Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

But I don't think this is the same as saying the equations themselves make predictions.

A lot is involved besides only the equations before any predictions occur.

Hand somebody who hasn't been educated to know what the equations mean and you don't get any predictions.

This thread and your responses remind me of something in Richard Feynman's "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". Definitely would recommend the following excerpt from the book to anyone in this thread- it might provide perspective on not understanding the relationships between models and reality. It might explain your model of reality.

After a lot of investigation, I finally figured out that the students had memorized everything, but they didn’t know what anything meant. When they heard “light that is reflected from a medium with an index,” they didn’t know that it meant a material such as water. They didn’t know that the “direction of the light” is the direction in which you see something when you’re looking at it, and so on. Everything was entirely memorized, yet nothing had been translated into meaningful words. So if I asked, “What is Brewster’s Angle?” I’m going into the computer with the right keywords. But if I say, “Look at the water,” nothing happens – they don’t have anything under “Look at the water”!

Whole excerpt here.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't want to denigrate the models. They are incredible achievements.

But to make sense of any model requires having knowledge beyond the equations.

But first knowledge of the equations.

They do describe in one line a truly deep meaning. How reality changes over time.

Well said. The models are a description of reality (at least the valid ones are). Whether a particular person understands and can make use of that description is a different matter.

 

[untermensche]

I don't want to denigrate the models. They are incredible achievements.

But to make sense of any model requires having knowledge beyond the equations.

But first knowledge of the equations.

They do describe in one line a truly deep meaning. How reality changes over time.

So when they teach students physics the first thing they do is show the equation and marvel for a while?

That wasn't my experience.

Every equation was preceded by commentary. Principles needed to be understood before the equations meant anything.

 

[untermensche]

This thread and your responses remind me of something in Richard Feynman's "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". Definitely would recommend the following excerpt from the book to anyone in this thread- it might provide perspective on not understanding the relationships between models and reality. It might explain your model of reality.

After a lot of investigation, I finally figured out that the students had memorized everything, but they didn’t know what anything meant. When they heard “light that is reflected from a medium with an index,” they didn’t know that it meant a material such as water. They didn’t know that the “direction of the light” is the direction in which you see something when you’re looking at it, and so on. Everything was entirely memorized, yet nothing had been translated into meaningful words. So if I asked, “What is Brewster’s Angle?” I’m going into the computer with the right keywords. But if I say, “Look at the water,” nothing happens – they don’t have anything under “Look at the water”!

Whole excerpt here.

You must realize I'm thoroughly convinced you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You obviously don't know logic and only have a few things memorized that don't make much overall sense to you.

And you like to hand wave. A lot.

 

[untermensche]

Abstraction means it is different.

If it were equivalent then it would be a depiction, not an abstraction.

Well, anything that can be said about something is an abstraction, so any other logic is an abstraction of reality too. It all comes down to how we perceive reality; we never know for sure what it really is.

So you are uncertain that your experience of time is your experience of time?

Is your experience an abstraction or something real.

Anyways, I can pull out my graph paper, and the logic used on this piece of paper just may be the logic that the space that the actual paper takes up. You have to prove this is not true.

So you think drawing a line on paper may somehow become the same thing as an object moving through space?

How would this transformation take place?

It's so much more complicated than this. When we talk about cognitive science and neuroscience, I don't even know where to begin to speculate if anything holds.

Like I said time most certainly is more complicated but our experience of time is still time.

Are you saying our experience of time is not really what time is?

That again is like saying a spoon is not a spoon because it is made of molecules.

 

[ryan]

Well, anything that can be said about something is an abstraction, so any other logic is an abstraction of reality too. It all comes down to how we perceive reality; we never know for sure what it really is.

So you are uncertain that your experience of time is your experience of time?

Yes, we must assume that we had an experience of time. I could be a creation that started one second ago with false memories built into my memory.

Our existences are the very first assumptions that everything builds on.

Is your experience an abstraction or something real.

Similar to what you said, anything that can be said about my past experiences are not the past experiences; instead, they are discriptions that come from the mind.

Anyways, I can pull out my graph paper, and the logic used on this piece of paper just may be the logic that the space that the actual paper takes up. You have to prove this is not true.

So you think drawing a line on paper may somehow become the same thing as an object moving through space?

Yes, both objects are moving through space.

How would this transformation take place?

I don't understand this question.

It's so much more complicated than this. When we talk about cognitive science and neuroscience, I don't even know where to begin to speculate if anything holds.

Like I said time most certainly is more complicated but our experience of time is still time.

Are you saying our experience of time is not really what time is?

No, I am saying that we have to assume it is.

That again is like saying a spoon is not a spoon because it is made of molecules.

No, it's much worse than that; I am saying that the spoon may have never existed at all. Again, this is only at the most fundamental level that we have to worry about such things. Hopefully we are right about our assumptions.

 

[Kharakov]

This thread and your responses remind me of something in Richard Feynman's "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". Definitely would recommend the following excerpt from the book to anyone in this thread- it might provide perspective on not understanding the relationships between models and reality. It might explain your model of reality.

Whole excerpt here.

You must realize I'm thoroughly convinced you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I find that hard to believe.

 

[untermensche]

So you are uncertain that your experience of time is your experience of time?

Yes, we must assume that we had an experience of time. I could be a creation that started one second ago with false memories built into my memory.

I'm not so sure of that. Since we can't implant false memories and don't even know what a memory is I don't know how we would test it.

But even if all my memories are false I am still passing through time. I still have a sense of what time is.

Is your experience an abstraction or something real.

Similar to what you said, anything that can be said about my past experiences are not the past experiences; instead, they are discriptions that come from the mind.

But you are experiencing time right now. Is that experience real?

If it's not real then what that you are experiencing is real?

So you think drawing a line on paper may somehow become the same thing as an object moving through space?

Yes, both objects are moving through space.

Lines on paper are not moving through space. They are stationary.

How would this transformation take place?

I don't understand this question.

How would lines on paper transform into space?

It's so much more complicated than this. When we talk about cognitive science and neuroscience, I don't even know where to begin to speculate if anything holds.

We're not talking about how the brain creates the experience of time.

We're asking if we are experiencing something real or something imaginary. If we are experiencing something real than our experience of it is what it is. Just like our experience of a spoon is really an experience of a spoon. Even though we know that really the spoon is made up of particles and we are not experiencing particles.

No, it's much worse than that; I am saying that the spoon may have never existed at all. Again, this is only at the most fundamental level that we have to worry about such things. Hopefully we are right about our assumptions.

So as you are experiencing the spoon you can wonder if it ever existed?

 

[ryan]

But you are experiencing time right now. Is that experience real?

We may know only as it's happening, but we can't confirm it with memories, records, logic, theories, etc.

If it's not real then what that you are experiencing is real?

My present state has already passed by the time I typed these words. So I cannot verify that I am telling you the truth, and you can't either.

Yes, both objects are moving through space.

Lines on paper are not moving through space. They are stationary.

The possibility of 4 continuous dimensions has an interesting interpretation. If you were to replace one spatial dimension with the temporal dimension so that you could see a dot on a piece of paper through time and two special dimensions, it would look like a continuous line of perfectly smooth "lead". The molecules actually grow linearly in the direction of time.

I don't understand this question.

How would lines on paper transform into space?

They don't, time may carry it "smoothly" through space. Quantized time wouldn't.

It's so much more complicated than this. When we talk about cognitive science and neuroscience, I don't even know where to begin to speculate if anything holds.

We're not talking about how the brain creates the experience of time.

That's where it all begins.

No, it's much worse than that; I am saying that the spoon may have never existed at all. Again, this is only at the most fundamental level that we have to worry about such things. Hopefully we are right about our assumptions.

So as you are experiencing the spoon you can wonder if it ever existed?

No, if you are experiencing, then that is confirmation in of itself. But you can't confirm that you had the experience with yourself or anyone else after it has happened. However, you can assume it.

 

[untermensche]

No, if you are experiencing, then that is confirmation in of itself. But you can't confirm that you had the experience with yourself or anyone else after it has happened. However, you can assume it.

I think to conclude that what we experience is not out there and real is to violate parsimony. If it is not out there then it is some kind of projection. So now we have added to our explanation of the real some projection system behind it. We have unnecessarily complicated the matter and violated parsimony.

And we cannot have complete faith in our memories but to doubt them completely seems to be just as illogical.

We experience time just as we experience the spoon. We know that the spoon is more complicated than our experience of it. But we also know that our experience of the spoon is what it is at our level of experience. The same is true of time. It is more complicated than our experience but what we experience is what it is.

 

[ryan]

No, if you are experiencing, then that is confirmation in of itself. But you can't confirm that you had the experience with yourself or anyone else after it has happened. However, you can assume it.

I think to conclude that what we experience is not out there and real is to violate parsimony. If it is not out there then it is some kind of projection. So now we have added to our explanation of the real some projection system behind it. We have unnecessarily complicated the matter and violated parsimony.

And we cannot have complete faith in our memories but to doubt them completely seems to be just as illogical.

We experience time just as we experience the spoon. We know that the spoon is more complicated than our experience of it. But we also know that our experience of the spoon is what it is at our level of experience. The same is true of time. It is more complicated than our experience but what we experience is what it is.

This is about truth and the philosophy of science, so I don't know what level of rigor you want me to comment on. You wanted me to go down this road, and this is what I believe.

When we look at an orange, we do not "see" the orange. We only experience a biological reaction to it. So we can never get completely outside of our brains because everything we know goes through a process first inside them.

Having said that, our models can still be accurate for useful purposes. We know this because we can make predictions with them. So does it really matter what the outside world actually is ontologically as long as we use our own personal symbolism for what these objects actually are and do.

Do you agree yet that infinite time might have passed?

 

[Malintent]

Mine is a logical argument.

If a thing exists it can in theory be counted. Therefore all things that exist can in theory be counted. If all things that exist can in theory be counted then the sum of all things that exist is a finite sum.

Only if there is a finite number of things.. you skipped right over that part when you said "therefore".

An infinite amount of things cannot even theoretically be counted. Even with infinite time you would have made no progress towards finishing the counting.

being able to count and being able to finish counting are two different things. I can swim... but I cannot swim to China (not that "large distances" means "infinite space"). You can count some of an infinite number of things, however you will never finish counting, as you say.

This does not even begin to address the existance of "infinity" or "infinite things".

 

[skepticalbip]

Only if there is a finite number of things.. you skipped right over that part when you said "therefore".

An infinite amount of things cannot even theoretically be counted. Even with infinite time you would have made no progress towards finishing the counting.

being able to count and being able to finish counting are two different things. I can swim... but I cannot swim to China (not that "large distances" means "infinite space"). You can count some of an infinite number of things, however you will never finish counting, as you say.

This does not even begin to address the existance of "infinity" or "infinite things".

The best I can figure is that he is just playing word games, using "counting" in his first "premise" to mean numbering a finite and limited set of things then, in the conclusion, using "counting" to mean numbering the entire quantity of individuals in the class. - fallacy of composition.

Either that or he is just making the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming his conclusion in the first premise. The classic fallacy in every "logical" argument I have seen by theists trying to logically prove the existence of god.

Of course, the whole thing seems to fall under the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

It seems to be a case of learning the syllogistic form then stopping there without learning logic.

 

[ryan]

Only if there is a finite number of things.. you skipped right over that part when you said "therefore".


being able to count and being able to finish counting are two different things. I can swim... but I cannot swim to China (not that "large distances" means "infinite space"). You can count some of an infinite number of things, however you will never finish counting, as you say.

This does not even begin to address the existance of "infinity" or "infinite things".

The best I can figure is that he is just playing word games, using "counting" in his first "premise" to mean numbering a finite and limited set of things then, in the conclusion, using "counting" to mean numbering the entire quantity of individuals in the class. - fallacy of composition.

Either that or he is just making the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming his conclusion in the first premise. The classic fallacy in every "logical" argument I have seen by theists trying to logically prove the existence of god.

Of course, the whole thing seems to fall under the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

It seems to be a case of learning the syllogistic form then stopping there without learning logic.

I think most of the time he/she was trying to use his/her own way to support another clearer argument. The argument that I think he/she was trying to support or explain his/her own way is that yesterday would have never come if it took infinitely long to get there. He/she mentions it sporadically.

As far as I am concerned, it can be explained with field theories such as quantum field theory.

 

[skepticalbip]

The best I can figure is that he is just playing word games, using "counting" in his first "premise" to mean numbering a finite and limited set of things then, in the conclusion, using "counting" to mean numbering the entire quantity of individuals in the class. - fallacy of composition.

Either that or he is just making the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming his conclusion in the first premise. The classic fallacy in every "logical" argument I have seen by theists trying to logically prove the existence of god.

Of course, the whole thing seems to fall under the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

It seems to be a case of learning the syllogistic form then stopping there without learning logic.

I think most of the time he/she was trying to use his/her own way to support another clearer argument. The argument that I think he/she was trying to support or explain his/her own way is that yesterday would have never come if it took infinitely long to get there. He/she mentions it sporadically.

As far as I am concerned, it can be explained with field theories such as quantum field theory.

There is no need to go off into any physics. The "other clearer argument" presented is just a math question. As it was presented, it shows an absolute ignorance of infinities. Physicists try their damnedest to avoid infinities. However, mathmaticians love to play with infinities - and there are several orders of infinities, none of which have the properties that were assumed in the "argument".

ETA:
In fact, the "other clearer argument" is essentially a take off of Zeno's paradoxes. Aristotle refuted some of them and the formation of calculus allowed for the refutiation of the rest.

 

[Malintent]

Instead of saying, "He / She" on internet forums, I use "They".. the non-gender specific plural seems to work best without gramatical awkwardness.

 

[Kharakov]

It seems to be a case of learning the syllogistic form then stopping there without learning logic.

The whole "this is logical because I said it is" stance appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of logic, however this apparent misunderstanding of logic could be aimed at others who are learning about logic.

There might be some out there who truly believe that logic does not have definitive structure and purpose.

1) They might think arguments are about winning emotionally, in which one idea wins out due to popularity or emotional appeal

a) so they may smear the idea or the people presenting the idea in order to "win the argument". Anything you say that makes them feel bad could cause them to think that arguments are carried out in this way. They may perceive your lack of emotional response to their words as part of your "game" to defeat them.
b) they may feel good about any "win" they receive, in which they say something correct, and you agree with what they've said that counters what you have said.
c) while educating someone can be pleasant, so to is discussion among those proficient in logic, so the advancement of someone's ability to understand logic is pleasant in the sense that we have another who can join in on higher levels of conversation- without a foundation of logic and emotional understanding, the palace of thought crumbles
​

2) They might think arguing is about winning through force (repeatedly making claims, when someone stops countering the claim, the argument has been won)

a) so they just keep repeating the claim to exhaust their "opponent"
b) Sometimes you do have to repeatedly say something to someone, not to wear them down, but until they finally consider the idea truthfully (without seeing discussion as a game, a war, or simple wordplay)
​

3) They might think logic is a simple game of sophistry (clever wordplay)

a) there is a lot of word play, and fun to be had with logic
b) proper form is equally valuable
​

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems to be a case of learning the syllogistic form then stopping there without learning logic.

The whole "this is logical because I said it is" stance appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of logic, however this apparent misunderstanding of logic could be aimed at others who are learning about logic.

...................................................snip.....................................................

I suppose that it is possible that the whole thing is intended as a lesson in how not to form an argument.

It is also possible that this is an amazing example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

And then it is possible that this is just posts by a bot intended to just provoke responses.

 

[Kharakov]

Hey, are you saying that I was once incompetent!

 

[untermensche]

Only if there is a finite number of things.. you skipped right over that part when you said "therefore".

No the logic shows that the number of real things must always be finite. It doesn't begin with that conclusion.

What premise do you have a problem with?

being able to count and being able to finish counting are two different things. I can swim... but I cannot swim to China (not that "large distances" means "infinite space"). You can count some of an infinite number of things, however you will never finish counting, as you say.

Since you know the argument so well, what do I mean by a theoretical count?

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose that it is possible that the whole thing is intended as a lesson in how not to form an argument.

The lesson is you can lead a horse to water.