And also for those of us who have been here for years, every thread, especially started by someone new, ought to be approached as if you yourself were talking about it for the first time and explain your reasoning clearly. — ssu

Clarity, and intent. Often the intent is not too clear:... From my earlier quote:

This is a slippery slope as we then make further conclusions and respond in ways that confuse or annoy the other people (who also do the same thing back to us). A particularly problematic part of this is when we attribute causes and characteristics, assuming they are saying or doing things for intrinsically personal reasons, but which are in fact false.

Miller's Law is effectively used by those who want to avoid the truth as they deliberately answer a question truthfully but in a way that deceives.

Did you punch him?

No I did not punch him. (actually they karate-chopped him).

The point to remember here is to be careful in your questioning and ensure you get the full picture. A clue in the statement above is that a truthful person is more likely to say just 'No', whilst the deceiver carefully parrots back the 'punch' phrase to ensure the truth of their statement is clear. — Don Wade

Yesterday, on this Forum, I asked the question: "Are politicians really magicians in discuise/". Politicians become Masters at using "Miller's Law" but, it's not for our enlightenment or entertainment.

I would suggest that we already follow the idea of miller's Law, or at least, the majority of us do. We, generally, do not read an op and instantly assume it is a lie, or seek only to disprove it as false, although I do recognize that frequently we do point out flaws, or disagree with a posted opinion, not out of an assumption that the other is based on an untruth, but that we may have found a flaw in the logic. This, to me, is healthy and appropriate debate and discussion of a topic. Most of us do this. A few respond with insults rather than healthy debate, but that is true for all discussions, sometimes you just have to write off a response. — Book273

I would sugest we also just pay attention to what is being said. Example: Discussion
The reason this law is something of an 'aha' for many people is that we often speak to others as if they think in exactly the same way that we do, so when something seems wrong we assume they are thinking wrong and are a wrong person who needs to be corrected. It also helps us understand why others criticize us, because they are also not following Miller's Law.

While it is true that we have much in common with others in how our minds work, our actual thoughts and underlying beliefs, models, preferences, values and so on can vary quite significantly. As a result we often take the reverse approach to Miller's Law, assuming that when people say things that do not make complete sense to us, then they are wrong.

This is a slippery slope as we then make further conclusions and respond in ways that confuse or annoy the other people (who also do the same thing back to us). A particularly problematic part of this is when we attribute causes and characteristics, assuming they are saying or doing things for intrinsically personal reasons, but which are in fact false.

Miller's Law is effectively used by those who want to avoid the truth as they deliberately answer a question truthfully but in a way that deceives.

Did you punch him?

No I did not punch him. (actually they karate-chopped him).

The point to remember here is to be careful in your questioning and ensure you get the full picture. A clue in the statement above is that a truthful person is more likely to say just 'No', whilst the deceiver carefully parrots back the 'punch' phrase to ensure the truth of their statement is clear.

The closest I could come was "Conniver." — James Riley

To me, a conniver is someone that has learned to survive in this world but does it in ways that are not moral, or nice, to others. Can they teach us thing? Maybe.....probably not - except maybe to not re-elect them.

Usually, they pretend to be leaders, but turn out to be followers. the trick is to push to the front of wherever people are already going. Populism is the name of the game. — unenlightened

Could be true. Many believe "money" is the driving force...

In other words, if you think a topic is stupid or beneath you, then don't even engage in it, not even to tell someone you think as much. If you truly have a disagreement, comment, question, or just want to engage in productive dialogue, that is when you participate. — schopenhauer1

A good example. How do you think I would perceive your own statement? It seems antagonistic...but is it? I need to know more before I delete it, or ignore it. This, to me, is communication - not a rumble.

Perhaps it would be useful in allowing us to understand something about the person telling us something (e.g., he's an idiot, under the influence) but not the statement being made. — Ciceronianus the White

That's probably true. It makes sense to know the status of the "source of information" as well as understanding the information itself.

This way any statement is necessary for acceptance for truthfulness, since human imagination is endless. — god must be atheist

Which could be why we need the law. We need to start somewhere, and someone's statement might be the starting-point. We would first need; to understand what the person is saying. Yes, we may make "first-hand" judgements of a statement, but that generally doesn't mean that judgement is true. You would need additional information - but you may not get it, if you make instant judgement of what you first perceive.

Interesting quote and question. — javi2541997

Thanks! Thanks also for the comments.

I'm all for Miller's law, but then if the site accepts it this law to be enforceable, I'll refer posters to this law, those posters who are pissed off with me for sticking to my guns on wording, and the law shalt prevail. — god must be atheist

As in many things "the devel is in the details". I appreciate your comments.

I've never heard of a model that posits contraction that doesn't accelerate to some kind of crunch singularity. Doesn't mean such a model doesn't exist, but I've never heard of it. — noAxioms

The big bang and the big crunch kind of go hand-in-hand in some models. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch . However, the jury is still out as to which models are more acceptable. Trying to get a grasp on the fundamentals of the different models is what makes cosmology a fun science - and is especially great for philosophy.

Unsatisfied in the case of uniform distribution everywhere. The level of compression has nothing to do with it. The current density of the universe (about 6 protons per cubic meter) is enough to prevent expansion if it was that mass expanding into empty space. None of the material would have sufficient recession speed to exceed the escape velocity of the bounded mass that comprised the occupied part of the universe. — noAxioms

Good thought. Add to that, if you would; What does the vision of "multiple" contractions and expansions do if we focus on the velocity of (light in space) during these periods. Then the question of; how far does the universe contract before it starts to expand. Lots and lots of questions about the model.

Science is confident about the minimum size of the universe today in absolute terms. It is also confident about what the speed of light can achieve in normal circumstances today. Clearly the maths which T Clark pointed out is self explanatory if you believe in the Big Bang. The universe must, in absolute terms, have expanded faster than the recognised maximum speed of light. — Gary Enfield

Gary, I really like your post! In my opinion, It reflects a lot of insight.

It is thence a rather misleading characterization to say that the universe "started" with the Big Bang, as it always existed beforehand, just in a state so unlike anything we can conceive that one cannot speak of it meaningfully. — Vessuvius

I admire your effort in expressing your thoughts. I'm trying to grasp the the image, but there seems to be a "leap-of-faith" in the transition of events as you progress from a "tightly bound singularity". Maybe I'm missing it when you state "one cannot speak of it meaningfully". I'm looking for a continuous cause and effect but I'm just not visualizing it - and, maybe that's what you were pointing out?

I like it! Gotta keep a sence of humor.

The universe isn't an object in space like a star. — noAxioms

Then what is the universe? That is, something other than it started with a big bang. Does the universe exist in space, or does space exist in the universe? Which came first, space, or the universe?

I also like to (try) to visualize what others believe they can perceive. I realize my perception is not always right - even though I may believe it is.

Some may question "what is the difference between just plain memory - and working memory?" https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00401/full

You're welcome! Hope it helps you as much as it helped me.

I can picture four grains without a problem. I merely point out the psychological machinery involved. It helps to have the simplest and most regular global arrangement in mind, even if that geometry of relations is then also suppressed to a large degreed to emphasise the distinctness of each grain. — apokrisis

I believe, that you believe, that you can perceive 4 (or more) seperate grains of sand at any specific time, but I don't know if you're basing your belief on a knowledge of "working-memory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory .

What? Visualising four grains seems easy. Especially if they are arranged as four corners of a square. — apokrisis

I applaud your effort, but visualizing a square (one shape - or (1) item) is not the same as (4) distinct grains. One can also physically count grains as they are placed, and count many grains. But, that same person cannot "imagine" the four seperate grains without some form of added aid - such as what you just demonstrated. Again, I refer to the example of the Rubin Vase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase . Another example of something there but not visualized is: "Gorilla in the room" experment: https://gorillaitr.com/2018/08/21/update-to-the-original-gorilla-in-the-room-experiment/#:~:text=Update%20to%20the%20original%20Gorilla%20in%20the%20room,they%20miss%20a%20lot%20of%20intuitive%20%28non-conscious%29%20information.

But that is where a logic of vagueness comes in. It can add a third metaphysical-strength ingredient to the story. It says that both poles of any such categorical dichotomy must arise - by reciprocal constraint - out of the common resource which is a vagueness. — apokrisis

It is my opinion that the solution to the sorites paradox is not in the assumption of "vagueness" - as has been suggested. The solution lies in the method of analyzing the problem.

Try this thought experiment: The brain can visualize (1) grain of sand. The brain can also visualize (2) grains of sand that are (side-by-side), or close together (gestalt). Add another grain in the same manner and the brain can still visualize the image of (3) grains of sand - as long as the distance between them is not too great. The problem comes in by adding just one more grain of sand. The brain cannot visualize (4) grains of sand that are close to each other. In order to visualize four grains of sand the brain must employ a trick - that is, it will visualize two groups of (2) grains each. The brain can actually visualize up to (9) grains in this manner by visualizing three groups of (3) grains each. However, the brain cannot visualize (10) grains, or more. The brain can also visualize (1) pile of sand - in much the same way as visualizing the single grains of sand. However, the brain cannot visualize removing a single grain of sand from a pile and somehow changing the image of the pile. This thought experiment demonstrates why the paradox is not based on "vague predicates", but is based on how the brain visualizes images.

I think the shock wave you are talking about is space. — T Clark

If it was space before the big bang, and space after the big bang - then what changed? Plus, light still only travels at a defined velocity in space. Then did light travel faster before the big bang?

I agree that vagueness (and/or ambiguity) is integral to our thinking. Look up a word in the dictionary and you get other words, which you can then look up, and get still other words. Without a rough sense of what basic words mean (including words like 'mean') you can't get anywhere. And this point ignores the intrinsic limitations of dictionaries. A market is perhaps a good metaphor for language. The sounds and scribbles have various somewhat predictable effects when used skillfully, without, however, even becoming perfectly clear. — T H E

I believe "Levels" will clear up a lot of the vagueness.

The delightful thing about the sorites is that it can spring up again from the rubble... — bongo fury

Yes, I think you're right. I see it in many instances.

I looked at the post you referred to and it seems that the philosophy of levels is about viewing from a closer level in contrast to seeing from the larger perspective. I came across an associate idea when I was studying English literature at school, which was the idea of the microcosm and macrocosm as perspectives. This distinction has a history going back to Aristotle, but you are quite possibly familiar with it, and perhaps it is part of your own philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Thanks Jack. Yes, Aristotle - in my opinion - was both good, and bad for philosophy. (Another discussion point.)

But then in fact, this categorical division allows us to construct spectrums of possibility. We can see the range of different balances of lumped~split, grouped~scattered, general~individual that lie between the polar extremes. — apokrisis

Ah, the beauty of Levels.

A point we have not discussed is: What happens, in our minds, to one group of properties when we delibrately switch to another group? For instance: If we are focused on the grain of sand, and switch to the pile of sand - what happens (in our mind) to the grain of sand that was our original point of focus? It seems to disappear. We can only have one group of properties in our mind at any specific time. Such as: we can focus on the grain of sand, or the pile of sand - but not both. (That is, not at the same time.) This is similar to the (Rubin Vase) analogy. We will be aware of the other group - but the mind can't visualize both groups at the same time. This thought experiment demonstrates the basic reason for the sorites paradox. Many philosophers are still not aware of how the mind only visualizes one property-grouping at a time. Levels incorporates this phenomenon.

Yes, I think that the very first post I ever communicated with you on was you speaking about the idea of levels, when I began referring to the dance track, by Avicii, 'Levels.' — Jack Cummins

Jack, Please read my most recent post to: apokrisis. It gives a little more detail on the concept of levels.

But what kind of larger interest are you thinking about that does not rely on the vagueness of a "for all practical purposes" more or less answer? — apokrisis

Would you believe: "I'm glad you asked".

In one sentence: Levels is the study of the hierarchy of property groupings.
An example would be a 3-dimensional book index (thought experiment).

Property-Groupings comes from the research and writings of David Hume (Scottish), and gestalt research during the early 1900's. David believed that what we perceived as vision of objects was actually visual-inputs of the properties of an object. His thinking was the brain organized the properties into what we define as objects. The gestalt researchers worked to define how the brain used properties.

Modern research shows the brain can only handle one group of properties at any specific time. An example of this is aother gestalt finding called the "Rubin Vase". One can visualize the properties of the face, or the vases, but not at the same time. Another example is the sorites paradox. One can only visualize the properties of a grain of sand (up to nine), or a pile of sand, but only one group of properties at any specific time. We have knowledge that both groups of properties can exist at the same time, but both groups cannot be visualized (by the brain) at the same time. The paradox is introduced by attempting to visualize the two groups. Knowing that both groups can exist at the same time is where the concept of levels is introduced.

In the sorites-paradox example the group of sand-grains is at one level, and the sand-pile is at another level. We can have knowledge that both can exist at the same time but they exist, in the mind, only at different levels - hence the paradox. The concept of levels solves the paradox.

but I do think a systems approach does provide some basis for sketching some foundations amidst our uncertainty. — Jack Cummins

Yes! I believe we can construct a viable system that will serve us better than our present system. Our present system is based on 2500 year old concepts. That can change. I would like to introduce the system. Let's just call it "levels" - for lack of a better name.

Basically, Levels is a hierarchical system of property groupings based on information from the Gestalt era in Germany guring the early 1900]s.

Discoursive practices' seem to consist in something like — 180 Proof

Are you asking a question...?

This developmental view is thus semiotic, or brings the further question of meaning and purpose into play within logic or ontology. Vagueness becomes negated to the degree there is some larger interest in play. — apokrisis

Thanks for your input Apokrisis. You show great insight into early philosophy. In your writing you mentioned a "larger interest". I'm going to take your reference to larger interest and ask: could your larger interest example be similar to a reference to an analogy of a "grain of sand or a pile of sand"? If so, I would like to offer a solution of how to view the larger picture without reference to vagueness.

I am not sure that it is helpful to go as far as saying that, but it does seem that we need to live with some flexibility because reality is unpredictable. — Jack Cummins

Life is unpredictable. Not a long time ago many philosophers believed "if we we knew just 1 (one) thing everything else could be predicted" - but then along came a thing called uncertainty (along with a cat in a box - lol). Then things got "fuzzy". Along with fuzzy, things also got a little vague. Now, In the light of vagueness, I believe it's time to re-think what we believe we know.

I recommend a book which I read a few years ago on the usefulness of fuzziness in thinking, by Bart Kosko (1993), 'Fuzzy Logic.' — Jack Cummins

Thanks Jack. Good to hear from you on this post. Yes, I'm familiar with the book, and the subject, and refer to the literature often. It seems the fuzzy logic researchers current attempt at researching "vagueness" - but still can't quite give up the concept of formal logic. It's almost like one has to re-train their brain to think - (another concept). Keep posting. I believe you are good at this stuff.

Perhaps that resembles vagueness? — TaySan

Thanks, yes, lol, that is something!

Or do you mean, has anyone thought of basing their philosophy on vagueness? Yes, all the time, because it's a feature of language. — bongo fury

I like your comment. I believe features of our language are based on our "perception" of what we define as reality. (That is, a non-vague reality). Which is why I'm asking the question - "Is vagueness iteslf a philosophy"? And, yes, it would help in my understanding of other posts I've made.

If you're asking is there is some direct method, I think there is not, and there are results in some areas of study that suggest that generally there cannot be. What do you think? — tim wood

I think the subject of vagueness is a "re-newed" field of study in philosophy. For the last 2,500 years man has pretty much accepted the findings of the early philosophers (especially Aristotle). We looked at objects as being defined as having boundaries (whole objects). Now, we can visualize there may be a vagueness involved. But, our "foundational knowledge" is based on a reality of bordered objects - not vauge objects.

Nevertheless, vagueness, itself, it is already absorbed previously by nihilism because this is the main premise or thought about uncertainty. — javi2541997

Nihilism seems to have a specific definition - however, vagueness is just...vague. I don't see your thinking in reference to vagueness being absorbed by nihilism. To me; Nihilism is a skepticism that anything in the world is real. That doesn't seem real, or vague.

I guess vagueness can be absorbed by two big branches of philosophy — javi2541997

Could you give a little more detail as to how you could absorb vagueness?

If philosophy product, then one hopes vagueness squeezed out. — tim wood

Is there a metric as to how one would do that?

Your question: "How small can you go" seems to be a good basic question, at first, but the other support-information you listed is confusing. Are you asking how small can you go, or are you asking how small can a detectable object be? There was some discussion on the thread about "quarks", but as I understand the term - quarks are not stand-alone particles. Their theoretical existence is only in combination with other quarks to make up a "hadron". Are you looking for what is the smallest "stand-alone particle", or are you looking at how small can anyone imagine something to be - (that is: not even physical at all.) Without knowing the nature of your question it's difficult to answer.