Nonsense and Absurdity

Jarhyn

Wizard
So, let's discuss two topics which, I will admit, is a bit of a pet peeve of mine to see treated as the same:

Nonsense:
1. The utterance of a statement which does not parse sensibly;
2. The invocation of a contradiction; a modal construction which contains a true=false relationship
Absurdity:
1. A situation which is extremely unlikely, and so is assumed not to exist.
2. Something which has no reason for being except ridiculous happenstance.
"You saying 'The block flag Naples buffalo tune' was just nonsense" is an example of a nonsense:1.

"Your claim that Jimmy is older than Tom, and was born later two days later is nonsense" is an example of nonsense:2.

"Your claim you saw a pig flying with little fairy wings across my property is an absurdity" is an example of absurdity:1.

"That game was an absolute absurdity, you got dealt five royal flushes." Is an example of absurdity:2

The reasoning for being precise in these terms is that in philosophy, there is great value in distinguishing the two.

The fact that there is a machine sitting in the room next to me right now running a universal simulation of a completely different set of physical laws on fundamental particles which are instantiated by fundamental particles of our own host physics, wherein the hosted physics generates an observable set of deterministic agents that make decisions, live, die, go insane, and all manner of other silliness... That's an absurdity.

Notice how it really makes no sense why any of that would "need" to exist other than the fact that something had to, and this is what reality eventually shit out of that soup of quarks and gluons in this place.

A floating point random number generator returning exactly 1, similarly, is an absurdity.

Contrast this with "nonsense":

While absurdities exist, while everything that is may be an absurdity by varying degrees and relative in their absurdness to any given point in time, nonsense is something that does not describe any thing even capable of existing.

When you wish to describe something as "nonsense" and instead use the phrase "absurdity" you are explicitly stating that the thing CAN exist but you are incredulous about that existence. This is, in fact, argument from incredulity, and so an argument from ignorance.

Claims of absurdity may be answered with examples and evidence.

Claims of nonsense can only be answered through proof of sensibility and of noncontradiction under non-trivializing axiom.

People who make this fundamental error weaken their own arguments.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Sounds prescriptivist to me.

Sadly, it is unavoidably necessary to stipulate such definitions of words at the beginning of each and every discussion in which you wish to draw a distinction between the two meanings, because you have neither the authority nor the ability to impose definitions on the English language and its users in perpetuity.

At least now you have a post you can simply link to at the start of any such discussion, or if you believe confusion is occurring between the meanings, so you won't need to type that out every time.

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Bizarre, innit?

Kind of reminds me of an essay by Harry Frankfurt, professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University, who wrote an essay titled On Bullshit. Ironically, he gets it arse about face, but perhaps the essay is just meant to be a long-winded joke. Analytical philosophers do tend to bullshit, but some of them might have a sense of humour.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Beware the Jaberwock.

DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
Sounds prescriptivist to me.

Sadly, it is unavoidably necessary to stipulate such definitions of words at the beginning of each and every discussion in which you wish to draw a distinction between the two meanings, because you have neither the authority nor the ability to impose definitions on the English language and its users in perpetuity.

At least now you have a post you can simply link to at the start of any such discussion, or if you believe confusion is occurring between the meanings, so you won't need to type that out every time.
It comes up more often than you would believe where someone uses the word "absurdity" to describe something that is absurd as per the definitions given, and then argue through the conflation to nonsense.

The result is "it is unlikely therefore it is not mechanically possible". This is a notably fallacious statement; unlikeliness does not speak to mechanical possibilities.

Jarhyn

Wizard
To give an example, about the little pig with fairy wings, it's entirely possible to see such a thing. A balloon, or some paper, and a small drone, maybe a kite string, maybe a convenient treeline, and either a child playing a prank on their neighbor or the owner of the property perhaps attempting to gaslight over some feud...

There are lots of things that can cause someone to see something so absurd.

Of course, people often assume that because what people claim to have seen is absurd, they did not actually see anything at all.

Humans produce all kinds of wonderful absurdities.

Also, I might note, it might, if one wishes to not look like an ass and a fool, perhaps not assume what certain folks believe is real and what they believe is not?

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Frank Beech, after Lewis Carroll, suggested comparative psychology's snark was a boojum.
This thread is in that vein, as Steve Bank claims, a jabberwocky. Not of one of which to beware though.

Jarhyn

Wizard
Frank Beech, after Lewis Carroll, suggested comparative psychology's snark was a boojum.
This thread is in that vein, as Steve Bank claims, a jabberwocky. Not of one of which to beware though.
Well, I don't have any expectation that you would be able to parse such differences of concept on account of your own inability to parse the difference between "mutability" and "subjectivity", either.

You have not impressed me, or anyone really, with your ability to keep concepts in language straight and separated.

It is clear there is a difference between the two things mentioned and it is clear that you do not understand why the difference is important. Nonetheless, you FDI commonly make this masked argument from incredulity frequently.

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Frank Beech, after Lewis Carroll, suggested comparative psychology's snark was a boojum.
This thread is in that vein, as Steve Bank claims, a jabberwocky. Not of one of which to beware though.
Well, I don't have any expectation ...
Wasn't looking for one.

- nm

Jarhyn

Wizard
Frank Beech, after Lewis Carroll, suggested comparative psychology's snark was a boojum.
This thread is in that vein, as Steve Bank claims, a jabberwocky. Not of one of which to beware though.
Well, I don't have any expectation ...
Wasn't looking for one.

- nm
I will say this once, insofar as this quote takes me out of context: do not cut a quote to imply different context or extent than offered.

I do have expectations of you, at the very least, to not make such masked arguments from incredulity or make arguments which operate on conflation between concepts. I have these expectations of anyone and will enforce them insofar as is my right to debate, argue, and defend rationalism on a forum such as this.

It is the extent of my power here to see rationalism defended, to leverage this, to express such disappointment. I also understand that you frequently have been disappointing in this regard, especially in confusing "that which is bizarre" with "that which contains contradictions, or which cannot be parsed by anyone".

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Try empiricism. Oh so much better than rationalism.

It can be materially demonstrated.

Jarhyn

Wizard
Try empiricism. Oh so much better than rationalism.

It can be materially demonstrated.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Grasshopper, see the absurdity in yourself. We are all linked in the great cosmic absurdity. Life is but the great karmic chain of absurdities.

Always remember grasshopper, he who lives by the absurdity dies by the absurdity.

The Empirically Observed Laws Of Absurdity

1. Absurdity can not be created or destroyed, only the form changes.
2. In any system all of the energy can not be converted into useful absurdity.
3. In any system absurdity tends to go to equilibrium with the surrounding absurdity.
4. Absurdity always flows from a higher level to a lower level of absurdity. Absurdity seeks its own level.

BAT The Big Absurdity Theory. Theoretically tracing back in time there was a hot dense concentration of all the nonsense in the universe. Something unknown sparked a great explosion of nonsense leading to all he observable absurdities we see today.

Jarhyn

Wizard
Grasshopper, see the absurdity in yourself. We are all linked in the great cosmic absurdity. Life is but the great karmic chain of absurdities.

Always remember grasshopper, he who lives by the absurdity dies by the absurdity.

The Empirically Observed Laws Of Absurdity

1. Absurdity can not be created or destroyed, only the form changes.
2. In any system all of the energy can not be converted into useful absurdity.
3. In any system absurdity tends to go to equilibrium with the surrounding absurdity.
4. Absurdity always flows from a higher level to a lower level of absurdity. Absurdity seeks its own level.

BAT The Big Absurdity Theory. Theoretically tracing back in time there was a hot dense concentration of all the nonsense in the universe. Something unknown sparked a great explosion of nonsense leading to all he observable absurdities we see today.

ab·surd·ism
/əbˈsərdˌizəm,abˈsərdˌizəm,əbˈzərdˌizəm,abˈzərdˌizəm/
noun
1.
intentionally ridiculous or bizarre behavior or character.
"the absurdism of the Dada movement"
2.
the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.

Of course I see myself as absurd. I am an absurdist! This entails the understanding that life is bizarre and had no real reason for ending up this way.

Even so, it can be recognized that there are descriptions of mathematical structure which describe every and any thing we may observe can be so described in a sensible way that is non-contradictory, and that when these operational patterns are well understood, you can prove and infer and build all kinds of interesting things through the math of the physics.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Quantum AbsrudityTheory

1. Tow absurdities can not occupy the same space at the same time.
2. Absurdities interact wit reality through nonsense fields which diminish by the inverse square law.

Relativistic Absurdity Theory says absurdities propagate faster than C. When an observer and an absurdity begin propagating the absurdity can arrive before the observer.

Don;t bring me down, I am on n absurd roll.

I think Jaryn is actually trying to make a sensical interpretation of my nonsense and absurdity. Which is what I expected.

Jarhyn

Wizard
Quantum AbsrudityTheory

1. Tow absurdities can not occupy the same space at the same time.
2. Absurdities interact wit reality through nonsense fields which diminish by the inverse square law.

Relativistic Absurdity Theory says absurdities propagate faster than C. When an observer and an absurdity begin propagating the absurdity can arrive before the observer.

Don;t bring me down, I am on n absurd roll.

I think Jaryn is actually trying to make a sensical interpretation of my nonsense and absurdity. Which is what I expected.
Well, it is nonsense.

Certainly it is "some bizarre thing that exists in a place", but my point is that you are speaking "absurdities that are also nonsense"

Of course, I generally try to parse absurdities to see if they are also nonsense, or are intended to imply some thing.

I try quite often to parse certain nonsense spewed by some folks and locate the nonsensical claim quite readily most times.

I do love a good absurdity though.

Computers make the grandest absurdities: you can configure any kind of mathematical structure you wish upon a computer, and so prove "an object may instantiate this mathematical structure in a physical system". With microcode, you can even configure the instructions of the fundamental process.

Such an absurd thing, but not nonsense? It makes all the sense described by the math of the physics, even if it is bizarre and purposeless.

If you want nonsense, I have plenty of fort the Blueberry prickles? Foreign blithe chariots oat of cheese mop.

The flounder blather neither green!

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Absurd
wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.
"the allegations are patently absurd"

Nonsense

spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
"he was talking absolute nonsense"

In common usage for me. Absurd is an outrageous and obviously false claim. Non sense, or non sequitur, is when there are no logical connections.

To say Trump is honest and the Earth is flat are absurdities.

I weigh 180 pounds therefore the moon goes around the Earth, or the price of gasoline is going up therefore Sally is female are nonsense, non sequitur.

People can and do conflate the two terms.

Critic Martin Esslin coined the term in his 1960 essay "The Theatre of the Absurd", which begins by focusing on the playwrights Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, and Eugène Ionesco. Esslin says that their plays have a common denominator — the "absurd", a word that Esslin defines with a quotation from Ionesco: "absurd is that which has not purpose, or goal, or objective."[2][3] The French philosopher Albert Camus, in his 1942 essay "Myth of Sisyphus", describes the human situation as meaningless and absurd.[4]

The Absurd in these plays takes the form of man's reaction to a world apparently without meaning, or man as a puppet controlled or menaced by invisible outside forces. This style of writing was first popularized by the Eugène Ionesco play The Bald Soprano (1950). Although the term is applied to a wide range of plays, some characteristics coincide in many of the plays: broad comedy, often similar to vaudeville, mixed with horrific or tragic images; characters caught in hopeless situations forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions; dialogue full of clichés, wordplay, and nonsense; plots that are cyclical or absurdly expansive; either a parody or dismissal of realism and the concept of the "well-made play".

In his introduction to the book Absurd Drama (1965), Esslin wrote:

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED

Jarhyn

Wizard
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.
Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.

Jarhyn

Wizard
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.
Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.
I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.
Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.
I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.
That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged  true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.
Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.
I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.
That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged  true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

What part of "absurdity does not imply nonsense" is hard to grasp here?

If I'm going with the definitions in the OP, which I do, then I provided an example of an extant "absurdity". A couple, in fact.

You provided some examples of nonsensical absurdities, but you didn't make any effective arguments about why you dislike this structure of usage and intent. You just used it to scream like child when they see the needle at the doctor's office.

Or perhaps you just want to say "No True scotsman Absurdity!

The ambiguity of intent behind "absurdity" when used as you do is, quite frankly, ridiculous: because the word doesn't imply anything owing to the impossibility of clarity beyond perhaps being bizarre and without original purpose, it's just a vague insult without core or substance.

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.
Since they are demonstrably not material they are, at best subjective objects which, as steve_bank points out, are not objective.

Puleez try to demonstrate that something not objective is an object. Puleez (from don't throw me into the briar patch).

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.
Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.
I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.
That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged  true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

What part of "absurdity does not imply nonsense" is hard to grasp here?

If I'm going with the definitions in the OP, which I do, then I provided an example of an extant "absurdity". A couple, in fact.

You provided some examples of nonsensical absurdities, but you didn't make any effective arguments about why you dislike this structure of usage and intent. You just used it to scream like child when they see the needle at the doctor's office.

Or perhaps you just want to say "No True scotsman Absurdity!

The ambiguity of intent behind "absurdity" when used as you do is, quite frankly, ridiculous: because the word doesn't imply anything owing to the impossibility of clarity beyond perhaps being bizarre and without original purpose, it's just a vague insult without core or substance.
It is hard for me to type while laughing so hard.

Yes, I posted dictionary definitions of absurd and nonsense and siad that is my common usage, and also said people can and do conflate the two.

Can an absurdity be nonsense or vice versa? If that is what you are getting at you could have made the OP a lot more simple and understandable.

If and only if the two definitions are mutually exclusive then the answer is no. Nothing new to that. Defining red and blue as wavelengths means something can not be both blue and red.

However I can imagine a statement containing both absurdities and nonsense. It all depends on how you parse the staement.

Jarhyn

Wizard
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.
Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.
I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.
That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged  true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

What part of "absurdity does not imply nonsense" is hard to grasp here?

If I'm going with the definitions in the OP, which I do, then I provided an example of an extant "absurdity". A couple, in fact.

You provided some examples of nonsensical absurdities, but you didn't make any effective arguments about why you dislike this structure of usage and intent. You just used it to scream like child when they see the needle at the doctor's office.

Or perhaps you just want to say "No True scotsman Absurdity!

The ambiguity of intent behind "absurdity" when used as you do is, quite frankly, ridiculous: because the word doesn't imply anything owing to the impossibility of clarity beyond perhaps being bizarre and without original purpose, it's just a vague insult without core or substance.
It is hard for me to type while laughing so hard.

Yes, I posted dictionary definitions of absurd and nonsense and siad that is my common usage, and also said people can and do conflate the two.

Can an absurdity be nonsense or vice versa? If that is what you are getting at you could have made the OP a lot more simple and understandable.

If and only if the two definitions are mutually exclusive then the answer is no. Nothing new to that. Defining red and blue as wavelengths means something can not be both blue and red.

However I can imagine a statement containing both absurdities and nonsense. It all depends on how you parse the staement.
My point has been that in an argument, saying some thing is merely an absurdity is not actually making any kind of useful claim.

To say something is absurd when there are "less absurd explanations", that is an acceptable thing; it is a good argument, and it's name is "Occam's Razor".

Believe it or not, syntax errors can be detected and even described: "Parse the blueberry tank" fails at the type boundary where common understandings of "tank" lack an apparent operation "parse".

My point is that it is an ambiguous parse, and claims of "absurdity!" in general, warrant a request for clarification of meaning. Oftentimes, that clarification will boil down to "Argument from Incredulity" or even "argument from ignorance" rather than an application of Occam's Razor or an exposed and meaningful parse/syntax error.

Last edited:

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
One should try to treat absurd objectively.

Oh wait. That would be absurd since absurd is demonstrated absence of objective content.

On nonsense I'm more optimistic since sense is mentioned. So there is some hope since sense is derived from reality.

QED
Absurd but extant objects are no less extant objects.

To claim that absurd extant objects are not extant on account of being absurd (purposeless and bizarre; configured in some arbitrary way), is to invoke a contradiction: it is nonsense to do so.
Gobbledygook

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"

Philosophical gobbledygook.

An absurdity wrapped in nonsense.
I can't make modal logic any easier for you to understand than that.

At some point it's up to you to read with charity to the writer, and if you can't do as much, it just means you are liable to engage in shitty behavior.

An extant absurdity (for instance, a computer with a bizarre configuration) is not made non-existent by it's mere absurdity.

This is trivially true. So, if you're talking about your own statement, you hit the nail on the head.

Accusing others saying sensible, true, and in fact reasonable things of "gobbledygook" is in fact an argument from idiocy.

It is not entirely my job to simplify things if you cannot hold enough abstractions at a time to parse them.
That is what Christians who speak in tongues say. You figure out what I mean.

Your invocation of modal logic to cover your butt fails. Modal logic does require logical connections, as opposed to non sequitur nonsense.

Is yiur primary source of information the Internet?

From past threads as I understand it modal logic is an attempt to turn imprecise subjective probabilities into a formal logic It can be used to assert an alleged  true conclusion based on relative assumptions.

What part of "absurdity does not imply nonsense" is hard to grasp here?

If I'm going with the definitions in the OP, which I do, then I provided an example of an extant "absurdity". A couple, in fact.

You provided some examples of nonsensical absurdities, but you didn't make any effective arguments about why you dislike this structure of usage and intent. You just used it to scream like child when they see the needle at the doctor's office.

Or perhaps you just want to say "No True scotsman Absurdity!

The ambiguity of intent behind "absurdity" when used as you do is, quite frankly, ridiculous: because the word doesn't imply anything owing to the impossibility of clarity beyond perhaps being bizarre and without original purpose, it's just a vague insult without core or substance.
It is hard for me to type while laughing so hard.

Yes, I posted dictionary definitions of absurd and nonsense and siad that is my common usage, and also said people can and do conflate the two.

Can an absurdity be nonsense or vice versa? If that is what you are getting at you could have made the OP a lot more simple and understandable.

If and only if the two definitions are mutually exclusive then the answer is no. Nothing new to that. Defining red and blue as wavelengths means something can not be both blue and red.

However I can imagine a statement containing both absurdities and nonsense. It all depends on how you parse the staement.
My point has been that in an argument, saying some thing is merely an absurdity is not actually making any kind of useful claim.

To say something is absurd when there are "less absurd explanations", that is an acceptable thing; it is a good argument, and it's name is "Occam's Razor".

Believe it or not, syntax errors can be detected and even described: "Parse the blueberry tank" fails at the type boundary where common understandings of "tank" lack an apparent operation "parse".

My point is that it is an ambiguous parse, and claims of "absurdity!" in general, warrant a request for clarification of meaning. Oftentimes, that clarification will boil down to "Argument from Incredulity" or even "argument from ignorance" rather than an application of Occam's Razor or an exposed and meaningful parse/syntax error.
Thank you However modal logic is quite removed from reality which is the essential reason we consider logic at all. Not interested in fancy bowties on fancy parlor distractions.

Your point is dull if you get the drift.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

Jarhyn

Wizard
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.
But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.
But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.
You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.

DBT

Jarhyn

Wizard
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.
But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.
...

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.
Yes, logic is an essential part of every day life. Which is why it pays to be able to tell the difference between a sensible statement that is false and and a nonsensical statement that cannot be parsed.

If you could elucidate on what operation of parsing (generally, the conversion of some Markhov chain) into a series of related concepts that contains either some fact, or some request for information or action.

"Parse the blueberry tank" succeeds at producing a subject, but fails at it's noun's relationship to the subject, and fails altogether if there is not an immediately relevant tank of blueberries.

Requests, either as command or question, need immediate context to be anything but nonsense in the first place.

Even assuming context it is nonsense. It might be easily correctable to some operation on some thing that is not strictly a tank itself, such as to "parse the code for the blueberry tank" or "parse the instructions on the label of the blueberry tank" even "parse 'the blueberry tank'" (meta) or "parse The Blueberry Tank" (some contextual proper noun).

On its own, it is nonsense.

"The earth is flat", while utterly and completely false, is a well formed statement.

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.
But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.
You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.
Ah. One who's worked at Cannary.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.
But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.
You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.
Ah. One who's worked at Cannary.
I did my share of good old manual labor. It kept me from becoming an aloof philosophizer intellectual.

Jarhyn

Wizard
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.
But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.
You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.
Ah. One who's worked at Cannary.
I did my share of good old manual labor. It kept me from becoming an aloof philosophizer intellectual.
And I spent my share of years in the army working for my living. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.
But none of those things have a "parse" operation. It is nonsense.

"The earth is flat" is not nonsense, however. It is a sensible statement that is false.
You present your self as a master logician, yet simple obvious logic escapes you and sends you on convoluted lengthy responses.

My guess is you lack real world experience. Logic is not just a philosophical exercise in made up examples. Logic is an esential part in and dynamic in daily life and communications. You have to be able to function outside of simple syllogisms
and formal logi. It is not uncommon to see or hear something that makes no logical sense to you, but in reality does make sense.

From my experience I can see a situation where 'praise the blueberry tank' makes sense.
Ah. One who's worked at Cannary.
I did my share of good old manual labor. It kept me from becoming an aloof philosophizer intellectual.
And I spent my share of years in the army working for my living. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
Okey dokey.

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

The Earth is flat makes physical sense if you go bicycling. My sister and her husband have cruiser bicycles with a single gear. It's fine for biking old canal trails, but not so good for climbing hills. They recently upgraded to add an electric motor.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

The Earth is flat makes physical sense if you go bicycling. My sister and her husband have cruiser bicycles with a single gear. It's fine for biking old canal trails, but not so good for climbing hills. They recently upgraded to add an electric motor.
Given modern science and pictures from space a flat Earth can never make sense.

Jarhyn

Wizard
"Parse the blueberry tank"

There could be a context where that statement makes sense. It depends what blueberry rank nay mean in some situation. Blueberry tank could mean a tank with blueberries for washing the berries. It coud be a tank with blueberries painted on it. It could be tank colored like blueberries. Therr coud be multiple tanks with different fruits painted on it holding different fruits. An orange or apple tank.

There is no context where 'the Earth is flat' makes physical sense.

The Earth is flat makes physical sense if you go bicycling. My sister and her husband have cruiser bicycles with a single gear. It's fine for biking old canal trails, but not so good for climbing hills. They recently upgraded to add an electric motor.
Given modern science and pictures from space a flat Earth can never make sense.
And yet the Egyptians figured out how to flatten the Earth enough to build the pyramids.

They used water.

Depends on which "earth", and how it is "flat".

At any rate, it's not nonsense in any respect. It's FALSE. It's still a perfectly valid construction. Nonsense only discusses validity of construction and compile-time errors of speech.

Absurdity only discusses implausibility of results, and is at best a runtime check or a runtime assertion on active natural language.

So while not nonsense, it is an absurdity in general and is also false about "the whole earth" and being planar rather than spherical in space.

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
... Depends on which "earth", and how it is "flat".

Exactly. William James "Pragmatism" "Lecture II What Pragmatism Means".

... Nonsense only discusses validity of construction and compile-time errors of speech.

Perfect analogy! Love it.

Absurdity only discusses implausibility of results, and is at best a runtime check or a runtime assertion on active natural language.

I think you said this better in the original post. I didn't get the point until you said,

Jarhyn said:
When you wish to describe something as "nonsense" and instead use the phrase "absurdity" you are explicitly stating that the thing CAN exist but you are incredulous about that existence. This is, in fact, argument from incredulity, and so an argument from ignorance.

Claims of absurdity may be answered with examples and evidence.
Claims of nonsense can only be answered through proof of sensibility and of noncontradiction under non-trivializing axiom.
People who make this fundamental error weaken their own arguments.

If "absurdity" is used to express incredulity, then you are spot on, in that it offers no argument.

I suspect that most of us use "absurd" and "nonsense" as synonyms. The OED supports this in some ways but has this interesting footnote to its definition of nonsense:

"nonsense A. n. I. Senses relating to absence of rationality or meaning. 1. a. That which is not sense; absurd or meaningless words or ideas.
Esp. in recent linguistic use often spelt non-sense to avoid connotations of absurdity."

And you apparently have a better understanding of that footnote than I do.

(An interesting aside is that in the etymology of "absurd" they list that it was originally used in Latin for music that is out of tune and that the "surd" originally meant "deaf". But both morphed into uses that indicated irrational. And "nonsense" moved in the same direction from its original meaning of not sensed by the 5 senses or by feeling.)

Jarhyn

Wizard
... Depends on which "earth", and how it is "flat".

Exactly. William James "Pragmatism" "Lecture II What Pragmatism Means".

... Nonsense only discusses validity of construction and compile-time errors of speech.

Perfect analogy! Love it.

Absurdity only discusses implausibility of results, and is at best a runtime check or a runtime assertion on active natural language.

I think you said this better in the original post. I didn't get the point until you said,

Jarhyn said:
When you wish to describe something as "nonsense" and instead use the phrase "absurdity" you are explicitly stating that the thing CAN exist but you are incredulous about that existence. This is, in fact, argument from incredulity, and so an argument from ignorance.

Claims of absurdity may be answered with examples and evidence.
Claims of nonsense can only be answered through proof of sensibility and of noncontradiction under non-trivializing axiom.
People who make this fundamental error weaken their own arguments.

If "absurdity" is used to express incredulity, then you are spot on, in that it offers no argument.

I suspect that most of us use "absurd" and "nonsense" as synonyms. The OED supports this in some ways but has this interesting footnote to its definition of nonsense:

"nonsense A. n. I. Senses relating to absence of rationality or meaning. 1. a. That which is not sense; absurd or meaningless words or ideas.
Esp. in recent linguistic use often spelt non-sense to avoid connotations of absurdity."

And you apparently have a better understanding of that footnote than I do.

(An interesting aside is that in the etymology of "absurd" they list that it was originally used in Latin for music that is out of tune and that the "surd" originally meant "deaf". But both morphed into uses that indicated irrational. And "nonsense" moved in the same direction from its original meaning of not sensed by the 5 senses or by feeling.)
So, I haven't read those things. I don't even generally consult dictionaries.

Mostly, my understanding comes from a strong reading of Albert Camus in understanding absurdity, and literally mashing a NON up against SENSE as in "to make sense" for shake an idea out of the intersection of those two concepts.

I rediscover a lot of words that way, and perhaps invent the occasional new word, though I'm not exactly sure you could call constructive linguistics of adding newer modifiers to old words "inventing new words".

At any rate, I try to understand and differentiate on apparent synonyms more than most, since synonymousness? synonymity? Is usually a subtle lie, and usually the existence of such two words to say the same thing say that same thing but of different contexts, or which are actually divisible entirely, like "nonsense" and "absurdity".

Occasionally, I find synonymity hiding between words that might perhaps not be thought of as such. Like between synonymity and cohomology, I think? I'll have to look at those two more. Or between "will" and "Algorighm". That one actually surprised me.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
'A pragmatic approach to pragmatism'.

Would that be absurd or nonsense.

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
'A pragmatic approach to pragmatism'.

Would that be absurd or nonsense.
Neither. It would be practical advice.

Jarhyn

Wizard
'A pragmatic approach to pragmatism'.

Would that be absurd or nonsense.
Neither. It would be practical advice.
"Would that be absurd or nonsense." Is nonsense though, clearly, though is very close to being able to make sense. It is so close that we just assume the closest sensible thing to the nonsense.

But in reality this contains a syntax error wherein the would confuses the period and the period confuses the would.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
'It is nonsense but close to making sense'. Is this nonsense or absurd.

Biblical literalists make sense out nonsense all the time. So do followers of Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce.

Marvin Edwards

Veteran Member
'A pragmatic approach to pragmatism'.

Would that be absurd or nonsense.
Neither. It would be practical advice.
"Would that be absurd or nonsense." Is nonsense though, clearly, though is very close to being able to make sense. It is so close that we just assume the closest sensible thing to the nonsense.

But in reality this contains a syntax error wherein the would confuses the period and the period confuses the would.
It is perfectly sensible. One would want to use pragmatism, and any other philosophical method, in a practical fashion. Like any other concept, it can theoretically be misused.

Jarhyn

Wizard
'It is nonsense but close to making sense'. Is this nonsense or absurd.

Biblical literalists make sense out nonsense all the time. So do followers of Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce.
Well, there are a lot of different kinds of errors that exist in speech.
Code:
if (a=b);
{
Do_stuff();
}

Is a silly absurdity assuming a language such as C, but it is not nonsense.

Code:
if a=b;
do_stuff;`

Is nonsense assuming C: "if" requires a provision of a thing evaluable as a boolean for the argument of the structure to be located in a closed paranthesis.
'A pragmatic approach to pragmatism'.

Would that be absurd or nonsense.
Neither. It would be practical advice.
"Would that be absurd or nonsense." Is nonsense though, clearly, though is very close to being able to make sense. It is so close that we just assume the closest sensible thing to the nonsense.

But in reality this contains a syntax error wherein the would confuses the period and the period confuses the would.
It is perfectly sensible. One would want to use pragmatism, and any other philosophical method, in a practical fashion. Like any other concept, it can theoretically be misused.
Well, the idea of pragmatism is that there are sensible statements that are structured with very similar token arrangements.

It no more makes the original construction not nonsense; it does mean we can make sense out of nonsense things, and that "close to being able to make sense" is a sensible idea.

I will grant that it's absurd, though, only insofar as I am, generally speaking, an absurdist.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
if (a = b) then ( a != b) || do not pass go

& y! ?