality (Professor S. James Gates) [error-correcting codes]

All I can say is you're not incorrect, but as I pointed out, infinity allows approximations that turn out to be useful when dealing with feminine geometric objects (curves). Mathematicians seem to have isolated infinity to certain domains in math by way of damage control (infinity is like nuclear power - useful, yes, but extremely dangerous) i.e. they've been retained in areas where the accompanying paradoxes aren't as problematic. This is just a hunch of mine - it seems a reasonable course of action taking into account the givens.

Even having been a prof of mathematics I learn something about the subject on this forum. Never came across this. — jgill

It's physicists taking a dig at mathematicians. The Teakettle Principle, in my humble opinion, is basically a variation of don't reinvent the wheel principle, but there's more to problem solving than just standard/formulaic solutions, oui?

It (The Teakettle Principle) makes a whole lot of sense, but then it's ridiculous to follow the principle mechanically. That's the gist of the joke as far as I can tell.

My hunch is there is no solid reason for the panpsychism hypothesis. It's pure speculation and to that extent is less likely to attract subscribers but that doesn't mean it's not interesting. I suppose these two aspects of the hypothesis will face each other off with a clear winner - it does get our juices flowing.

What motivates panpyschism? — OP

Indeed, what does motivate panpsychism?

Let's see how things stand.

The soul remains, as of yet, a hypothetical. We haven't, as of yet, proven that we h. sapiens, the most eligible candidate, have souls.

Then, out of the blue, someone comes along and claims, everything has a soul!

WTF? Is this a joke? This must a fallacy of some kind, oui? More alarmingly, it has sophistry written all over it. :grin:

Looked it up, and it's a big part of math. 'We'll transform this into a quadratic equation, which we covered last week...' — jas0n

I wish! :smile:

As you probably know, the old timers of math tended to feel that way...that only 'potential' infinity was respectable. But beyond what is accepted formally (say you embrace the symbol game of an infinite tower of differing infinities), an ancient problem remains. What does it all mean? To what does it all refer? How does it hook up with the rest of life? — jas0n

I don't know, but @T Clark might have something to say. The metaphysics, the ontology, of infinity, may not be as important as how useful it is to us. Figuring out if there are actual infinities or if they're just potential infinities would be the icing on the cake, yes?

circle-like — Metaphysician Undercover

The word "like", in my humble opinion, furnishes the required degree of freedom to claim that (say) a 192-sided polygon is an approximation of a circle. Your eyes, for sure, will find it really difficult to tell them apart, even your sensitive finger tips will fail in this task.

I believe it's this very issue that you raise that makes infinity so attractive/appealing to mathematicians; You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an $\infty$-sided polygon and an actual circle. Invoking Leibniz's 2^nd law of identity (the identity of indiscernibles), I'd say it's all good; for all intents and purposes, won't you agree?

What if your die had an infinite number of sides, do you think it would be circular? — Metaphysician Undercover

N.B. Something is better than nothing is the key principle at play here. We can reject infinity for many reasons, but look at all the good it's doing!

Do you mean , the cardinality of the natural numbers? — jas0n

Aye!

arbitrarily close — jas0n

Yep, that's the phrase I was looking for. Infinity is used to get as close as possible to a target (curves/females). Have you heard of The Teakettle principle

Well it makes for a lovely myth (sort of like Nietzsche going mad from his denial of God). He moved on from the lemniscate to the Hebrew alphabet before going mad, btw — jas0n

$\aleph_0$. That's the only infinity that makes sense to me; kinda feel like a time traveler (physically in the 21^st century but mentally a mathematical troglodyte)