Information is bogus.

[Speakpigeon]

If I know P, then P is true.

We agree on that.

Yes, we do.

If I know P, then P must be true.

We don't agree on that.

Must implies is, but not inversely.

I never used "must" in this thread and I doubt very much ever using it in a logical statement.

It can only be very problematic to use "must" in logic. Sorry, I'm not going there.
EB

 

[fast]

If I know P, then P is true.

We agree on that.

Yes, we do.

If I know P, then P must be true.

We don't agree on that.

Must implies is, but not inversely.

I never used "must" in this thread and I doubt very much ever using it in a logical statement.

It can only be very problematic to use "must" in logic. Sorry, I'm not going there.
EB

Post 59

Is it the case you did? Yes
Must it be the case?
If you claim, yes therefore must, I disagree.
If you say how else then..., you lose

 

[fromderinside]

I believe we can't do otherwise. So that leaves me wondering why must we know that we know when it's evident we don't.

Believe it or not, that must be because whatever we must "we can't do otherwise".

And if not, it's OK too.

Must be.
EB

If so there must be some example somewhere. Else there must be something about it not OK.

Must be..

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, we do.



I never used "must" in this thread and I doubt very much ever using it in a logical statement.

It can only be very problematic to use "must" in logic. Sorry, I'm not going there.
EB

Post 59

Is it the case you did? Yes
Must it be the case?
If you claim, yes therefore must, I disagree.
If you say how else then..., you lose

You must be joking!

It was a reply to FDI for god sake!

You've just been had!

Ok, you just misconstrued my post. It was all innocent foreplay with my lover. More like a private joke.

I should have signalled it with the appropriate emoticon or, better, kept not only the joke but the joking private.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the appropriate emoticon! There just isn't any that would do the job. So, we definitely need one.

I would suggest one called "private_part" and looking like this:




EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I believe we can't do otherwise. So that leaves me wondering why must we know that we know when it's evident we don't.

Believe it or not, that must be because whatever we must "we can't do otherwise".

And if not, it's OK too.

Must be.
EB

If so there must be some example somewhere. Else there must be something about it not OK.

Must be..

It's getting musty.

Or too must(h)y for my good education, whichever.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Some shouldn't try such expressions. it is inconsistent with expectation, It fell flat. Still, nice try. Go to encourage such behavior whenever possible even if it isn't possible. too much?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Some shouldn't try such expressions.

Ah, thanks for your counsel, but there's nothing I could do to stop myself on such occasions.

On the moment, it feels as if I was irresistibly suggested to do whatever I do, you know, by, I don't know, the Laws of Nature or something. I am what I am. Powerful stuff, that. Beats a smoke.

it is inconsistent with expectation, It fell flat.

Vox populi vox dei.

Try to see it through mine eyes.

Still, nice try. Go to encourage such behavior whenever possible even if it isn't possible. too much?

Never enough, I would say.

Expectations can't be your guide all the time.

That's not my nature.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Sorry. I was converted by Shannon and Miller in 1958. Now I'm to the point where it's meaningless to think about anything without considering information. Just don't introduce it to your work in physics unless you're into information technology such as electronic warfare.

I read Shannon's book. He essentially applied thermodynamics to the symbolic encoding and electronic transmission of text. Over time and distance information transmitted over an electrical medium has entropy and disappears into noise. First observed with telegraph signaling.

 

[steve_bank]

Information is a definition. Whatever meets the definition is information.

Like most verbal communication, the meaning of the word information is contextual.

 

[fast]

There are necessary truths.
There are contingent truths.
Truths is one thing.
Events is another.
There are contingent events.
But necessary events, are there any?
Name one.

If you name one, then golly gee, are all events necessary events?
If no, then name one that's not.

Something's amiss.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Information is a definition. Whatever meets the definition is information.

So, everything is just a bloody definition?

See, that's how entropy works its magic and we sure don't need the telegraph to observe that phenomenon. Mouth to ear is just as effective a medium.

Regardless, I think you've just said something very, very important.

I take it it's an original thought of yours. So, kudos!⁽¹⁾

Like most verbal communication, the meaning of the word information is contextual.

Hmm, like just about every word we use which has different senses, which may be something like most of them.

Regardless, a new idea has been brought to me free of charge⁽²⁾ by the Internet, so Thank You, God of the Internet!

I should say, "Thank You, God of Information"!

Now, this definitely goes beyond information. By definition, a definition will apply to whatever meets it.

Maybe information does win in the end if everything is information, or even just because all definitions sure look like nothing more than information.

In any case, if your information is true, a new vista just opened up.
EB

Note 1 - Kudos: Pronounce "kudoss", not kudoz". It's a singular, like pathos.
Note 2 - Free of charge?! Nah, you must be kidding, nothing is ever really free in this deterministic universe! Not even greed is really greed. So.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But necessary events, are there any?
Name one.

Sorry, I seem to feel confused here. And when I do, I assume there's something wrong somewhere. This seems to be a very effective way of detecting wrongs.

Golly gee whiz, it works, you could try it sometime.

So, just explain to me again, what's a "necessary event"?
EB

 

[fast]

But necessary events, are there any?
Name one.

Sorry, I seem to feel confused here. And when I do, I assume there's something wrong somewhere. This seems to be a very effective way of detecting wrongs.

Golly gee whiz, it works, you could try it sometime.

So, just explain to me again, what's a "necessary event"?
EB

It's not merely something that does happen but rather in fact something that must happen.

If you want to legally drive, you must obtain a drivers license. Must I obtain a drivers license? No. It's true that I did, but that was contingent upon my decision to take the test. I could have chosen not to take the test. Had I chose not to take the test (like others have chosen), I wouldn't have a license. So, the event happening wasn't a necessary event; it was a contingent event.

If a mosquito is flying in a forward direction (south on I-95), there's no known law of nature that allows for an immediate acceleration to 50 times it's current speed. No wait, there is one, it's called the law of a truck's windshield up a mosquitos ass law. Even still, the event occurring isn't an event that must occur; hence, the event is not an event that must necessarily occur, as it's a contingent event. Thus, no gas in truck, no gas on highway, mosquito gets hit by a different vehicle. Might have been fate. Still, the event was contingent upon other events.

Now, there are necessary truths. But, necessary events? I'm hard pressed to name one.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, yeah, that doesn't help.

Maybe if there's such a thing as fate. Then, perhaps everything happening is a necessary event?

Somewhat like determinism, maybe? If one event is necessary, all have to be necessary.

But, we wouldn't know that there's such a thing fate, anyway, or determinism for that matter, It seems like somewhat beyond our very limited human power of cogitation.

This may be a question you'd better not ask again.

I really don't need to feel so confused, you know.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Necessary events: those following the state of the world at time t=0.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Necessary events: those following the state of the world at time t=0.

Or rather, all those preceding time t=now. What we know for sure is now. All that allegedly came before, well, we can only assume they were real at all.

As to the future, who knows whether there will be one?



Hello, just kidding!
EB

 

[untermensche]

Go ahead, make an argument.

If there is no information about the tree how does the brain make a representation of one?

Oh for fuck's sake. Please don't tell me you've got your head in Schrodinger's arsehole.

Do you think that aliens exist?
Do you think that undiscovered organisms exist in the deep ocean trenches?

More to the point, do aliens start existing the moment we know about them?

I'm holding up a certain number of fingers. Can you guess which one(s)? Or am I not doing it because you can't see it?

Do you think the world existed before you were born, or did it start existing when you crawled outta momma's unmentionable?

?

This dance does not address my question.

But if you actually address my question you might learn something.

 

[fast]

That I know is different than how I know.

Necessary condition of belief: check. I believe
Necessary condition of justification: check. I have gobs of it.

Do I know? Maybe, maybe not; another ecessary conditions is required, and no, infallibility isn't required.

Necessary condition of true: maybe, maybe not
Since I have a belief with justification, I'll CLAIM to know. May know. May not know. Notice I didn't say MIGHT. That would be a bare possibility. The justification condition elevates if from might to may--and that's why I say may instead of might.

My claim: I know

Do I know? If the truth condition is yes, then I know
If the truth condition turns out to be no, then it was never satisfied and I don't know.

Because I have justification, I claim I know.

But. Do I in fact have knowledge?

If the truth condition is satisfied, then yes

How do I know it's satisfied? Again, from first sentence, that I know is different than how do I know.
What's important is if it's true, then regardless of how I know, it's still true. Truth is, after all, independent of knowledge.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Do I know? If the truth condition is yes, then I know
But. Do I in fact have knowledge?
If the truth condition is satisfied, then yes
What's important is if it's true, then regardless of how I know, it's still true. Truth is, after all, independent of knowledge.

That's where we disagree. I already explained our disagreement here.

Assuming you have belief and justification, my view is that truth isn't enough for knowledge to exist. My reason is very simple. The fact that you believe you have a justification doesn't make it so that this justification is good enough, or even that it has anything to do with whatever is true. This should be easy to understand since given a particular truth, and assuming you believe, your justification may well be irrelevant since all you think is required is merely that you have a justification relevant to your belief. You would have no way of deciding if it's also relevant to this particular truth. Even if you only took into account a certain kind of justifications, this would still not give you a way of deciding if it's also relevant to the truth and not just to your belief.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

The reason Natural Philosophy morphed into model based math models is that metaphysics was no long adequate.

The difference between philosophy and science is that Science has a set of unambiguous definitions, Systems International.

Not totaly original. In Objective Knowledge Popper describes the split of science and philosophy.

Philosophy was left with meaning and arguments over meaning. As kids we learn meaning by immersion and observation without any explicit definitions. Back in the 90s Scientific American had a cover proclaiming 'The Universe Is Information'. Don't have a clue what that means.

Shannon was at the beginning of electronic communications. He presented his ideas mathematically, not philosophically/

Inertia, can be physics or refer to human groups.