Nonsense and Absurdity

[Jarhyn]

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]

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]

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]

Beware the Jaberwock.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

See also Absurdism

 

[Jarhyn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Try empiricism. Oh so much better than rationalism.

It can be materially demonstrated.

 

[Jarhyn]

Try empiricism. Oh so much better than rationalism.

It can be materially demonstrated.

Try not derailing the thread.

 

[steve_bank]

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]

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.

Maybe try reading some Camus?

 

[steve_bank]

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]

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]

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.

Theatre of the Absurd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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]

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]

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]

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.