Vladimir Putin exists. Where p = Vladimir Putin, $(\exists x)(x = p)$

Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist. Where s = Sherlock Holmes, $(\forall x) \neg (x = s)$ = $\neg (\exists x) (x = s)$

As I thought, in predicate logic, predication is only possible for existent things. You can't talk about particular nonexistent objects while you can about them as a class:

1. Some unicorns are white = $(\exists x)(Ux \land Wx)$ where Ux = x is a unicorn and Wx = x is white. Clearly this is false because "some"/$\exists x$ has an existential import.

2. All unicorns are white = $(\forall x)(Ux \to Wx)$. The "all" lacks existential import and so this can be true despite the fact that unicorns exist.

So, we can talk about an entire class of imaginary entities but not of individuals in that class.

Come now to Anslem's ontological proof. God is the maximally great being.

A maximally great being exists. As you can see, Anselm is usimg existence as a predicate i.e. $(\forall x)(Mx \to Ex)$ where Mx = x is a maximally great being and Ex = x exists. We can see where Anselm goofs up. All maximally great beings are existent things (IF x is maximally great being THEN x exists). The class of maximally great beings can be an empty set, but then the consequent claims there's a member in that set.

non-conceptual awareness — Possibility

Would you say that's phenomenology in a loose sense? I heard phenomenology is about dumping all conceptual schema that exist and we employ to make sense of the world and focusing our attention on phenomena (appearances). Kinda sorta makes sense; after all noumena will forever remain beyond, on the other side of, our event horizon.

Makes sense in a weird sorta way.

We say "a" or "an" when there's only one of something e.g. " an apple" or "a dog".

Death will come one day. I promise :) — I like sushi

:sad: So much to do, so little time.

And this is an example of mysticism? Obsession with lemniscates will lead to no good. Please see your psychoanalyst — jgill

:lol: Good call. The lemniscate, if you'll recall, was the reason Cantor lost his marbles. Of course Kroenecker was being nasty; probably that was the proverbial last straw that broke the camel's back.

Non. On ne peut pas spéculer sans comprendre.

We know enough about how life began to understand that there's nothing magic about it. No elan vital. All the materials are standard stuff - carbon, hydrogen, iron, water, oxygen, nitrogen, calcium, etc. They're all put together by chemical processes that follow the rules of organic chemistry. Of course there's more to it than that, but it's clear it's one of those things science is good at figuring out and will — T Clark

:up:

:up:

It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3) — Gnomon

This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism.

Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion). — Daniel Bonevac

I suppose scientists can be forgiven for their unwavering faith in science - it's got "so many things right", unlike religion. Nevertheless, we should be as skeptical about science as science is skeptical about other methods of gaining knowledge. Fairness demands it! :smile:

The method of exhaustion, refined to the notion of limits in calculus, is clearly stated as an approximation by mathematicians. A 96-sided polygon isn't a circle but is merely circle-like, that's all. Something is better than nothing, oui? Infinity simply inreases the accuracy of our calculations and I guess that's why it's such a big deal.

Nevertheless, you have a point. Now that I think about it mathematics, though described as the queen of the sciences by Gauss, is like trying to understand women (curves) in very manly (straight lines) terms.

Good day!

In a world where moving (thinking) is the only activity, an object (thinker) coming to a dead stop (cease thinking), I feel, doesn't mean that object ceases to exist; it's (thinker's) at rest (not thinking), that's all.

I was being a tad pedantic — I like sushi

I'm but a novice. Learning, when does it end, eh?

Just read the first line and it is wrong. Predictions are based on the assumptions that there are features of nature common and repetitive enough to allow for accurate readings. — I like sushi

I believe we're talking about the same thing but with different words.

Predictions, we all know, is based on a pattern (extending it to be precise) aka the laws of nature. Anyone with an advanced degree in math and the right equipment can detect a mathematical pattern in nature.

Explaining the pattern (the laws of nature) is the next step. Hypotheses are formulated and appropriate predictions are made. When predictions match a hypothesis we say that hypothesis is, after being evaluated, based on other criteria, against other competing hypotheses, best, not true.

Laws of nature are descriptive. They are either true or not (correspondence theory of truth)

Hypotheses/Theories are predictive/retrodictive. We use them to foretell the future and also explain the past . They are not true although they can be falsified when predictions fail to actualize.

Darwin's theory of evolution is one that hasn't been contradicted by observation (it isn't false); nevertheless, it isn't true. It's, as some say, just a theory. Even so, it's the best one we have (at the moment).

For Greek mathematics 2 is the first number. — Fooloso4

You're joking, right?

Science relies on predictive and explanatory models — I like sushi

:up:

We don’t suddenly state Newton’s Laws are ‘not true’ in the colloquial sense because they are still capable of giving highly accurate results. — I like sushi

Predictions are based on laws of nature - sensing patterns in the way matter & energy behaves - and is distinctly neutral territory in the science vs. whatever debate.

Science is largely an activity in hypothesizing/theorizing. Newton famously confessed "hypothesis non fingo". In other words, Newton had no hypothesis for gravitation and so Newton being true/false is moot.

Come to think of it, Newton's work is incomplete or only half-finished for he had no explanation for his equations. Einstein changed all that with his theory of relativity (matter bending space). At this point only can we discuss whether a scientific theory is true/false and as we all know it's a logical fallacy to claim them to be true from experimental evidence (converse fallacy).

It is because, for the Greeks, a number is a count (arithmos). It tells us how many of whatever thing you are counting. There can be no counting without a unit of the count, some one thing that is counted, apples, oranges, or fruit. An infinite or unlimited amount is not a number, it does not tell us how many. — Fooloso4

:ok: Yet infinity seems as natural as getting 2 by adding a 1 to 1. A simple procedure (+ 1) can cause so much havoc in our minds. The only option is to deny the existence of infinity, but then a large chunk of modern math would need to be consigned to the rubbish heap. That's what a book on philosophy on math says anyway. Calculus will probably be the first casualty.

Also interesting is the whole number sequence: 0, 1, 2,...

From 0 to 1: That's something from nothing! Creatio ex nihilo.

From 1 to 2: Doubling ( × 2)

From 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 and n to n + 1 hereafter, the ratio $\frac{n + 1}{n}$ approaches unity (1).

Then there's this: x + 1 = x. The solution is x is nothing. No finite number exists that satisfies this equation.

However, with a little algebra that equation becomes $1 + \frac{1}{x} = 1$ and we all know $\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x} = 0$. In other words x = $\infty$.


So, x = nothing (no, not zero, nothing), and x = $\infty$. That means $\infty + 1 = \infty$. Mathematics breaks down!

My simple musings.

I was just turning this matter over in my head and this: Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist & atheist is adamant that the theory of evolution (ToE) is a fact i.e. it's true.

I just remembered science doesn't work that way. Scientific theories aren't true; they're, at best, provisionally/tentatively true and it feels wrong to even label them as such. Scientific theories are the best explanatory models for observed phenomena but they aren't true. If you google science fallacy of affirming the consequent you'll know what I'm talking about.

As for observations and finding patterns in them (laws of nature), this isn't the exclusive domain of science; George Lemaître (co-discoverer of the Big Bang), a catholic priest, is proof of that.

What is it then that makes science science? Hypotheses and theories of course, but for better or worse truth is N/A to them.

To cut the long story short, scientism, if it means science is about truths, is completely baseless. Science isn't about reality, it's about constructing best explanations of reality and that's a different story altogether.

As I wrote in my last post, Darwin's work didn't say anything about where life came from and what it's nature is. In his view natural selection only acts on already living organisms. Your summary of Darwin's position is, to be kind, inaccurate. If you haven't read "Origin of Species," I suggest you do. — T Clark

I believe you're on the mark. :up: The title of Darwin's book is On the Origin of Species and not On the Origin of Life. Two very different topics, one explicable and the other not (yet). Which is and which is not explicable now obvious. Hindsight, they say, is 20/20!

Elan vital, if memory serves, is about a so-called life principle that is infused into the physical (chemical soup?) for life to exist. Not a bad hypothesis if you ask me as the genesis of life hasn't yet been put on a firm physical foundation. Until such a time as that's done, we're free to speculate as much as we wish, oui?

Like always, scientists have it all figured out. What was I thinking? The particular wavelength of light (infrared) the JWST is going to tune into is (likely) the exact one light from the universe post-dark age is going to stretch (due to cosmic expansion) into. This is no random shot in the dark! I should've known.

Question: How far back in time are we hoping to go with the JWST?

Telescopes are time machines! Only one problem: We can see the past, not the future.

Hubble sees most distant star ever, 28 billion light-years away.

Old but not dead!

Fantastic news!

We can't wait to see the pics and the simplified (for our benefit) analyses that go with them. I hope this is a paradigm shift moment for science as a whole though the focus is on astronomy/cosmology. We can finally stop the imitation of old theoretical frameworks and take our understanding of our universe and us to a new level.

What if the JWST sees God (primum movens)? I can picture him waving at the cameras!

So it is, the world or the self (two things we can become conscious of) can induce, chemistry-wise, a one-to-one corresponding chemical reaction that is then understood as awareness/consciousness. I call this an image. Perhaps you have in your possession a better concept and the right word to go with it. This is best exemplified by the eyes - the rods and cones undergo what's known as photochemical reactions, very much like in old camera films, and the end result of that is an image that forms on our retinas, the totality of which is then relayed to our visual cortex and that's vision in a nutshell.

No such system ("variation in its structural arrangement") is apparent in a stone, but we have to be careful here: maybe this is a lacuna in our knowledge rather than a fact about stones.

Furthermore, there's this idea of pure awareness, the raw sense data itself sans the processing (thinking). This is old news in the philosophy of mind, perhaps more well-known and included in meditative practices in the orient. An ordinary camera is the best inanimate object that typifies this concept. An image forms inside the camera after light traverses ite lenses. That's pure awareness and does involve "variation in its strutctural arrangement", there's nothing in a camera that examines the image formed inside it. In my book, that's proto-consciousness, one step away from true human-level consciousness and we've already made progress in that department with robots and AI (image processing). Is that rudimentary, simple consciousness? I dunno.

I do not accept any mathematics which employs infinity. Infinity is not applicable to real world situations Such mathematics may be very useful in many situations, but the infinity monkey example demonstrates how adhering to principles which are not actually applicable to real world situations, will eventually give us absurd conclusions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I won't say you're wrong. There must've been a very good reason why the Greeks were so reluctant to incorporate infinity into their math. Even Archimedes & Eudoxus, two people who were among the first to employ the method of exhaustion simply stopped/limited their calculations at/to an arbitrarily large but finite number (Archimedes used, if memory serves, a 96-sided polygon to approximate a circle when calculating $\pi$).

In addition, there's also the small matter of one's sanity. Georg Cantor, to whom we owe our current understanding of $\infty$, eventually went bonkers, lost his, once formidable, mind.

What, may I ask, are the specific issues you have with $\infty$? Is it the paradoxes (Cantor's mind probably couldn't parse them and ergo, his brain crashed) or something else?

Sounds to me that you are suggesting that some merging of individual consciousnesses in the very distant future is not something you completely reject, An emerging panpsychism? — universeness

Both to think up possibilities and eliminating them requires talent and expertise. I'm but a beginner in these methods and so cum grano salis with regard to what I have to say. Panpsychism is possible if only there's an image of the exterior (the world at large) and the interior (the self). I recall looking at a rock and contemplating consciousness. A rock doesn't possess eyes nor is it smooth enough to act as a mirror. In what sense, how, can it be conscious (of anything) then? Perhaps there are other ways via which it can construct an image of the world and itself. Limited as we are to our 5 senses, we can't conceive of other means of creating an image of the world or the self, but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a rock could, in principle. hold and image of the world and of itself, we just don't know how that's done.

The next step/stage to consciousness is being able to cogitate on the image - the only organ we know that's capable of such a feat is a neural network (a brain). Rocks are missing brains and that's an obstacle to human-level awareness/consciousness.

At this point it seems apposite to bring up the concept of mushin no shin (mind without mind) OR, to some, pure awareness - the image minus the processing!

Indeed, sometimes one's choices don't matter to what happens eventually. On occasion the path forks and one's in a dilemma which one to take, one then does, after pondering deeply upon the options, only to find out later that both paths reunite farther down. Such things do happen. Makes me wonder if free will means anything at all!

You need a free logic to parse such an oddity. A free logic includes a first-order existential predicate: E!.

Note that "all cows exist" is not true; the cow that jumped over the moon does not exist.

What's happening? The logic is forcing us to be clear about what we mean when we say something exists - it is insisting on our being consistent.

Note also that, that something exists cannot be the conclusion of an argument in free logic. So it will not serve to show that, for example, god exists. — Banno

:up: I'll look into it. You said some very important and interesting stuff. Thanks.

Read K's argument (critique). It's meta-ontological, not merely logical or grammatical. — 180 Proof

The way I understood Kant's position on the matter is like this: If I were to say "x is all-good" (G1), it's the same thing as saying "x exists and x is all good" (G2). There being a predicate that's non-ontological (all-good) presupposes ontology (x exists).

An analogy: What's the difference between "god exists" and " 'god exists' is true"?

I still haven't really grasped Kant's point. Just offering an intuition (for correction).

Kant argues that "existence" is not a predicate (re: criticism of Descartes' & Leibniz's ontological arguments for the existence of god). — 180 Proof

@Banno

Yep, that's what Kant claims, but is it true?

In predicate logic (Frege et al), existence can't be predicated to an object (vide infra).

John exists = $(\exists x)(x = j)$, not $Ej$ such that j = John and Ej = John exists. So far so good.

I 'm having difficulty translating the following statement into symbolic predicate logic.

All cows exist = $(\forall x)(Cx \rightarrow Ex)$ such that Cx = x is a cow and Ex = x exists. As you can see I have to use existence as a predicate to translate "all cows exist" into symbolic predicate logic.

Too, there doesn't seem to be a problem in categorical logic (Aristotle) in treating existence as a predicate (vide infra).

All atoms exist = All atoms are existent things ("existent things" being a valid predicate).

The negation of "all cows exist" is "some cows don't exist" = $\neg(\forall x)(Cx \rightarrow Ex) = (\exists x)( Cx \land \neg Ex)$ (???)

Conclusion: In predicate logic existence can't be used as a predicate.


What's going on?

ceretis paribus clause — Banno

Does this clause refer to

1. Another instance of greatest happiness for the greatest number? So I couldn't kill one person, X, to save 5 others (trolley problem) for the reason that X will discover the cure for cancer and save millions of lives. That's again the greatest happiness principle in action, oui?

As is obvious, this doesn't weaken the greatest happiness principle; rather it strengthens it even further.

2. Epistemological difficulties: Can we really predict the future consequences of one's actions? Where do you stop in the chain of causation and deny one's responsible for all effects beyond that?

3. What else?

Thanks for the explanation. The two sides of a debate could thrash out the sticking points, identify where they disagree and come to a mutually acceptable agreement on how to settle their differences.

Jesus makes me go Empedocles!!!

Both claimed to be God in one way or another.

What do you mean by 'for real?' If you really do mean 'for real,' then the obvious question is how do we do that? — universeness

The future is a world of $\infty$ possibilities. God maybe one of 'em. You never know what tomorrow will bring. Isn't that what's so exciting about times yet to come?

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

Good question but doesn't affect my argument. Spheres do come to rest, oui?

I don't buy it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why? Do the math. Lemme show you:

Assume that 5 represents all written/spoken words. and P(x) is the probability of getting x on roll of a die.

1. One die.
P(5)₁ = $\frac{1}{6}$

2. Two dice.
P(5)₂ = $\frac{11}{36}$

3. Three die
P(5)₃= $\frac{91}{216}$

P(5)₃ > P(5)₂ > P(5)₁

As the number of dice approaches $\infty$, P(5) approaches 100% (certainty).

Not merit, but growth — Punshhh

Like malignant tumor? :fear:

For me, human portrayals of ancient gods are strong evidence that humans created gods and gods never existed. — universeness

If there is no God, it would be necessary to invent Him. — Voltaire

If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him. — Mikhail Bakunin

The jury's still out.

We could invent God (I mean for real) but that seems to be irreversible (omnipotence & omniscience). We can't put the genie back in the bottle. We have to therefore...

It allows you to see both sides of coin, or both sides of an argument — Gnomon

That's why it's ahead of the pack (the quarrel aye vs. nay is a never-ending story).

You did mention in a previous post, adversarial collaboration but I'm not sure how much of that is just talk or hand waving. Instead of trying to make opposing sides join hands, isn't it better to let them go their separate ways and just wait & watch; whichever side gets it (the truth that is) is to be awarded a Nobel Prize. If both reach the finish line simulataneously, twice the fun, oui?

Audi alteram partem: Let's hear the other side (as well).

If possible to stimulate the thread, I' say, with regard to the human - machine relationship,

1. Body (99% replaced by machines)
2. Mind (50% replaced by computers that can do logic)
3. Heart (Hard to say how much of our feelings can be reduced to an algorithm and will it be genuine? Maybe there's another way)

The percentages are very rough estimates, people may disagree.

What happens when, these percentages touch 100%? The so-called technological singularity is mostly viewed as a mind affair (intelligence, 2), but there's more to being a human than just our rationality. Intriguingly what if AI splits into 3 species:

1. Physical/Workers (think excavators, bulldozers, cranes)
2. Mental/Thinkers (think Newton, Einstein)
3. Emotional/Feelers (weak sentimental fools)

?

Humanity, till date, has seen workers and thinkers, but feelers, no mention of them in the records unless artists, poets, romantics, are them.

Causation

A causes B IFF

1. A is correlated with B

2. B does not temporally precede A (rule out reverse causation)

3. There is no C that causes both A and B (rule out third-party causation)

4. The correlation is not coincidental (persists in spacetime, jibes with background knowledge, mechanism of causation is known, etc.)

Mill's 5 methods to determine causation

1. Method of Agreement:

A B C occur together with w x y
A E F occur together with w t u

Ergo,

A is a necessary cause of w

2. Method of Difference

A B C occur together with w x y
B C occur together with x y

Ergo,

A is a sufficient cause of w

3. Joint Method

A B C occur with w x y
A E F occurs with w t u
B C occurs with x y

Ergo,

A is a necessary and sufficient cause of w

4. Method of Residue

A B C occur together with w x y
B is the cause of x
C is the cause of y

Ergo,

A is the cause of w

5. Method of Concomitant Variation

A B C occur with w x y

Increasing/decreasing A causes increase/decrease (positive scalar correlation) or decrease/increase (negative scalar correlation) in w

Ergo,

A is the cause of w

The cyberpunk culture is by and large about

1. Technology (Especially AI)

2. Mind (Enhancement/Upliftment)

3. Reality (Transformation)

4. Values (Affected by new perspectives on mind & reality)

Most of the literature/films revolve(s) around how things could go (horribly) wrong; it won't sell otherwise, oui?

You can kiss the family goodbye. Free love denies attachment, commitment, and deep affection. "Free love" is an oxymoron -- no one can love you if the goal is to go around fuck one another with no restraint. Even swans stay with their partners for life! Oh and yeah, they're beautiful too. — L'éléphant

:lol:

I have failed my master. :cool: