Einstein on truth is objective

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:37 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Falsifiability is about being falsifiable in principle. That means that in the future, its possible that we have the technology to do the measurements.

It's not certain we ever will, but either way you've got quite a large number of physicists pouring countless hours into designing abstract models that will most likely never be tested in their lifetimes.
Nothing we know is ever certain. Why are you thinking in terms of certainty?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I don't understand. If there is no objective reality, then what would our measurements be measuring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pearson#Einstein_and_Pearson.27s_work

rombomb wrote:The MWI interpretation of QM says that there is randomness (i.e. that determinism is false). See _The Beginning of Infinity_ by David Deutsch, or ask questions on the BoI list:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/beginning-of-infinity

Yes, Rombomb, I am aware of the many worlds interpretation and David Deutsch's work. MWI is predicated by the observed behavior of quantum physics. To assert the universe is intrinsically random because of a hypothesis based on these observations would be moving away from the root.
I don't know what "moving away from the root" means. DD's theory is about the implications of the QM double-split experiment.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Our perceptions are theory-laden, thus they are fallible (aka flawed).

There was no reason to reiterate this,
As far as you know. Just because *you* don't know of a reason doesn't mean that I don't have a reason. I do have a reason, though you might not agree with it, and it may objectively be a bad reason.

Dreamspace wrote:
and given the quoted block it was not apropos, either. Try to actually digest what it is you read.
Why do you assume that I didn't? Trying and failing is not the same as not trying. Also, you don't know (with certainty) that I didn't try. You have a theory that I wasn't trying, and your theory is conjectural knowledge (i.e. fallible). Instead, why didn't you come up with the theory that I tried and failed? Or maybe you did create both theories (which happen to be rivals of each other). In which case, what criticisms did you have of the theory that I tried and failed?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:
In such a context, the implications of that example clearly indicate how flawed subjects are in deciphering the world through the senses, not that objects do not exist; it wouldn't have any metaphysical bearings. In any case, there is quite a bit of equivocation on both sides and little in the way of direct, cited evidence to suggest Einstein's position either way, and I, too, am just replying based on what I understand off-handedly.
As we all always are.

As we all always are what?
As we all always are "replying based on what [we] understand off-handedly."

Dreamspace wrote:
Giving glib responses?
Glib means thoughtless (had to dictionary that one). Why do you assume that my response was thoughtless? Why don't you instead ask "What is the significance of that"? Or "what do you mean"? Or "what problem does that solve"?

It was thoughtful. Note that in the beginning of your post you mentioned certainty. And my "as we always are" idea is one that conflicts with your idea of caring about certainty.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:46 pm

Dreamspace wrote:To assert the universe is intrinsically random because of a hypothesis based on these observations would be moving away from the root

In addition as intrinsically random universe wouldn't allow for repeatable experiments - of which we certainly have.
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:59 pm

Dreamspace wrote:Well, he was against the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. But nowadays I do suppose 'QM' and 'indeterminism' are considered synonymous.

Yes, more specifically, against CI.

Wiki wrote:Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (cf. causality) by prior events. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. It is highly relevant to the philosophical problem of free will, particularly in the form of metaphysical libertarianism.

If you mean this indeterminism, then I'm not sure how the consensus stacks up with that definition.

As one who accepts the Virtual Reality Conjecture as self-evident, even indeterminism may be off - depending on how the define the term 'chance'.

If it is defined as in particle physics that their is at work the mechanism of statistical probability, then I might concede this might have some value.
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:02 pm

rombomb wrote:Nothing we know is ever certain. Why are you thinking in terms of certainty?

You're either quibbling or simply failing to understand context once more. The statement does not imply infallible knowledge exists.

rombomb wrote:I don't know what "moving away from the root" means. DD's theory is about the implications of the QM double-split experiment.

Why would you bring it up? What purpose does it serve to namedrop David Deutsch in this instance?

rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:There was no reason to reiterate this
As far as you know. Just because *you* don't know of a reason doesn't mean that I don't have a reason. I do have a reason, though you might not agree with it, and it may objectively be a bad reason.

If it appears you're simply chanting an impertinent mantra, I would say this a failure of proper communication. If you can't commute your ideas then you cannot have a proper dialectical exchange.

You need to both comprehend what you are being told, as well as post more than inchoate responses.

rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:
and given the quoted block it was not apropos, either. Try to actually digest what it is you read.
Why do you assume that I didn't?

Because you were talking about something else when you responded. You either purposefully changed the subject or, more likely, you simply didn't understand what the subject was. It's been well-established you're incapable of understanding context-sensitive statements, and your inability to understand metaphor or figurative speech instead interpreting everything in very literal terms is indicative of this.

rombomb wrote:Instead, why didn't you come up with the theory that I tried and failed? Or maybe you did create both theories (which happen to be rivals of each other). In which case, what criticisms did you have of the theory that I tried and failed?

This is also an admission you failed to comprehend what has been told to you. I don't even think you've noticed that I've essentially extricated you from this rather messy situation with RBM where you were failing to even properly defend your original assertion, let alone grasp any of the individual points or refutations being made.

rombomb wrote:As we all always are "replying based on what [we] understand off-handedly."

Assuming every response is extempore.

rombomb wrote:Glib means thoughtless (had to dictionary that one). Why do you assume that my response was thoughtless? Why don't you instead ask "What is the significance of that"? Or "what do you mean"? Or "what problem does that solve"?

Once again, you missed the point of the statement. I hadn't accused you of being glib. I was asking you if you believed everybody simply gives responses without first doing a little investigation, as RBM suggested we do.

rombomb wrote:It was thoughtful. Note that in the beginning of your post you mentioned certainty. And my "as we always are" idea is one that conflicts with your idea of caring about certainty.

You failed to apprehend a statement of which had a meaning pellucid in the original context. Yes, there is no way to be certain whether or not we'll be able to conduct experiments to falsify string theory, but the likelihood is quite low by virtually all estimations. You are arguing semantics. You zoomed in on linguistics and, in your failure to be able to understand larger contexts, subtext, or anything other than explicit concrete statements, failed to properly interpret the text.

You know, Rombomb, if you really were simply an INTP in an unhealthy state, it would mean you could remedy this deficiency quite easily. Our type is quite proficient at understanding context and metaphor, but not when they have retreated too far into their own internal worlds. This implications of this would be that you are not autistic or inherently incapable of these things.


Last edited by Dreamspace on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:15 pm

RBM wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:To assert the universe is intrinsically random because of a hypothesis based on these observations would be moving away from the root

In addition as intrinsically random universe wouldn't allow for repeatable experiments - of which we certainly have.

That's not quite true, as at everyday scales this randomness plays such an infinitesimally tiny role that we can manage such experiments quite easily. At a small enough scale of magnification, however, this falls apart; we are unable to predict what state the resultant particle of a wavefunction collapse will be in. The only thing replicable at that scale is the inability to replicably collapse a wavefunction in the same manner time and again. This is why Einstein found this unsatisfactory and believed there had to be some sort of hidden variable factoring into this that, if we could ascertain, would allow us to predict and replicate results at this scale. As of current, we cannot.

So the question now is, is it a limit of ourselves or a statement about the fundamental nature of our universe?

If you mean this indeterminism, then I'm not sure how the consensus stacks up with that definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics

It is generally believed that intrinsically random events imply our universe is indeterministic, although this has not been undisputed by any stretch. I believe it would be safe to say, however, that this is the majority view.

If we cannot predict how quantum particles will behave with any degree of precision or specificality, unless you contest that this is simply a limitation of our knowledge and experimental procedures, it is difficult to make a case for a universe which is fully deterministic.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:18 pm

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. You see belief in objective reality (metaphysical realism) and determinism as one in the same? I don't think it is wise to confuse these two ideas.

No that's not my position.


Dreamspace wrote: RBM wrote:But due to the mechanism of free will individuals can deny the science and it's data, quite readily if one wishes to do so.



So you're asserting Einstein was a compatibilist (a determinist which believes this philosophy and free will are reconcilable), as well as an idealist? This is an odd hodgepodge set of beliefs that don't really go hand in hand with one another. That is, their relation to one another is not self-evident: determinism is traditionally seen as something which may preclude free will, if anything; indeterminism refutes local realism and not metaphysical realism/materialism; and the choice to deny empirical evidence doesn't seem to predicate free will as much as dereism.

No I'm not asserting Einstein of anything else. My 'free will' comment was my own observation about BS - Belief Systems. - in general.
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:27 pm

Your attempts to 'see where I'm coming from' would maybe be clarified if you had looked up the earlier works of the guys I mentioned.

And I forgot to mention, from earlier:

Re: citations

Good for you. Tom highly recommends 'open minded skepticism'. Here's the video that the slide if from: Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 1 of 18 , It's from '08 but it's closest to being appropriate for where this thread content is.

avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:30 pm

RBM wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:Ah, now I see where you're coming from. You see belief in objective reality (metaphysical realism) and determinism as one in the same? I don't think it is wise to confuse these two ideas.

No that's not my position.

My mistake, then.

But I still do not really see any compelling evidence to suggest Einstein did not believe in an 'out there', external reality.

RBM wrote:No I'm not asserting Einstein of anything else. My 'free will' comment was my own observation about BS - Belief Systems. - in general.

Ah, well, the only way this position would be tenable would indeed be if there was no objective truth — a cognitive ergo sum-type of deal where reality is only the mere production of the mind. Which has been your position all along, yes? So, yes, if you take this position then your will can preempt the external world.

I'm sorry for belaboring what was implicitly stated all along, but I'm just trying to make sure we're on the same page.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:35 pm

RBM wrote:Your attempts to 'see where I'm coming from' would maybe be clarified if you had looked up the earlier works of the guys I mentioned.

And I forgot to mention, from earlier:

Re: citations

Good for you. Tom highly recommends 'open minded skepticism'. Here's the video that the slide if from: Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 1 of 18 , It's from '08 but it's closest to being appropriate for where this thread content is.

I don't mean to sound contumacious, but the onus should be on the one who is presenting an argument; one should fully propound their position and its supporting reason and evidence. But, yes, I could perhaps use some reading. I'll jot down Brian Whitworth, Nick Bostrom, Ed Fredkin and Campbell on my to-read list — if I can get myself to stop procrastinating.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:37 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
RBM wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:To assert the universe is intrinsically random because of a hypothesis based on these observations would be moving away from the root

In addition as intrinsically random universe wouldn't allow for repeatable experiments - of which we certainly have.

That's not quite true, as at everyday scales this randomness plays such an infinitesimally tiny role that we can manage such experiments quite easily. At a small enough scale of magnification, however, this falls apart; we are unable to predict what state the resultant particle of a wavefunction collapse will be in. The only thing replicable at that scale is the inability to replicably collapse a wavefunction in the same manner time and again. This is why Einstein found this unsatisfactory and believed there had to be some sort of hidden variable factoring into this that, if we could ascertain, would allow us to predict and replicate results at this scale. As of current, we cannot.

So the question now is, is it a limit of ourselves or a statement about the fundamental nature of our universe?

If you mean this indeterminism, then I'm not sure how the consensus stacks up with that definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics

It is generally believed that intrinsically random events imply our universe is indeterministic, although this has not been undisputed by any stretch. I believe it would be safe to say, however, that this is the majority view.

If we cannot predict how quantum particles will behave with any degree of precision or specificality, unless you contest that this is simply a limitation of our knowledge and experimental procedures, it is difficult to make a case for a universe which is fully deterministic.

The scale difference is a clue. That clue is that the implicit model being used is incorrect.

An essential experimental methodology that should be used, but isn't when at small scales is the use of double/triple blinds.

The only model that accounts for this is one that places Consciousness as fundamental and matter as derivative which is the opposite of present arrangement. It is sufficiently different that advocates admit a paradigm change is required. That's a major overhaul and takes time and effort. It's early yet in it's development.
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:43 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
RBM wrote:Your attempts to 'see where I'm coming from' would maybe be clarified if you had looked up the earlier works of the guys I mentioned.

And I forgot to mention, from earlier:

Re: citations

Good for you. Tom highly recommends 'open minded skepticism'. Here's the video that the slide if from: Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 1 of 18 , It's from '08 but it's closest to being appropriate for where this thread content is.

I don't mean to sound contumacious, but the onus should be on the one who is presenting an argument; one should fully propound their position and its supporting reason and evidence. But, yes, I could perhaps use some reading. I'll jot down Brian Whitworth, Nick Bostrom, Ed Fredkin and Campbell on my to-read list — if I can get myself to stop procrastinating.

Oh, I've got, probably a 100 Kb of bookmarks to assist you up the learning curve if you are interested. Take a look at the link of Tom's I just posted and see what you can and can't grasp.

Here's a fair warning though>> This isn't *ultimately* an intellectual exercise. It's a 'Being' exercise. Or use the term 'spirit' or if you are a theist, use 'soul'. These terms are all non-intellectual in their essence.

avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:01 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Nothing we know is ever certain. Why are you thinking in terms of certainty?

You're either quibbling or simply failing to understand context once more.
K, thats 2 theories, here's a 3rd one: you don't understand why I mentioned it (see below).

Dreamspace wrote:
The statement does not imply infallible knowledge exists.
Then I don't understand why you mention something that you and I both find obvious.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I don't know what "moving away from the root" means. DD's theory is about the implications of the QM double-split experiment.

Why would you bring it up? What purpose does it serve to namedrop David Deutsch in this instance?
Name drop? You brought up something that is explained by MWI and DD explains it well. Why wouldn't I bring it up? Why should I hide it?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:There was no reason to reiterate this
As far as you know. Just because *you* don't know of a reason doesn't mean that I don't have a reason. I do have a reason, though you might not agree with it, and it may objectively be a bad reason.

If it appears you're simply chanting an impertinent mantra, I would say this a failure of proper communication. If you can't commute your ideas then you cannot have a proper dialectical exchange.
Which is why, when you don't know *why* I said something, you should ask me why I said it. Do you agree? Otherwise, how can we have a proper dialectical exchange?

Dreamspace wrote:
You need to both comprehend what you are being told, as well as post more than inchoate responses.
Of course. And part of comprehending what I'm being told, should include asking clarifying questions when I'm unclear on your meaning. Which is something I've done many times with you and you misinterpret it as something to the effect of me wanting to suck everything into my knowledge.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:
and given the quoted block it was not apropos, either. Try to actually digest what it is you read.
Why do you assume that I didn't?

Because you were talking about something else when you responded. You either purposefully changed the subject or, more likely, you simply didn't understand what the subject was. It's been well-established you're incapable of understanding context-sensitive statements,
Incapable? False. All problems are soluble.

Dreamspace wrote:
and your inability to understand metaphor or figurative speech instead interpreting everything in very literal terms is indicative of this.
Ok, so here you're saying that I have a specific problem in understanding, and your proposed solution is to "try to actually digest". I don't find that helpful. Do you? If not, then why did you say it?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Instead, why didn't you come up with the theory that I tried and failed? Or maybe you did create both theories (which happen to be rivals of each other). In which case, what criticisms did you have of the theory that I tried and failed?

This is also an admission you failed to comprehend what has been told to you.
Actually its not an admission (I didn't go back to reread it). Right now I'm talking about something simpler, which is your assumption that I didn't understand it. And how you replied to me after your assumption. But if you want, we can both assume that I misunderstood, since at this moment, neither of us have an indication that I did understand you (since we've since side-tracked to meta-discussion).

Dreamspace wrote:
I don't even think you've noticed that I've essentially extricated you from this rather messy situation with RBM where you were failing to even properly defend your original assertion, let alone grasp any of the individual points or refutations being made.
Assertions don't need defenses. They can be dropped as soon as we find out they are wrong.

And, AFAIK, I did successfully "defend" my original assertion.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:As we all always are "replying based on what [we] understand off-handedly."

Assuming every response is extempore.
I don't follow what you're trying to say there. Please use more common words. I find myself looking up the dictionary more than once per post from you (four times in this post). That is conducive to confusion on my part.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Glib means thoughtless (had to dictionary that one). Why do you assume that my response was thoughtless? Why don't you instead ask "What is the significance of that"? Or "what do you mean"? Or "what problem does that solve"?

Once again, you missed the point of the statement. I hadn't accused you of being glib. I was asking you if you believed everybody simply gives responses without first doing a little investigation, as RBM suggested we do.
Ya I didn't get your point there. To answer your question, I don't believe that "everybody simply gives responses without first doing a little investigation". I also don't know why you're asking.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:It was thoughtful. Note that in the beginning of your post you mentioned certainty. And my "as we always are" idea is one that conflicts with your idea of caring about certainty.

You failed to apprehend a statement of which had a meaning pellucid in the original context. Yes, there is no way to be certain whether or not we'll be able to conduct experiments to falsify string theory, but the likelihood is quite low by virtually all estimations. You are arguing semantics.
No. You are confused about my position. And you are assuming that our disagreement is because of a fault of mine, when actually its a fault of yours.

You are thinking in terms of *likelihood*. There is no likelihood in truth. Likelihood is a justificationist mistake.

So I was right to ask you why you're thinking in terms of certainty. Note that likelihood of truth is a minute variation of certainty in truth.

Dreamspace wrote:
You zoomed in on linguistics and, in your failure to be able to understand larger contexts, subtext, or anything other than explicit concrete statements, failed to properly interpret the text.
Now that you know that I disagree with the idea of thinking in terms of likelihood's with respect to the truth of theories, do you still think I misunderstood the context?

Dreamspace wrote:
You know, Rombomb, if you really were simply an INTP in an unhealthy state, it would mean you could remedy this deficiency quite easily. Our type is quite proficient at understanding context and metaphor,
All of that is about learning. I've read very little metaphor in my life, therefore I don't know many of them. If I read more fiction, I'd learn more metaphors. I can't learn them from thin air. Metaphors are traditions, most of which I haven't learned.

Context is more complicated. Its reading comprehension. And mine is pretty weak (compared to many people I know).

Dreamspace wrote:
but not when they have retreated too far into their own internal worlds. This implications of this would be that you are not autistic or inherently incapable of these things.
You shouldn't be thinking in terms of INTP/autism/etc. You should be thinking in terms of thinking mistakes.

Many thinking mistakes are a result of justificationist philosophy. For example, you think in terms of certainty and likelihood of ideas. These are justificationist mistakes.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:18 pm

RBM wrote:Oh, I've got, probably a 100 Kb of bookmarks to assist you up the learning curve if you are interested.

Oh, I think I've enough on my plate at the time. I don't read nearly as much as I should; I just spent something like an hour sorting through papers and cleaning my room attempting to find my reading list… which should give you an idea how often I refer to it and cross things off.

RBM wrote:Take a look at the link of Tom's I just posted and see what you can and can't grasp.

Here's a fair warning though>> This isn't *ultimately* an intellectual exercise. It's a 'Being' exercise. Or use the term 'spirit' or if you are a theist, use 'soul'. These terms are all non-intellectual in their essence

I'll take a look at it soon. I'll have to admit, though, that I am not the most 'spiritual' person, so I'll try to switch modalities and view it from that perspective.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:40 pm

rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:The statement does not imply infallible knowledge exists.
Then I don't understand why you mention something that you and I both find obvious.

All right, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understood I was making a statement about whether or not we as humans will be able to falsify string theory — not whether or not it in principle would theoretically be possible were it not for our current limitations — and respond accordingly:

I am not a prognosticative oracle able to predict the future. I do not know if we will be able to falsify string theory in our lifetimes.

rombomb wrote:Name drop? You brought up something that is explained by MWI and DD explains it well. Why wouldn't I bring it up? Why should I hide it?

MWI is an attempt to account for this observed behavior. It is an unsubstantiated theory, among dozens of others. If you are going to tell me all knowledge is equally fallible in spite of some of it failing to withstand the scientifically rigorous experimentations needed to even attempt to falsify it, you are the one in direct contradiction to Popper's tenets.

rombomb wrote:Which is why, when you don't know *why* I said something, you should ask me why I said it. Do you agree? Otherwise, how can we have a proper dialectical exchange?

I don't think you can answer the question if you don't understand it. It doesn't even seem like you're even reading what I've writen or even replying to me. You're talking about a different subject altogether and are unable to differentiate.

Dreamspace wrote:
You need to both comprehend what you are being told, as well as post more than inchoate responses.
Of course. And part of comprehending what I'm being told, should include asking clarifying questions when I'm unclear on your meaning. Which is something I've done many times with you and you misinterpret it as something to the effect of me wanting to suck everything into my knowledge.

rombomb wrote:Incapable? False. All problems are soluble.

I advise you get troubleshooting ASAP.

rombomb wrote:Ok, so here you're saying that I have a specific problem in understanding, and your proposed solution is to "try to actually digest". I don't find that helpful. Do you? If not, then why did you say it?

It doesn't seem like you're attempting to understand my position, and if you are truly trying then it would seem you are not capable.

rombomb wrote:Assertions don't need defenses. They can be dropped as soon as we find out they are wrong.

You didn't find out whether or not it was wrong. Look at what RBM told you about your concession.

rombomb wrote:And, AFAIK, I did successfully "defend" my original assertion.

This is a problem.

rombomb wrote:I don't follow what you're trying to say there. Please use more common words. I find myself looking up the dictionary more than once per post from you (four times in this post). That is conducive to confusion on my part.

If you aren't even familiar with universal terms, to express yourself, it is no wonder you can't get on the same page as others.

The discussion was about whether or not people actually stop to do research before or between making posts.

rombomb wrote:Ya I didn't get your point there. To answer your question, I don't believe that "everybody simply gives responses without first doing a little investigation". I also don't know why you're asking.

That's what the subject was: "[This thread has] little in the way of direct, cited evidence to suggest Einstein's position either way, and I, too, am just replying based on what I understand off-handedly."

Meaning, not enough investigation has been done by anybody here, nor has there been enough evidence provided, to assert whether or not Einstein believed in an external reality. Therefore, rather than responding and constructing an argument with a paucity of evidence, either someone should look for sources or evidence, or we should all come clean and admit we can only speculate Einstein's position (if he had one) with what we have to work with in this thread.

rombomb wrote:No. You are confused about my position. And you are assuming that our disagreement is because of a fault of mine, when actually its a fault of yours.

You are thinking in terms of *likelihood*. There is no likelihood in truth. Likelihood is a justificationist mistake.

So I was right to ask you why you're thinking in terms of certainty. Note that likelihood of truth is a minute variation of certainty in truth.

Rombomb, I can't predict the future. And if you want to debate whether or not I could, this is not a matter of justificationism, but indeterminism. Furthermore, even were the universe deterministic, I am not capable of ascertaining all the factors and integers required to do the calculations to determine it; the universe is a ridiculously huge system, and even if I did possess the knowledge, I don't possess the computational power.

Altogether, this is a logistical problem, not a philosophical statement about knowledge or truth. The context was predicting when and if we would possess the means to test and attempt to falsify string theory.

Rombomb wrote:Now that you know that I disagree with the idea of thinking in terms of likelihood's with respect to the truth of theories, do you still think I misunderstood the context?

I already knew you disagreed with justificationists and were a proponent of critical rationalism — trust me. The problem here is somehow misconstruing my statement about predicting the future of technology in the coming decades as something to do with weighing the probability of string theory being true. It isn't even a coherent interpretation; knowing the likelihood we will be capable of falisfying string theory anytime soon does not equate to estimating the likelihood the theory is true.

I was talking about the probability of string theory taking the litmus test — not the outcome of the litmus test, nor necessarily the theory's veracity.

That being said, why should I believe string theory in the absence of falsifiable evidence?

Rombomb wrote:All of that is about learning. I've read very little metaphor in my life, therefore I don't know many of them. If I read more fiction, I'd learn more metaphors. I can't learn them from thin air. Metaphors are traditions, most of which I haven't learned.

Uh, no. Comprehending metaphors does not requite rote memorization. It is disturbing to even think you would need to do something so tedious to understand them. It is more a matter of exercising a mental 'muscle' so that interpreting context and metaphor will come more naturally; you shouldn't need to have seen a specific, particular metaphor beforehand to decipher it.

Rombomb wrote:Context is more complicated. Its reading comprehension. And mine is pretty weak (compared to many people I know).

I'm telling you this problem is soluble, unless you believe this is simply an inherent limitation of yours. Which I was trying to tell you it wasn't with the below quoted passage.

Dreamspace wrote:… but not when they have retreated too far into their own internal worlds. This implications of this would be that you are not autistic or inherently incapable of these things.
You shouldn't be thinking in terms of INTP/autism/etc. You should be thinking in terms of thinking mistakes.

Many thinking mistakes are a result of justificationist philosophy. For example, you think in terms of certainty and likelihood of ideas. These are justificationist mistakes.[/quote]

No, Rombomb. You don't seem to be able to identify an instance of justificationism. I am thinking in terms of logical mistakes, and explaining to you you should have the natural aptitude to be a better logician.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:04 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
RBM wrote:Oh, I've got, probably a 100 Kb of bookmarks to assist you up the learning curve if you are interested.

Oh, I think I've enough on my plate at the time. I don't read nearly as much as I should; I just spent something like an hour sorting through papers and cleaning my room attempting to find my reading list… which should give you an idea how often I refer to it and cross things off.

RBM wrote:Take a look at the link of Tom's I just posted and see what you can and can't grasp.

Here's a fair warning though>> This isn't *ultimately* an intellectual exercise. It's a 'Being' exercise. Or use the term 'spirit' or if you are a theist, use 'soul'. These terms are all non-intellectual in their essence

I'll take a look at it soon. I'll have to admit, though, that I am not the most 'spiritual' person, so I'll try to switch modalities and view it from that perspective.

I just remembered a good 15 minute 'intellectual' link, that would fit your busy schedule: Physicist Tom Campbell - MBT Questions #1 :

Published on Apr 3, 2012

Physicist Thomas Warren Campbell answers a question from a member of his My Big TOE forum (link below). Tom is a nuclear physicist who has worked for NASA and the Missile Defense Agency. He has written three books known as the 'My Big TOE' trilogy, which attempts to unify physics & metaphysics, normal & paranormal. It is a true Theory of Everything and Tom is able to eloquently explain how the data shows we are living in a computed probabilistic virtual reality. He is very open to questions and interactions with anybody who is curious to know more
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:25 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:The statement does not imply infallible knowledge exists.
Then I don't understand why you mention something that you and I both find obvious.

All right, I will give you the benefit of the doubt
I think that:

- You should *always* (i.e. in *every* situation) give me the benefit of the doubt. Just like you should *always* give everyone else the benefit of the doubt. Just like everyone should always give everyone else the benefit of the doubt.

- You should consider me innocent until proven guilty. This is a core principle in America's legal system (though it was first said during Ancient Rome or maybe Ancient Greece).

- You should consider your children innocent until proven guilty also.

- I want you to treat me like you would treat your children.

- Don't assume that I have malicious intent.

- Its ok to create the theory that I'm guilty, but you should also create the theory that I'm not guilty. Then you should act accordingly. That means that your replies to me should not assume that I'm guilty.

Note that "proven guilty" is a metaphor for finding some concrete flaw/problem/criticism.

In other words: For any given observable, there exists an infinite set of possible interpretations -- some negative, some positive. The goal is to rule out all but one. But often we are presented with situations where we have to make a choice where we haven't yet ruled out all but one interpretation. What should we do? I choose to err on the side of a positive interpretation.

In this case, the observable is the text of my post, and the positive interpretation is that I have good intentions. In this interpretation, my goal is good -- I am trying to expand my knowledge by discussing ideas with you that we are both interested in.

Dreamspace wrote:
and assume you understood I was making a statement about whether or not we as humans will be able to falsify string theory
Thats not what I thought you were saying. I thought you were saying that the concept of falsifiability requires that one *knows* that a scientific theory can be experimented on. That idea implies that the scientist would already have to know that the technological knowledge required to do the experiment already exists. I'm saying that falsifiability does not require that sort of knowledge. It only requires that a theory be *possible in principle* to be ruled out by experiment. I consider this to be a big distinction. And your use of the word certainty, in regards to whether or not we will be able to experimentally test string theory, indicates (to me) that we are on opposite sides of that distinction.

Dreamspace wrote:
not whether or not it in principle would theoretically be possible were it not for our current limitations — and respond accordingly:

I am not a prognosticative oracle able to predict the future. I do not know if we will be able to falsify string theory in our lifetimes.
Agreed. Making predictions like that is prophecy.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Name drop? You brought up something that is explained by MWI and DD explains it well. Why wouldn't I bring it up? Why should I hide it?

MWI is an attempt to account for this observed behavior. It is an unsubstantiated theory,
What do you mean by unsubstantiated? MWI hasn't been refuted. And all other theories have been refuted. In other words, I have no criticisms of MWI, and I am persuaded by the refutations of the rival theories.

Dreamspace wrote:
among dozens of others. If you are going to tell me all knowledge is equally fallible in spite of some of it failing to withstand the scientifically rigorous experimentations needed to even attempt to falsify it, you are the one in direct contradiction to Popper's tenets.
I don't believe that I'm contradicting Popper.

There is no scientific evidence (yet) regarding any of the theories (MWI and its rivals). The only thing we have now is non-scientific refutations.

Note that Einstein's theory of gravity was the prevailing theory long before it's rivals were scientifically refuted. Why? Because all of its rivals were non-scientifically refuted while his wasn't.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Which is why, when you don't know *why* I said something, you should ask me why I said it. Do you agree? Otherwise, how can we have a proper dialectical exchange?

I don't think you can answer the question if you don't understand it. It doesn't even seem like you're even reading what I've writen or even replying to me. You're talking about a different subject altogether and are unable to differentiate.
Ok, that is one theory. Here's another theory.

I did understand it. And I was answering what you said. You said "or our subjective interpretations of reality flawed?"

And I said "Our perceptions are theory-laden, thus they are fallible (aka flawed)." This answers your question. Though I should have been more clear by preceding my statement with "Yes, ". So I'll answer your question again:

Yes, our interpretations of reality *are* flawed, because our perceptions are theory-laden.

Now, do you have a criticism of the theory that I understood you? (Nevermind this question if it clear to you.)

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Incapable? False. All problems are soluble.

I advise you get troubleshooting ASAP.
Its already on my list of *open problems*, long before our discussion started.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Ok, so here you're saying that I have a specific problem in understanding, and your proposed solution is to "try to actually digest". I don't find that helpful. Do you? If not, then why did you say it?

It doesn't seem like you're attempting to understand my position, and if you are truly trying then it would seem you are not capable.
K thats one theory. Here's another theory.

That I am trying to understand you, and I did understand you, and you're confused about my reply (which I explained above).

Now, do you have a criticism of the theory that I'm trying to understood you? (Nevermind this question if it clear to you.)

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Assertions don't need defenses. They can be dropped as soon as we find out they are wrong.

You didn't find out whether or not it was wrong. Look at what RBM told you about your concession.
I did find out. And I did read RBM's reply and I replied. And I'm the last one to reply. Did you read it?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:And, AFAIK, I did successfully "defend" my original assertion.

This is a problem.
What is problematic about it?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I don't follow what you're trying to say there. Please use more common words. I find myself looking up the dictionary more than once per post from you (four times in this post). That is conducive to confusion on my part.

If you aren't even familiar with universal terms,

Universal terms? No. You are using many words that are not common. If you want, google some of your words and see how many results you get, e.g. glib, extempore. Then google some of my most uncommon words. Whose using the *more* universal terms?

Dreamspace wrote:
to express yourself,
No, *you* are the one expressing yourself with those words. *I* don't use those words. I only use words that I know well, and I try to use more common words so as to increase clarity thus reducing confusion.

Dreamspace wrote:
it is no wonder you can't get on the same page as others.
If the problem is that there is confusion on the part of your readers due to your use of uncommon words, do you think that the solution is for your readers to learn the uncommon words? Or for you to stop using uncommon words?

If your child complains that he doesn't understand what you're saying because you keep using words he doesn't know, do you tell him that he should learn the uncommon words you're using? Or do you think the proper solution is for you to stop using those words?

Dreamspace wrote:
The discussion was about whether or not people actually stop to do research before or between making posts.
RBM did not make it clear from the beginning that that was his intention. If that was his intention, he should have said so from the beginning.

And I disagree with you and him on that point, as I explained in my replies to RBM.

Neither RBM nor you have explained to me *why* its problematic. What harm did it cause? Did I lose credibility or something? I don't want credibility. I don't want people to believe my ideas because they think I have high status, and I don't want people to reject my ideas because they think I have low status. Thinking in terms of status is a justificationist mistake.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Ya I didn't get your point there. To answer your question, I don't believe that "everybody simply gives responses without first doing a little investigation". I also don't know why you're asking.

That's what the subject was: "[This thread has] little in the way of direct, cited evidence to suggest Einstein's position either way, and I, too, am just replying based on what I understand off-handedly."
But, every human being is always answering with uncertain knowledge. That is what I was saying.

Dreamspace wrote:
Meaning, not enough investigation has been done by anybody here, nor has there been enough evidence provided, to assert whether or not Einstein believed in an external reality.
You don't think that Einstein saying that there exists an objective reality is sufficient (which is a peice of evidence that I provided in my last reply to RBM)? What criticism do you have of this evidence?

Dreamspace wrote:
Therefore, rather than responding and constructing an argument with a paucity of evidence, either someone should look for sources or evidence, or we should all come clean and admit we can only speculate Einstein's position (if he had one) with what we have to work with in this thread.
Well, since I don't have any criticisms of the evidence I provided, and no one else has provided their criticism of it, then what reason do I have to reject it?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:No. You are confused about my position. And you are assuming that our disagreement is because of a fault of mine, when actually its a fault of yours.

You are thinking in terms of *likelihood*. There is no likelihood in truth. Likelihood is a justificationist mistake.

So I was right to ask you why you're thinking in terms of certainty. Note that likelihood of truth is a minute variation of certainty in truth.

Rombomb, I can't predict the future. And if you want to debate whether or not I could, this is not a matter of justificationism, but indeterminism. Furthermore, even were the universe deterministic, I am not capable of ascertaining all the factors and integers required to do the calculations to determine it; the universe is a ridiculously huge system, and even if I did possess the knowledge, I don't possess the computational power.

Altogether, this is a logistical problem, not a philosophical statement about knowledge or truth. The context was predicting when and if we would possess the means to test and attempt to falsify string theory.
BTW, I believe that the Multiverse is indeterministic.

Dreamspace wrote:
Rombomb wrote:Now that you know that I disagree with the idea of thinking in terms of likelihood's with respect to the truth of theories, do you still think I misunderstood the context?

I already knew you disagreed with justificationists and were a proponent of critical rationalism — trust me. The problem here is somehow misconstruing my statement about predicting the future of technology in the coming decades as something to do with weighing the probability of string theory being true. It isn't even a coherent interpretation; knowing the likelihood we will be capable of falisfying string theory anytime soon does not equate to estimating the likelihood the theory is true.
I agree.

Dreamspace wrote:
I was talking about the probability of string theory taking the litmus test — not the outcome of the litmus test, nor necessarily the theory's veracity.

That being said, why should I believe string theory in the absence of falsifiable evidence?
Only if you don't have any criticisms of it, and if you do have criticisms of all its rival theories. But you'd still only believe it fallibly, meaning that you're ready for someone to create a new criticism and reconsider your position.

Dreamspace wrote:
Rombomb wrote:All of that is about learning. I've read very little metaphor in my life, therefore I don't know many of them. If I read more fiction, I'd learn more metaphors. I can't learn them from thin air. Metaphors are traditions, most of which I haven't learned.

Uh, no. Comprehending metaphors does not requite rote memorization.
I said nothing about rote memorization. That isn't learning. This is what Einstein meant when he said "Information is not knowledge."

Dreamspace wrote:
It is disturbing to even think you would need to do something so tedious to understand them.
Why do you say "it is disturbing"? Don't you realize that you might be wrong?

Dreamspace wrote:
It is more a matter of exercising a mental 'muscle'
I disagree with that characterization. Its a matter of knowledge structure.

Dreamspace wrote:
so that interpreting context and metaphor will come more naturally; you shouldn't need to have seen a specific, particular metaphor beforehand to decipher it.
In some contexts, that *is* necessary. In other contexts, its about creating (aka learning) the skill of creating analogies that have some shared qualities with the reality that one is trying to explain.

Dreamspace wrote:
Rombomb wrote:Context is more complicated. Its reading comprehension. And mine is pretty weak (compared to many people I know).

I'm telling you this problem is soluble, unless you believe this is simply an inherent limitation of yours. Which I was trying to tell you it wasn't with the below quoted passage.
Of course its soluble. And I'm incrementally getting better at it without limit.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:… but not when they have retreated too far into their own internal worlds. This implications of this would be that you are not autistic or inherently incapable of these things.
You shouldn't be thinking in terms of INTP/autism/etc. You should be thinking in terms of thinking mistakes.

Many thinking mistakes are a result of justificationist philosophy. For example, you think in terms of certainty and likelihood of ideas. These are justificationist mistakes.

No, Rombomb. You don't seem to be able to identify an instance of justificationism. I am thinking in terms of logical mistakes,
Thinking in terms of certainty of truth *is* a logical mistake.

Dreamspace wrote:
and explaining to you you should have the natural aptitude
I disagree that there is such a thing as a "natural" aptitude. We are all born with the ability to guess and criticize. Everything is learned.

Dreamspace wrote:
to be a better logician.
Telling me that I should be better, is not helpful. Its void of content. It doesn't help me solve a problem, nor does it even help me identify a problem.

If you think I have a problem in my thinking, then address the problem, explain it. And give me ideas for possible solutions, if you have any. This would be helpful.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:36 pm

rombomb wrote:- You should consider me innocent until proven guilty. This is a core principle in America's legal system (though it was first said during Ancient Rome or maybe Ancient Greece).

- You should consider your children innocent until proven guilty also.

- Don't assume that I have malicious intent.

- Its ok to create the theory that I'm guilty, but you should also create the theory that I'm not guilty. Then you should act accordingly. That means that your replies to me should not assume that I'm guilty.

When I said 'benefit of the doubt', in that context I meant trusting your judgment about whether or not you understood what I wrote. Did you bother to read the second half of the sentence I wrote before you typed out such a lengthy response? The context of a singular sentence should not be outside your grasp.

rombomb wrote:- I want you to treat me like you would treat your children.

I sort of am.

rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:… and assume you understood I was making a statement about whether or not we as humans will be able to falsify string theory
Thats not what I thought you were saying. I thought you were saying that the concept of falsifiability requires that one *knows* that a scientific theory can be experimented on. That idea implies that the scientist would already have to know that the technological knowledge required to do the experiment already exists. I'm saying that falsifiability does not require that sort of knowledge. It only requires that a theory be *possible in principle* to be ruled out by experiment. I consider this to be a big distinction. And your use of the word certainty, in regards to whether or not we will be able to experimentally test string theory, indicates (to me) that we are on opposite sides of that distinction.

String theory, in effect, cannot be falsified. Whether or not it could in principle be falsified is something of a moot point. If all knowledge is fallible and conjectural, like you say, then how do you determine which ones to believe in? You have to put it through the wringer, so to speak, and attempt to falsify them. If we cannot at current falsify string theory, then we shouldn't accept it is 'conjectural truth' — it does not make predictions we may test. Why should anybody place much stock in string theory? It could be true, but without any corroborating evidence from testable predictions — predictions which, if they didn't pan out, would falsify the theory — then I don't see how you could label such a theory to even be 'conjectural truth'.

The criticisms of string theory are numerous, and I'm not alone in them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Criticisms
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/String_theory (The prefatory pragraphs alone indicate it's widely considered nothing more than a 'toy model'.)
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-need-for-experimental-falsifiability-in-string.html

That last one even invokes the name of the all-powerful wizard Popper:

dummies.com wrote:Popper reasoned that the principles of physics arose not merely by viewing little chunks of information, but by creating theories that were tested and repeatedly failed to be proved false. Observation alone could not have led to these insights, he claimed, if they’d never been put in positions to be proven false.

It sort of looks like the one whose position most closely adhere's to Popper's deductivist manifesto is my own — who'd have thought?

rombomb wrote:Agreed. Making predictions like that is prophecy.

Then claiming to know whether or not string theory will ever become 'conjectural knowledge' is prophesied nonsense.

rombomb wrote:What do you mean by unsubstantiated? MWI hasn't been refuted. And all other theories have been refuted. In other words, I have no criticisms of MWI, and I am persuaded by the refutations of the rival theories.

Well, for one, there's the lack of falsifiable evidence and testable predictions. I think maybe you should go back and read a little more Popper.

rombomb wrote:I don't believe that I'm contradicting Popper.

You were aware Popper liked falsifiable evidence, weren't you? Why is a dearth of evidence not a problem in this circumstance?

There is no scientific evidence (yet) regarding any of the theories (MWI and its rivals). The only thing we have now is non-scientific refutations.

Not to mention, there is a plethora of contradicting rational evidence, as the theory goes against many logical heuristic principles such as logical parsimony. Here's a litany conveniently provided by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Common_objections

rombomb wrote:Note that Einstein's theory of gravity was the prevailing theory long before it's rivals were scientifically refuted. Why? Because all of its rivals were non-scientifically refuted while his wasn't.

Einstein also had some rather compelling empirical evidence to go along with his theory. His theory made testable predictions.

rombomb wrote:Yes, our interpretations of reality *are* flawed, because our perceptions are theory-laden.

What I meant was the way our senses perceived information, thereby rendering empiricism invalid — which would mean there would be no benchmark to test our subjective interpretations to begin with, because even the outside world is nothing more than a mere illusion. This premise allows for one to adopt the idealist or solipsist mindset where one could say all truth is subjective rather than objective.

Once again, you failed to read into context.

rombomb wrote:I did understand you, and you're confused about my reply (which I explained above).

The evidence weighs heavily against your 'theory'. We're both of the same mind when it comes to objective reality, objective truth, and even Popper's approach, yet you haven't recognized this because you haven't understood my statements. As for your stance, it is almost impossible not to understand, for it is predictable and internally consistent… assuming you operate under a warped rule set. You'd made your 'rules' abundantly clear with excessive and repetitious exposition.

rombomb wrote:I did find out. And I did read RBM's reply and I replied. And I'm the last one to reply. Did you read it?

Yes, I have. I would agree with RBM's stance on the matter.

rombomb wrote:Universal terms? No. You are using many words that are not common. If you want, google some of your words and see how many results you get, e.g. glib, extempore. Then google some of my most uncommon words. Whose using the *more* universal terms?

I suppose I do have a tendency toward 'lofty' verbiage at times, but it is at times necessary to express ideas with the degree of precision necessary to get across the finer points, and the definitions universal; they don't have special meanings contingent upon the context of a specific framework of knowledge (i.e., I do not use lexical terms as though their definition has 1:1 parity with the common vernacular). You have the tendency to treat lexical terminology as though it is common parlance, thus every time you encounter a word such as "certain", you erroneously ascribe the remark to a mindset influenced by a specific philosophy. This is a severe problem, and it reflects a thought process which is perpetually tainted by the idiosyncrasies of personal dogma, unable to differentiate between a lexical intension and connotation bestowed by the immediate context of the sentence or paragraph provided by the author.

rombomb wrote:No, *you* are the one expressing yourself with those words. *I* don't use those words. I only use words that I know well, and I try to use more common words so as to increase clarity thus reducing confusion.

I think you should get into the habit of looking words up, then, if you are unfamiliar with them and are not going to be examining root and context to deduce their meaning. It may help you understand the books you read, as well.

rombomb wrote:If the problem is that there is confusion on the part of your readers due to your use of uncommon words, do you think that the solution is for your readers to learn the uncommon words? Or for you to stop using uncommon words?

If your child complains that he doesn't understand what you're saying because you keep using words he doesn't know, do you tell him that he should learn the uncommon words you're using? Or do you think the proper solution is for you to stop using those words?

You are not a child, Rombomb. You have the means to look up and learn new words you should already be familiar with as an educated adult. And I do believe you are simply anchoring; it is more a case of being unable (or at least unwilling) to understand or recognize the definitions which do not have specific esoteric meanings, or know which definition of the word is applicable in the given context.

rombomb wrote:RBM did not make it clear from the beginning that that was his intention. If that was his intention, he should have said so from the beginning.

He did.

rombomb wrote:And I disagree with you and him on that point, as I explained in my replies to RBM.

Neither RBM nor you have explained to me *why* its problematic. What harm did it cause? Did I lose credibility or something? I don't want credibility. I don't want people to believe my ideas because they think I have high status, and I don't want people to reject my ideas because they think I have low status. Thinking in terms of status is a justificationist mistake.

People want you to actually investigate the subject at hand so you will given an educated response. It may diminish your credibility if you don't ever seem to know what it is you're talking about or have your facts straight, but that's not the main issue; it is more an issue of intellectual laziness where you expect others to do all the work gathering data and gleaning insights.

Not to mention, shifting your position so easily without being given sufficient reason to do so… is ill-advised. Changing your stance on a subject is virtuous insofar as you actually have new evidence and insights which lead you to this change.

rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:That's what the subject was: "[This thread has] little in the way of direct, cited evidence to suggest Einstein's position either way, and I, too, am just replying based on what I understand off-handedly."
But, every human being is always answering with uncertain knowledge. That is what I was saying.

A statement which is at once true and besides the point.

rombomb wrote:You don't think that Einstein saying that there exists an objective reality is sufficient (which is a peice of evidence that I provided in my last reply to RBM)? What criticism do you have of this evidence?

You supposedly changed your mind and came over to RBM's side on the matter, then you went back to your original position. The complaint was aimed at your vacillation.

rombomb wrote:Well, since I don't have any criticisms of the evidence I provided, and no one else has provided their criticism of it, then what reason do I have to reject it?

If there is little in the way of supporting evidence or criticism, then you should neither reject or accept it — at best, you may make an opinion-based, tenuous judgment and then wait to stumble upon new evidence or criticism, if you are too intellectually lazy to actively seek out the answer. This, while lazy, would at least be intellectually honest.

rombomb wrote:BTW, I believe that the Multiverse is indeterministic.

Great.

rombomb wrote:Only if you don't have any criticisms of it, and if you do have criticisms of all its rival theories. But you'd still only believe it fallibly, meaning that you're ready for someone to create a new criticism and reconsider your position.

I would rather not take a position, in such an instance, unless perhaps in lieu of empirical evidence the theory was logically sound and didn't have any glaring outstanding issues. Even then, even if all knowledge is fallible, some knowledge has been more extensively tested than others. While something either is or is not objectively true, we can never know for certain which is objectively true — which is why we have to consider the plausibility or likelihood something is true based upon evidence. This is something you seem to have difficulty grasping.

Rombomb wrote:All of that is about learning. I've read very little metaphor in my life, therefore I don't know many of them. If I read more fiction, I'd learn more metaphors. I can't learn them from thin air. Metaphors are traditions, most of which I haven't learned.

[…]

I said nothing about rote memorization. That isn't learning. This is what Einstein meant when he said "Information is not knowledge."

It certainly sounded as though you were describing learning individual metaphors rather than learning how to identify them or think in figurative terms.

rombomb wrote:Why do you say "it is disturbing"? Don't you realize that you might be wrong?

Seeing how you provide additional evidence with practically every other sentence you type, it would seem unlikely. Although, of course, all knowledge is fallible, there's quite a bit of evidence for all to examine here.

rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:It is more a matter of exercising a mental 'muscle'
I disagree with that characterization. Its a matter of knowledge structure.

I most certainly do not use "knowledge structures" to comprehend metaphor. Most adolescents develop a natural ability to understand metaphor, and usually begin abusing this ability by being sarcastic or ironic, which is a low-level use of the ability. Such a linear learning approach is ill-suited for metaphor. Look around Dimension — there are some individuals who make heavy use of metaphor and figurative prose, yet neither strict logical structures nor memorization are not their forte.

rombomb wrote:
so that interpreting context and metaphor will come more naturally; you shouldn't need to have seen a specific, particular metaphor beforehand to decipher it.
In some contexts, that *is* necessary. In other contexts, its about creating (aka learning) the skill of creating analogies that have some shared qualities with the reality that one is trying to explain.

It's not been the case for me, and if you ask around I'm sure you'll find there are plenty others here who are seldom confused by new or original metaphor. Certain areas of the brain handle metaphor; you would do well to exercise them.

Rombomb wrote:Of course its soluble. And I'm incrementally getting better at it without limit.

Keep at it, then.

rombomb wrote:Thinking in terms of certainty of truth *is* a logical mistake.

Which has not been made.

Rombomb wrote:I disagree that there is such a thing as a "natural" aptitude. We are all born with the ability to guess and criticize. Everything is learned.

I don't feel like getting into such an argument here. But I've been meaning to check this book out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

Do you really believe it was simply a matter of experience which had allowed me to be proficient with metaphor and hermeneutics? Experience does most certainly make a difference, but I believe certain tasks may be a bit more of an uphill battle for some rather than others. But the attitude that nothing is inaccessible to you if you put forth the effort, I would agree with.

By the way, how do you account for child prodigies and the like?

Rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:to be a better logician.
Telling me that I should be better, is not helpful. Its void of content. It doesn't help me solve a problem, nor does it even help me identify a problem.

If you think I have a problem in my thinking, then address the problem, explain it. And give me ideas for possible solutions, if you have any. This would be helpful.

Yes, Rombomb, it is very much true that a fraction of a sentence is not a complete thought. Perhaps you should attempt to realize that snippet isn't a stand-alone sentence, but a piece of a whole whose meaning relies upon the full sum of its parts.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:38 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
RBM wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:Ah, now I see where you're coming from. You see belief in objective reality (metaphysical realism) and determinism as one in the same? I don't think it is wise to confuse these two ideas.

No that's not my position.

My mistake, then.

But I still do not really see any compelling evidence to suggest Einstein did not believe in an 'out there', external reality.

RBM wrote:No I'm not asserting Einstein of anything else. My 'free will' comment was my own observation about BS - Belief Systems. - in general.

Ah, well, the only way this position would be tenable would indeed be if there was no objective truth — a cognitive ergo sum-type of deal where reality is only the mere production of the mind. Which has been your position all along, yes? So, yes, if you take this position then your will can preempt the external world.

I'm sorry for belaboring what was implicitly stated all along, but I'm just trying to make sure we're on the same page.

I appreciate the belaboring under these conditions.

Free Will is 'baked into' reality. Whether an individual has it and how much takes the topic to a new variable called 'Decision Space'. DS is non-linear, I guess is how I'd put it, but it's definitely something that's complicated to explain with no previous background.

Examples of 'preempting the external world' is what is colloquially known as 'psi', paranormal and so on.

'Reality' is not a product of the mind, per se. Think of a stage with actors, trees and rocks on the stage.

Compelling ?

Oh well.

BTW, have you had a look at the last link I posted, the 'MBT Questions', one, at least ?
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:54 pm

RBM wrote:The scale difference is a clue. That clue is that the implicit model being used is incorrect.

An essential experimental methodology that should be used, but isn't when at small scales is the use of double/triple blinds.

The only model that accounts for this is one that places Consciousness as fundamental and matter as derivative which is the opposite of present arrangement. It is sufficiently different that advocates admit a paradigm change is required. That's a major overhaul and takes time and effort. It's early yet in it's development.

I had somehow missed this earlier in the barrage of posts during the early mornings where this thread is active.

When I meant small scales, I didn't mean the number of experiments taking place to test something, but the physical size of the experiments: Quantum experiments are subject to this inherent randomness. There is no way to predict how a probabilistic cloud will collapse; it could go from a nebulous potential to an actual discrete particle (electron or so on) anywhere in this range, and there is absolutely no way of determining precisely where it will end up. In fact, it can manifest in two or more places simultaneously — which, indeed, was exceedingly alarming to early 1900s physicists.

As for those videos, I'm waiting for when my mind is more centered an able to focus on the material. I have the tendency to not really take things in if I can't get my mind off of certain things at the time. I'll post a reply in here soon once I do.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:45 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:- You should consider me innocent until proven guilty. This is a core principle in America's legal system (though it was first said during Ancient Rome or maybe Ancient Greece).

- You should consider your children innocent until proven guilty also.

- Don't assume that I have malicious intent.

- Its ok to create the theory that I'm guilty, but you should also create the theory that I'm not guilty. Then you should act accordingly. That means that your replies to me should not assume that I'm guilty.

When I said 'benefit of the doubt', in that context I meant trusting your judgment about whether or not you understood what I wrote. Did you bother to read the second half of the sentence I wrote before you typed out such a lengthy response? The context of a singular sentence should not be outside your grasp.
I did read it. I think you've misunderstood. You've been assuming I'm "guilty" a lot in our discussions. You frequently "jump to conclusions". It means you don't understand fallibility well. Its a justificationist mistake.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:- I want you to treat me like you would treat your children.

I sort of am.
I think you're not even close to doing it right. Not even 'sort of'. See concrete examples below.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:… and assume you understood I was making a statement about whether or not we as humans will be able to falsify string theory
Thats not what I thought you were saying. I thought you were saying that the concept of falsifiability requires that one *knows* that a scientific theory can be experimented on. That idea implies that the scientist would already have to know that the technological knowledge required to do the experiment already exists. I'm saying that falsifiability does not require that sort of knowledge. It only requires that a theory be *possible in principle* to be ruled out by experiment. I consider this to be a big distinction. And your use of the word certainty, in regards to whether or not we will be able to experimentally test string theory, indicates (to me) that we are on opposite sides of that distinction.

String theory, in effect, cannot be falsified. Whether or not it could in principle be falsified is something of a moot point.
I assume you meant "String theory, in effect, cannot be falsified (now)." If you didn't mean that, then I'm confused as to what you meant, in which case, please explain.

Dreamspace wrote:
If all knowledge is fallible and conjectural, like you say, then how do you determine which ones to believe in? You have to put it through the wringer, so to speak, and attempt to falsify them. If we cannot at current falsify string theory, then we shouldn't accept it is 'conjectural truth' — it does not make predictions we may test. Why should anybody place much stock in string theory? It could be true, but without any corroborating evidence from testable predictions — predictions which, if they didn't pan out, would falsify the theory — then I don't see how you could label such a theory to even be 'conjectural truth'.
A person should only consider string theory conjecturally true if he has no criticisms of it and if he has criticisms of all its rival theories.

Dreamspace wrote:
The criticisms of string theory are numerous, and I'm not alone in them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Criticisms
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/String_theory (The prefatory pragraphs alone indicate it's widely considered nothing more than a 'toy model'.)
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-need-for-experimental-falsifiability-in-string.html
If a person has no criticisms of his own of string theory, and if he has considered those criticisms of string theory that you listed, and if he has criticisms of those criticisms, then he labels string theory as conjecturally true.

Dreamspace wrote:
That last one even invokes the name of the all-powerful wizard Popper:
Thats not a good metaphor for what Popper is. Is that a metaphor mistake? Or are you being sarcastic? Either way, its conducive to confusion. Its not good for philosophical discussion. Our goal should be to increase clarity. Sarcasm reduces clarity. So do bad metaphors.

Dreamspace wrote:
dummies.com wrote:Popper reasoned that the principles of physics arose not merely by viewing little chunks of information, but by creating theories that were tested and repeatedly failed to be proved false. Observation alone could not have led to these insights, he claimed, if they’d never been put in positions to be proven false.

It sort of looks like the one whose position most closely adhere's to Popper's deductivist manifesto is my own — who'd have thought?
I think you're saying that that statement is consistent with what you're saying but inconsistent with what I'm saying, but I don't understand why you think that. I find it consistent with what I said. If you disagree, please explain.


Note that there is a flaw in that statement. Notice the word "repeatedly". One test is enough to falsify a scientific theory. The only reason that scientists do a second test is to try to falsify the first test.


Also, dummies.com is not a primary source. Its no good. And what you've quoted doesn't even tell us who wrote it nor does it let us read the context of that statement.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Agreed. Making predictions like that is prophecy.

Then claiming to know whether or not string theory will ever become 'conjectural knowledge' is prophesied nonsense.
I haven't claimed that. Since you think that I did, quote me, and explain how you think it means what you say it means.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:What do you mean by unsubstantiated? MWI hasn't been refuted. And all other theories have been refuted. In other words, I have no criticisms of MWI, and I am persuaded by the refutations of the rival theories.

Well, for one, there's the lack of falsifiable evidence and testable predictions. I think maybe you should go back and read a little more Popper.
You are confused about Popper's view on this. Your implying that scientific knowledge exists *if and only if* its been refuted by experiment. That is wrong. For more on this, see _The Beginning of Infinity_, by David Deutsch, where David writes: "The overwhelming majority of theories are rejected because they contain bad explanations, not because they fail experimental tests."

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I don't believe that I'm contradicting Popper.

You were aware Popper liked falsifiable evidence, weren't you? Why is a dearth of evidence not a problem in this circumstance?
What does "liked falsifiable evidence" mean? That is too vague.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
There is no scientific evidence (yet) regarding any of the theories (MWI and its rivals). The only thing we have now is non-scientific refutations.

Not to mention, there is a plethora of contradicting rational evidence, as the theory goes against many logical heuristic principles such as logical parsimony. Here's a litany conveniently provided by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Common_objections
I'll check them out.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Note that Einstein's theory of gravity was the prevailing theory long before it's rivals were scientifically refuted. Why? Because all of its rivals were non-scientifically refuted while his wasn't.

Einstein also had some rather compelling empirical evidence to go along with his theory. His theory made testable predictions.
IF a theory doesn't make testable predictions (in principle), THEN it is not a scientific theory. This is what is meant by falsifiability. If you're saying that string theory does not make testable predictions (in principle) -- and if you're right -- then string theory is a bad explanation and thus is junk science, aka scientism, aka myth.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Yes, our interpretations of reality *are* flawed, because our perceptions are theory-laden.

What I meant was the way our senses perceived information, thereby rendering empiricism invalid — which would mean there would be no benchmark to test our subjective interpretations to begin with, because even the outside world is nothing more than a mere illusion. This premise allows for one to adopt the idealist or solipsist mindset where one could say all truth is subjective rather than objective.

Once again, you failed to read into context.
Great. So when I first said that our perceptions are fallible because they are theory-laden, why didn't you just say, "I don't think you've understood me, let me explain again." Or "I don't know why you said that, please explain." Instead, you said, "There was no reason to reiterate this, and given the quoted block it was not apropos, either. Try to actually digest what it is you read." Your response is not conducive to a truth-seeking discussion. Its not helpful. Its just say, "try harder", ignoring the possibility that I am trying. Here you "jumped to a conclusion" that I didn't "actually try"). Would you treat your children this way?

Now I think you're saying that you haven't ruled out solipcism (or maybe that Einstein didn't rule it out). In which case: How do you think its possible for scientists to repeat experiments and get the same results? It means that an objective reality exists -- and solipsism is wrong. Or am I missing something?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I did understand you, and you're confused about my reply (which I explained above).

The evidence weighs heavily against your 'theory'. We're both of the same mind when it comes to objective reality, objective truth, and even Popper's approach, yet you haven't recognized this because you haven't understood my statements. As for your stance, it is almost impossible not to understand, for it is predictable and internally consistent… assuming you operate under a warped rule set. You'd made your 'rules' abundantly clear with excessive and repetitious exposition.
So you're saying that its (almost) impossible for me to misunderstand you? I don't understand why you think that. Misunderstandings are common.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I did find out. And I did read RBM's reply and I replied. And I'm the last one to reply. Did you read it?

Yes, I have. I would agree with RBM's stance on the matter.
So you've judged me guilty, without having answered my questions and without criticizing my criticisms. I thought I was "innocent until proven" guilty". Here again you've "jumped to a conclusion". Would you treat your children this way?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Universal terms? No. You are using many words that are not common. If you want, google some of your words and see how many results you get, e.g. glib, extempore. Then google some of my most uncommon words. Whose using the *more* universal terms?

I suppose I do have a tendency toward 'lofty' verbiage at times, but it is at times necessary to express ideas with the degree of precision necessary to get across the finer points, and the definitions universal; they don't have special meanings contingent upon the context of a specific framework of knowledge (i.e., I do not use lexical terms as though their definition has 1:1 parity with the common vernacular). You have the tendency to treat lexical terminology as though it is common parlance, thus every time you encounter a word such as "certain", you erroneously ascribe the remark to a mindset influenced by a specific philosophy. This is a severe problem, and it reflects a thought process which is perpetually tainted by the idiosyncrasies of personal dogma, unable to differentiate between a lexical intension and connotation bestowed by the immediate context of the sentence or paragraph provided by the author.
I disagree with you on that. I assert that people who use words like "certain" are thinking in terms of status (in this case of ideas). If you want to discuss this, lets start another thread.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:No, *you* are the one expressing yourself with those words. *I* don't use those words. I only use words that I know well, and I try to use more common words so as to increase clarity thus reducing confusion.

I think you should get into the habit of looking words up, then, if you are unfamiliar with them and are not going to be examining root and context to deduce their meaning. It may help you understand the books you read, as well.
Why do you think that I don't already do that? Doing otherwise would be stupid.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:If the problem is that there is confusion on the part of your readers due to your use of uncommon words, do you think that the solution is for your readers to learn the uncommon words? Or for you to stop using uncommon words?

If your child complains that he doesn't understand what you're saying because you keep using words he doesn't know, do you tell him that he should learn the uncommon words you're using? Or do you think the proper solution is for you to stop using those words?

You are not a child, Rombomb. You have the means to look up and learn new words you should already be familiar with as an educated adult.
That is ridiculous. I'm not going to whip out a dictionary and start learning words by memorization. I learn words incrementally as I read. Each time that I see a new word, I look it up. Can I do better than that? Is there a better way? Not that I know of.

Telling me that I "should already know something" is not helpful. Would you say this to your children?

Dreamspace wrote:
And I do believe you are simply anchoring; it is more a case of being unable (or at least unwilling) to understand or recognize the definitions which do not have specific esoteric meanings, or know which definition of the word is applicable in the given context.

rombomb wrote:RBM did not make it clear from the beginning that that was his intention. If that was his intention, he should have said so from the beginning.

He did.
He didn't. He stated his intentions towards the end of our exchange when he explained why he thinks its important for me to explain why I made an assertion that Einstein believed in an objective reality. Thats when he talked about the idea that I should have done research (either before or during) the discussion. That idea was his intention, and he didn't state that intention until almost the end of our exchange.

I think that: When you assert that my assertion is wrong (e.g. when you said "He did" after I said "He didn't"), you should also provide an explanation for your assertion.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:And I disagree with you and him on that point, as I explained in my replies to RBM.

Neither RBM nor you have explained to me *why* its problematic. What harm did it cause? Did I lose credibility or something? I don't want credibility. I don't want people to believe my ideas because they think I have high status, and I don't want people to reject my ideas because they think I have low status. Thinking in terms of status is a justificationist mistake.

People want you to actually investigate the subject at hand so you will given an educated response. It may diminish your credibility if you don't ever seem to know what it is you're talking about or have your facts straight, but that's not the main issue; it is more an issue of intellectual laziness where you expect others to do all the work gathering data and gleaning insights.
I didn't expect you to do any research. That you think that I did, is your problem, not mine.

Consider how you replied "He did" after I said "He didn't". Why didn't you do the research and quote the relevant part of what he said with an explanation showing that "He did"? Was that intellectual laziness or just a mistake?

Dreamspace wrote:
Not to mention, shifting your position so easily without being given sufficient reason to do so… is ill-advised.
I don't believe I've done that. If you're referring to when I retracted my assertion about Einstein believing in an objective reality, at the time, I didn't have what RBM wanted to change his mind, so I gave that up, so that we could talk about what he means by objective reality, and so that I could show him that science presupposes a belief in objective reality. But he refused to go along with that.

Dreamspace wrote:
Changing your stance on a subject is virtuous insofar as you actually have new evidence and insights which lead you to this change.
I agree.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:That's what the subject was: "[This thread has] little in the way of direct, cited evidence to suggest Einstein's position either way, and I, too, am just replying based on what I understand off-handedly."
But, every human being is always answering with uncertain knowledge. That is what I was saying.

A statement which is at once true and besides the point.
I thought it important to say. Note that we've already agreed that I had misunderstood your previous question.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:You don't think that Einstein saying that there exists an objective reality is sufficient (which is a peice of evidence that I provided in my last reply to RBM)? What criticism do you have of this evidence?

You supposedly changed your mind and came over to RBM's side on the matter, then you went back to your original position. The complaint was aimed at your vacillation.
So you have a problem with me changing my mind? Do you treat your children this way?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Well, since I don't have any criticisms of the evidence I provided, and no one else has provided their criticism of it, then what reason do I have to reject it?

If there is little in the way of supporting evidence or criticism, then you should neither reject or accept it — at best, you may make an opinion-based, tenuous judgment and then wait to stumble upon new evidence or criticism,
That ***is*** the meaning of conjectural truth. A conjectural truth is an unrefuted guess.


The concept of *supporting* evidence is wrong. It implies that a criticism can increase the status of an idea, but that is false.


People who use the phrase "supporting evidence" are thinking in terms of status of ideas. Its a justificationist mistake.

Dreamspace wrote:
if you are too intellectually lazy to actively seek out the answer. This, while lazy, would at least be intellectually honest.

rombomb wrote:BTW, I believe that the Multiverse is indeterministic.

Great.

rombomb wrote:Only if you don't have any criticisms of it, and if you do have criticisms of all its rival theories. But you'd still only believe it fallibly, meaning that you're ready for someone to create a new criticism and reconsider your position.

I would rather not take a position, in such an instance, unless perhaps in lieu of empirical evidence the theory was logically sound and didn't have any glaring outstanding issues. Even then, even if all knowledge is fallible, some knowledge has been more extensively tested than others. While something either is or is not objectively true, we can never know for certain which is objectively true — which is why we have to consider the plausibility or likelihood something is true based upon evidence. This is something you seem to have difficulty grasping.
When you say things like "you seem to have difficulty grasping" in reference to a disagreement of ours, what you're doing is assuming that you're right and I'm wrong. Its about thinking in terms of status (of people). This is a justificationist mistake.


Scientists *should* take a position. So should their financiers. Scientists and money are limited. Do you think that all the rival theories should be tested at random? No. The unrefuted theory should be tested first. And if the test successfully refutes the theory, that means that the process of guesses and criticism should continue (using this new piece of knowledge) thus revealing an unrefuted theory. And then that theory should be tested next.

Sometimes, there are more than one theory -- meaning that the rival theories don't successfully refute each other, in which case a test should be designed such that if the test is positive, then theory #1 is refuted, and if the test is negative, then theory #2 is refuted.

Dreamspace wrote:
Rombomb wrote:All of that is about learning. I've read very little metaphor in my life, therefore I don't know many of them. If I read more fiction, I'd learn more metaphors. I can't learn them from thin air. Metaphors are traditions, most of which I haven't learned.

[…]

I said nothing about rote memorization. That isn't learning. This is what Einstein meant when he said "Information is not knowledge."

It certainly sounded as though you were describing learning individual metaphors rather than learning how to identify them or think in figurative terms.
I *did* say that. But I was talking about *me* and only about *some* contexts. I'm pretty good at creating metaphors and at noticing bad metaphors. But some metaphors require specific knowledge of the metaphor (no examples come to mind right now). And to understand some metaphors, one must already know the reality that the metaphor is referring to.

Also, because we're both fallible, we should expect that we will misunderstand each other.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Why do you say "it is disturbing"? Don't you realize that you might be wrong?

Seeing how you provide additional evidence with practically every other sentence you type, it would seem unlikely.
Is that insinuation that I'm lying?

Dreamspace wrote:
Although, of course, all knowledge is fallible, there's quite a bit of evidence for all to examine here.
Whats the point of saying that? What problem does it solve? What is your purpose?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:It is more a matter of exercising a mental 'muscle'
I disagree with that characterization. Its a matter of knowledge structure.

I most certainly do not use "knowledge structures" to comprehend metaphor. Most adolescents develop a natural ability to understand metaphor, and usually begin abusing this ability by being sarcastic or ironic, which is a low-level use of the ability. Such a linear learning approach is ill-suited for metaphor. Look around Dimension — there are some individuals who make heavy use of metaphor and figurative prose, yet neither strict logical structures nor memorization are not their forte.
I disagree with you. What you're saying is that you don't use knowledge structures to comprehend metaphor (consciously). But you do subconsciously. If you want to discuss this, lets start another thread.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
so that interpreting context and metaphor will come more naturally; you shouldn't need to have seen a specific, particular metaphor beforehand to decipher it.
In some contexts, that *is* necessary. In other contexts, its about creating (aka learning) the skill of creating analogies that have some shared qualities with the reality that one is trying to explain.

It's not been the case for me, and if you ask around I'm sure you'll find there are plenty others here who are seldom confused by new or original metaphor. Certain areas of the brain handle metaphor; you would do well to exercise them.
A metaphor can only be understood if the reader already understands the reality that the metaphor is supposed to represent. Or, sometimes the metaphor helps the reader understand the reality that the metaphor represents. But this fails often, especially in situations where the metaphor creator, and the metaphor reader have very different worldviews.

Dreamspace wrote:
Rombomb wrote:Of course its soluble. And I'm incrementally getting better at it without limit.

Keep at it, then.

rombomb wrote:Thinking in terms of certainty of truth *is* a logical mistake.

Which has not been made.
Then I suggest no longer using that word to refer to what you know. Its conducive is misunderstanding on the part of your readers.

Dreamspace wrote:
Rombomb wrote:I disagree that there is such a thing as a "natural" aptitude. We are all born with the ability to guess and criticize. Everything is learned.

I don't feel like getting into such an argument here. But I've been meaning to check this book out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

Do you really believe it was simply a matter of experience which had allowed me to be proficient with metaphor and hermeneutics? Experience does most certainly make a difference, but I believe certain tasks may be a bit more of an uphill battle for some rather than others. But the attitude that nothing is inaccessible to you if you put forth the effort, I would agree with.

By the way, how do you account for child prodigies and the like?
That's an even bigger topic than the metaphor one, though its related. Lets start another thread.

Dreamspace wrote:
Rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:to be a better logician.
Telling me that I should be better, is not helpful. Its void of content. It doesn't help me solve a problem, nor does it even help me identify a problem.

If you think I have a problem in my thinking, then address the problem, explain it. And give me ideas for possible solutions, if you have any. This would be helpful.

Yes, Rombomb, it is very much true that a fraction of a sentence is not a complete thought. Perhaps you should attempt to realize that snippet isn't a stand-alone sentence, but a piece of a whole whose meaning relies upon the full sum of its parts.
So what is the whole? So far I've heard you say something to the effect of: Pay attention to context. That isn't helpful either. It doesn't say what the problem is. And it doesn't say how to solve it.

You've said that I shouldn't pay attention to separate parts of whole contexts, but I disagree. Each part is an idea. The parts as a whole is an idea too. If a component idea is wrong, then its composite idea is wrong too. Do you agree? If not, lets start another thread.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Guest on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:02 pm

For me...I don't care what Einstein said........it's irrelevant to the imaginative mind.....and

I will not.....and do not read quotes.......bring me something from "your" mind..........before I pass out!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:05 pm

A loose end I just remembered:

RBM wrote:Most people having these type of discussions are quite familiar with Einsteins 'spooky' quote and his 'God/dice' quote.

Dreamspace wrote:Yes, but these quotes are about determinism or local realism, not metaphysical realism.

Stanford.edu wrote:According to metaphysical realism, the world is as it is independently of how humans take it to be. The objects the world contains, together with their properties and the relations they enter into, fix the world's nature and these objects exist

This is a new term to me so here's a definition to work from.

Regarding you quoted statement above, I'll agree those were the specific concepts Einstein was addressing at the time he said them.

However my present perspective, and any reflection on historical remarks/understanding is a perspective similar(heh heh that's a LOOONG way to climb up onto those shoulders) to Campbell. This is a work that is described as a one that 'unifies metaphysics, physics and philosophy', so the references I made were pertinent to the understanding of 'objective reality, out there' and the concomitant 'Truth' per this thread title.

BTW, that metaphysical realism is just a 'pig with lipstick on' realism from a unified perspective as indicated above.
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:03 pm

I finally got around to watching the video you linked, RBM, or at least thirteen parts of the eighteen-part video playlist on YouTube. I'll go ahead and be honest telling you what I think about it.

I think it was a very interesting and imaginative idea, and it did involve making a lot of connections between physical phenomena and how they may be explained by a subsuming conscious system, but ultimately I find this consilience to be spurious. He has postulated that the universe is bound by rules determined by a conscious system rather than vice versa… yet, the evidence for the physical rules dictating the conscious rules are much stronger.

We have physical apparatuses, brains, and altering these alters our conscious realities. All creatures we deem conscious (there is in actuality no objective way to determine whether or not anyone is conscious; we only know of it because we all experience it) possess brains. This is inductive reasoning, unfortunately, as there is no manner of telling what actually does possess consciousness. It is qualia. It is inherently subjective. It is, in my opinion, noumenal. But if you need a brain, a physical engine, to generate consciousness, then it would seem that consciousness is an abstract, noumenal epiphenomenon derivative of physical phenomena. (Indeed, I'm contesting all things subjective or 'known' through the consciousness without use of the senses; to say 'noumenal epiphenomenon' is tautology, in my mind.)

The 'software', our consciousness, while itself arising from physical events, has only a roundabout pipeline to the physical realm, thus its programmed rules do not have absolute parity to the physical reality. In other words, there is a simple reason for why Tom Campbell could be experiencing different realities: The rules of the mind, fantasy and imagination, are not bound by the real world. This is why damage or chemical imbalances in the brain can cause hallucinations. "I've seen another world through meditation, in my mind" is not the most compelling case to be made. I still believe the physical world is the nexus which keeps us all together, connecting all of our conscious, subjective worlds, and our brains, which house our consciousness, are subsystems within the encompassing physical reality.

Now, that's not to say the subjective realm is not important to us as humans. If you have meaningful spiritual experiences as a conscious being, the conscious world doesn't invalidate that… but I think you should recognize that when your subjective epiphanies don't line up with the world of physical objects, then they don't have any universal applicability or profoundness which transcends your own subsystem, let alone the physical world. It doesn't need be a universal truth in order for it to valid to you, spiritually.

But perhaps this does pose a problem: It means you are alone with it, and you may want to share it with others.

The good news is that beliefs do not need to be objective in order to collectively shared. You can both acknowledge the value of subjective truths, and acknowledge it is neither objective nor universal, extending beyond our own subjective worlds. I just don't think it's healthy or honest to tell ourselves these personal truths are universal or in some other way objective. We shouldn't need something like that to vindicate us. We shouldn't need to believe the physical world is subordinate to consciousness, or that we are all aspects of a greater web of consciousness and together in such an intrinsic way. We will not be more 'together' by retreating within ourselves to connect with some exalted state of consciousness or alternate planes; although some alone time to meditate and do some self-discovery can be positive, it is a solitary activity involving the self alone.

Physical reality is our unifying web. The stage of physical reality is where we will find togetherness and connections to other conscious beings. It is the medium by which we may interface — out there.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:23 am

Dreamspace wrote:I finally got around to watching the video you linked, RBM, or at least thirteen parts of the eighteen-part video playlist on YouTube. I'll go ahead and be honest telling you what I think about it.
I agree with your main points except for one thing, but only because I don't know what you mean by it. So I'll ask clarifying questions to help me understand what you mean.

Dreamspace wrote:
The good news is that beliefs do not need to be objective in order to collectively shared.
I don't know what this means, but maybe my confusion will be cleared up by the following...

Dreamspace wrote:
You can both acknowledge the value of subjective truths,
What is a subjective truth?

Do you mean ideas like this?

*I like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla ice cream.* But I would consider that an objective truth.


Or do you mean ideas like this?

*Chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream.* I consider this objectively false since there are people that like the taste of vanilla over chocolate.

So, these qualia-dependent ideas are not subjective truths. They are objective truths (or falsehoods).

Or am I missing something? What sort of ideas do you think could be subjective truths?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:48 pm

rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:The good news is that beliefs do not need to be objective in order to collectively shared.
I don't know what this means, but maybe my confusion will be cleared up by the following...

Dreamspace wrote:You can both acknowledge the value of subjective truths
What is a subjective truth?

I'll go ahead and use this time to address both these questions and disabuse you of some relevant misbegotten beliefs you seem to hold about truth and values. I suppose to drill the point in I will have to be a bit periphrastic, but I do suppose this could unravel and elucidate the oft-circulatory thought processes people have concerning the objective and subjective.

Subjective truths are value-based statements which are not objective truths. "I think chocolate ice cream is the best flavor" is a subjective opinion, not objective fact. It may be objectively true an individual holds a certain opinion, but it is an objective statement about something inherently subjective.

When I say value-based statements, I mean values which will determine what is good or bad or what motivates us as people. There is an important distinction between objective and subjective values: Objective values only make empirical measurements which can be objectively falsified, and subjective values indicate what is important to humans and cannot be falsified — at best, you may determine what opinions are most collectively held or most popular, even if you may be able to in principle falsify whether or not they truly hold those opinions with some advanced brainwave-reading lie detector.

Objectivity holds no opinions. It does not know a flavor is good or bad. No such values are objective.

Now, you may believe objectivity may be superior to subjectivity, but this is a bit of a mistake. When it comes to discovering scientific truths, yes, objectivity is best… but not for enriching our lives, or even for our own survival — individually or collectively. That is, unless objectivity is used in a way subordinate to subjectively determined goals, in which case you may use objective metrics to determine whether or not something is conducive toward your goal.

Objectively, there is no reason to value your life or the human race — there is only a biological self-preservation mechanism, and built-in mechanisms to ensure we will be distressed if other human beings are being hurt. My amygdala will emotionally stir me if I witness a murder. But it is a mistake to confuse this objective cause with truth. All thoughts, all opinions, and all of consciousness arises from objective events in our brains, and yet that does not make our beliefs true. Even demonstrably false beliefs held by humans can only be held in the first place because our brains. Prey animals will want to cling to life at all costs, and predators will want to catch them and end their lives at all costs, yet both are programmed by nature to value their own lives, even when these desires are in conflict.

If one values only objective truth, this inevitably leads us down the path of nihilism. Objectivity has nothing to say about our lives, our species. It has no opinions. Yet, at the same time, there is objectively no reason to not value our lives — it is indifferent, objectivity will not protest. Objectivity and subjectivity are like water and oil; they will not blend together. But both are components of our experience as humans, thus becomes a gestalt in the full picture of conscious experience.

As I will behold this vantage point throughout my entire life as a human being, it behooves me to value both major components of the human experience. I value objectivity and subjectivity. And when you think about it, if I choose to value objectivity, I am still making a subjective determination about the value of objectivity, as objectivity cannot value itself — the subjective factor simply is; it is for you to decide if it is good or bad.

This is an ineluctable truth: Everything which motivates us sprouts from a subjective axiom. These subjective axioms have an objective cause, yet as everything in the purview of the objective realm has no subjective value coloration, this neither validates nor invalidates the opinions. It is neither objectively good nor bad we hold these subjective beliefs, and indeed to say anything is objectively good or bad is oxymoronic. Objectively, all of this simply is. Subjectively, it is our prerogative as individuals to decide; our beliefs and opinons can only be self-vindicated, or shared by others.

My choice is that both personal and collective values are vitally important in my experience as a human.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:27 pm

Thanks for the lengthy reply.

13 out of 18 is a pretty good showing. I've seen numerous commenters come to the MBT forum to argue their points without ANY viewing of Tom's work or viewing one or two short videos.

Your reply was similar to what I expected as you did admit to not being particular 'spiritual'. That term is for practical purposes the same of the term 'Consciousness', which is more rigorous in it's detail and science.

I thought that the 15 minute one would even be a problem due to the physics content. It the video you viewed it is meant for entry-level individuals who are likely to be spiritual but not necessarily so.
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:01 pm

If you look at my last post above yours, you can see why I acknowledge the importance of anything subjective or spiritual, albeit with an entirely different schema.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by RBM on Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:39 pm

Dreamspace wrote:If you look at my last post above yours, you can see why I acknowledge the importance of anything subjective or spiritual, albeit with an entirely different schema.

This ?

This is an ineluctable truth: Everything which motivates us sprouts from a subjective axiom. These subjective axioms have an objective cause, yet as everything in the purview of the objective realm has no subjective value coloration, this neither validates nor invalidates the opinions. It is neither objectively good nor bad we hold these subjective beliefs, and indeed to say anything is objectively good or bad is oxymoronic. Objectively, all of this simply is. Subjectively, it is our prerogative as individuals to decide; our beliefs and opinons can only be self-vindicated, or shared by others.

If so, I just see knee-jerking, in essence.

The Big Picture of Tom's scheme is NOT an intellectual process as I noted before. The real challenge is to falsify it in one's personal life, through actual living experiences.

See Ya'.
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1036
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:37 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
Dreamspace wrote:The good news is that beliefs do not need to be objective in order to collectively shared.
I don't know what this means, but maybe my confusion will be cleared up by the following...

Dreamspace wrote:You can both acknowledge the value of subjective truths
What is a subjective truth?
Subjective truths are value-based statements which are not objective truths. "I think chocolate ice cream is the best flavor" is a subjective opinion, not objective fact.

It is an objective fact that "best flavor" is ill-defined.

It's an objective fact that you made that comment and think that (in the hypothetical).

It's also an objective fact that this comment can express some ideas you have, and that you really have those ideas.


Notice that the versions that I stated, are either objective fact or objective falsehood, and none are subjective truths. I'll list them again with slight variation to mimic your version:

- "I like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla ice cream." This is an objective fact.

- "Chocolate ice cream is the best-tasting ice cream." This is an objective falsehood because it implies that it applies to all people, and of course there is at least one person that likes vanilla over chocolate thus successfully criticizing the idea, thereby rendering it false.

The criticism I used above applies to your idea that you've labeled as a "subjective truth". Do you agree? If not, can you explain why its anything other than an objective falsehood?

Also, can you point out another idea which you consider to be a subjective truth?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:28 pm

rombomb wrote:It is an objective fact that "best flavor" is ill-defined.

It cannot be objectively defined to begin with.

rombomb wrote:It's an objective fact that you made that comment and think that (in the hypothetical).

It's also an objective fact that this comment can express some ideas you have, and that you really have those ideas.

Yes. It's an objective fact that I held an opinion, and that I can express these opinions truthfully. The opinion itself is not in any way, shape or form objective.

rombomb wrote:Notice that the versions that I stated, are either objective fact or objective falsehood, and none are subjective truths. I'll list them again with slight variation to mimic your version:

I already addressed these points in my previous post, and rather thoroughly.

rombomb wrote:- "Chocolate ice cream is the best-tasting ice cream." This is an objective falsehood because it implies that it applies to all people

It depends on the context of the statement. If the person was implying objectively, they made a logical error attempting to ascribe subjective coloration to the objective domain.

rombomb wrote:and of course there is at least one person that likes vanilla over chocolate thus successfully criticizing the idea, thereby rendering it false.

Nobody else in the entire universe, or as Tom Campbell would call it, the 'supersystem', would need to agree for it to be a subjective truth — every subjective domain is a subsystem residing in discrete bubbles within the overarching objective system, heterogeneously.

The criticism I used above applies to your idea that you've labeled as a "subjective truth". Do you agree? If not, can you explain why its anything other than an objective falsehood?

rombomb wrote:Also, can you point out another idea which you consider to be a subjective truth

"Chocolate ice cream is the best" is a value judgment. Such values cannot be objective, only collectively held by several independent subjective subsystems. Subjective truths need only be true in the continuity of said subsystems; they may conflict with every other subsystem, or may be coherent. If they are all coherent, then it is a collectivized subjective truth.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum