| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"galathaea" |
| Date: |
17 Feb 2007 01:29:20 AM |
| Object: |
the laws of the unknowable |
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
even lies have information
every interaction exchanges information
unknowables are meaningless
but there are also knowable things that are meaningless
meaning is an agreement amongst agents
of model interpretation
models are built from ontologies and their languages
this has been the case ever since tarski
no matter how complex an agent
the more information we receive from it
the better we may predict it
i have always wanted to build a radioactive decay counter
maybe grab some of the americanium from my smoke detectors
and apply a learning algorithm that grows in complexity
to predict it
all i'd need is some type of gamma or xray scintillator
and a pulse counter
( we use to set these up in lab )
we may approach the law of large numbers
and find inherent randomness
in the algorithmic sense
that is what our current models predict
but if we ever began to predict better...
$%#*&*&*&*#@&$*&($&(#&@$*&#*
all syntactic relationships are mereological
and mereology has been topological
ever since tarski as well
( i've heard so often how spinoza was years ahead of his time
how he predicted the evolution of philosophical thought
but those of his time did not understand
i believe tarski was a more exceptional case still )
knowing is possible through the fundamental lie
that the sound of rustling leaves
is acinonyx jubatus with hunger in its belly
that one thing is associated another
from this fundamental lie
we interpret
meaning is possible through coordination of interpretation
here coordination may mean only correlation
there need not be isomorphy
meaning is possible through this agreement of language
that was how science was structured by tarski
and also korzybski
and many in the polish school of logic
and why it is so structured today
(((((((((((((((((..))))))))))))))))))
all exchange of information is finite
if the world has infinite interaction potential
we will never know it with certainty
this is what constructivism teaches
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
17 Feb 2007 04:54:45 AM |
|
|
On 17 Feb, 07:29, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
Yes, and the Kantian model is a graet model for discussing unkowables.
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
Your style is very like Wittgenstein's in the Tractatus - commentary
needed! References needed!
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
Kant again.
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
Another good book - "Intellectual Impostures". It analyses modern
French philosphers and tears them apart for using mathematical
concepts in totally inappropriate -- and simply wrong -- ways. Usually
a sign to avoid the philosophers like the plague.they are. Modern
French philosophy is, largely, as corrupt as Oxford philosophy in an
entirely different way. Then again you do find the odd good aphorism
that makes you keep reading, if you are not careful.
even lies have information
Although they produce too much banality as well.
every interaction exchanges information
I could be re-reading Plato instead of reading this. What am I doing
here?
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
But not a very good prankster, or producer of fables, and where's the
magic? Liar maybe.
Suggest you spend your, and our, time better? Suggestion - try posting
less and spend the time reading a good book which does not deal in
aphorisms or banal pranks, but actually discusses real philosophy and
explains things in some detail so people can understand.
That is, try reading Magee or Plato and avoid Wittgenstein (at least
to start with - you can't reaslly begin to understand him until you
have read Schopenhauer like he did).
Come back when you have some useful fables to relate or philosophical
points that you can make in a clear manner. It's not much fun spouting
drivel. It's also unwise, in a profound sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: the laws of the unknowable |
17 Feb 2007 05:10:57 PM |
|
|
On Feb 17, 2:54 am, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 17 Feb, 07:29, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
Yes, and the Kantian model is a great model for discussing unkowables.
here i am talking about a complete worldview
an ontology of experience
like that found in natural science and other myth/symbologies
if i take kant's worldview
it would include his belief in universals
which oversteps valid inference
and allows assumption of absolutes that aren't
which is why some of his universal worldview
is challenged by modern science
i believe kant's model then misdelineates unknowables
a crucial error
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
Your style is very like Wittgenstein's in the Tractatus - commentary
needed! References needed!
i have been told
by friends who mean for me to be more expressive
that i need to cut back references
but in this post
i still dropped one important name multiple times
tarski
much of this is inspired by him strongly
the relations between ontology and model
mereology in relations
semantic interpretation theory
but the entire lw=F3w-warsaw school
had each a common-but-distinct approach
but edmund husserl was a common inspiration
franz brentano
see
reference requests turn into these
haughty little
show-off fests
and they miss the point
what i say is my own understanding
though it may be inspired
by the concordance of several historical movements
if i make an error
it is i that needs to be made to understand that error
so why can't it be me?
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
Kant again.
no
kant went platonic
he believed in universal relations between rational minds
and made the phenomenalistic assumptions
that increased the knowable beyond its scope
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
Another good book - "Intellectual Impostures". It analyses modern
French philosphers and tears them apart for using mathematical
concepts in totally inappropriate -- and simply wrong -- ways. Usually
a sign to avoid the philosophers like the plague.they are. Modern
French philosophy is, largely, as corrupt as Oxford philosophy in an
entirely different way. Then again you do find the odd good aphorism
that makes you keep reading, if you are not careful.
i am completely earnest in my usage here
though your reaction to my usage
may be telling on your own understanding of the term
a topology T on a collection X
is a collection of subcollections of X such that
- the initial (empty) collection 0 and X are both in T
- the join of any subcollection of T is in T
- the meet of any finite subcollection of T is in T
when both (X, T) are specified
X is called a space
now
networks of interaction in a model
form a graph G with a fairly canonical topology S
( the simplicial complex topology )
components are the equivalence class
of connected pairs of objects (x,y): x~y in the space G
ie. there is a connected subcollection of S
containing both x and y
if this is *****
i have included sci.math to correct any misstatements
even lies have information
Although they produce too much banality as well.
lies are very influential forces
they move society
ask anyone in marketing
every interaction exchanges information
I could be re-reading Plato instead of reading this. What am I doing
here?
counterfactuals never get us very far
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
But not a very good prankster, or producer of fables, and where's the
magic? Liar maybe.
Suggest you spend your, and our, time better? Suggestion - try posting
less and spend the time reading a good book which does not deal in
aphorisms or banal pranks, but actually discusses real philosophy and
explains things in some detail so people can understand.
That is, try reading Magee or Plato and avoid Wittgenstein (at least
to start with - you can't reaslly begin to understand him until you
have read Schopenhauer like he did).
Come back when you have some useful fables to relate or philosophical
points that you can make in a clear manner. It's not much fun spouting
drivel. It's also unwise, in a profound sense.
your suggestions are rude and illinformed
let me make this clear to you
if you want me to start dropping names and movements
and play one of those alpha-male games
that are so common on usenet
i am not illprepared
they just waste a lot of time
and they are all tangential
attack my points
not me and what i may or may not have read
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie-Boo" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
19 Feb 2007 06:18:28 AM |
|
|
On Feb 17, 5:54 am, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 17 Feb, 07:29, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
Model-schmodel. Models are unnecessary, poorly designed, and make
Occam roll over in his grave. They contribute nothing. All people do
is talk about how to get rid of them with asumptions of "standard
model".
A wff is composed of symbols for relations. If you want to consider
variations, then decide which constants to change to variables and go
for it. You don't need to cloud up a simple structure of f(relations)
by saying you don't know what you had in mind when you defined
"successor". And there are always alternatives.
Remember that every term you reference is another dagger in the heart
of a poorly designed system. Every additional primitive takes it
further from the goal.
Occam Rocks!!!
C-B
Yes, and the Kantian model is a graet model for discussing unkowables.
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
Your style is very like Wittgenstein's in the Tractatus - commentary
needed! References needed!
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
Kant again.
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
Another good book - "Intellectual Impostures". It analyses modern
French philosphers and tears them apart for using mathematical
concepts in totally inappropriate -- and simply wrong -- ways. Usually
a sign to avoid the philosophers like the plague.they are. Modern
French philosophy is, largely, as corrupt as Oxford philosophy in an
entirely different way. Then again you do find the odd good aphorism
that makes you keep reading, if you are not careful.
even lies have information
Although they produce too much banality as well.
every interaction exchanges information
I could be re-reading Plato instead of reading this. What am I doing
here?
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
But not a very good prankster, or producer of fables, and where's the
magic? Liar maybe.
Suggest you spend your, and our, time better? Suggestion - try posting
less and spend the time reading a good book which does not deal in
aphorisms or banal pranks, but actually discusses real philosophy and
explains things in some detail so people can understand.
That is, try reading Magee or Plato and avoid Wittgenstein (at least
to start with - you can't reaslly begin to understand him until you
have read Schopenhauer like he did).
Come back when you have some useful fables to relate or philosophical
points that you can make in a clear manner. It's not much fun spouting
drivel. It's also unwise, in a profound sense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie-Boo" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
17 Feb 2007 06:36:06 PM |
|
|
On Feb 17, 5:54 am, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is, try reading Magee or Plato and avoid Wittgenstein (at least
to start with - you can't reaslly begin to understand him until you
have read Schopenhauer like he did).
How do you define "knowable"? Since you're so smart as to be able to
be a name-dropper, you should be able to tell us, no?
C-B
Come back when you have some useful fables to relate or philosophical
points that you can make in a clear manner. It's not much fun spouting
drivel. It's also unwise, in a profound sense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rc" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
18 Feb 2007 06:57:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:54:45 -0600, Paul wrote
(in article <1171709685.631314.180980@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>):
But not a very good prankster, or producer of fables, and where's the
magic? Liar maybe.
Maybe not.
Suggest you spend your, and our, time better? Suggestion - try posting
less and spend the time reading a good book which does not deal in
aphorisms or banal pranks, but actually discusses real philosophy and
explains things in some detail so people can understand.
Is there a difference? What do you mean by real philosophy?
That is, try reading Magee or Plato and avoid Wittgenstein (at least
to start with - you can't reaslly begin to understand him until you
have read Schopenhauer like he did).
Try avoiding Schopenhauer or you might end up like Bukowski. Which might be a
bad thing, or good. Depending on whether or not you like banal pranks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "baby_ifritah" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
22 Feb 2007 04:33:20 AM |
|
|
"rc" <nospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1FE51FF00C62C09B019F94F@news.wildblue.net...
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:54:45 -0600, Paul wrote
(in article <1171709685.631314.180980@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>):
But not a very good prankster, or producer of fables, and where's the
magic? Liar maybe.
Maybe not.
Suggest you spend your, and our, time better? Suggestion - try posting
less and spend the time reading a good book which does not deal in
aphorisms or banal pranks, but actually discusses real philosophy and
explains things in some detail so people can understand.
Is there a difference? What do you mean by real philosophy?
That is, try reading Magee or Plato and avoid Wittgenstein (at least
to start with - you can't reaslly begin to understand him until you
have read Schopenhauer like he did).
Try avoiding Schopenhauer or you might end up like Bukowski. Which might
be a
bad thing, or good. Depending on whether or not you like banal pranks.
well, galathaea's text does kinda read like a beat poet's!
xx baby_ifritah
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
17 Feb 2007 10:36:36 AM |
|
|
On Feb 17, 2:29 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
A lot of people seem to think they know about Black Holes.
But by definition if a Black Hole exists as supposed, it could
not emit any information. And we could not know
anything about it.
Even unknowables have size, shape and
appearance -- at least, the ones we know about do.
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
even lies have information
every interaction exchanges information
unknowables are meaningless
but there are also knowable things that are meaningless
meaning is an agreement amongst agents
of model interpretation
models are built from ontologies and their languages
this has been the case ever since tarski
no matter how complex an agent
the more information we receive from it
the better we may predict it
i have always wanted to build a radioactive decay counter
maybe grab some of the americanium from my smoke detectors
and apply a learning algorithm that grows in complexity
to predict it
all i'd need is some type of gamma or xray scintillator
and a pulse counter
( we use to set these up in lab )
we may approach the law of large numbers
and find inherent randomness
in the algorithmic sense
that is what our current models predict
but if we ever began to predict better...
$%#*&*&*&*#@&$*&($&(#&@$*&#*
all syntactic relationships are mereological
and mereology has been topological
ever since tarski as well
( i've heard so often how spinoza was years ahead of his time
how he predicted the evolution of philosophical thought
but those of his time did not understand
i believe tarski was a more exceptional case still )
knowing is possible through the fundamental lie
that the sound of rustling leaves
is acinonyx jubatus with hunger in its belly
that one thing is associated another
from this fundamental lie
we interpret
meaning is possible through coordination of interpretation
here coordination may mean only correlation
there need not be isomorphy
meaning is possible through this agreement of language
that was how science was structured by tarski
and also korzybski
and many in the polish school of logic
and why it is so structured today
(((((((((((((((((..))))))))))))))))))
all exchange of information is finite
if the world has infinite interaction potential
we will never know it with certainty
this is what constructivism teaches
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
18 Feb 2007 06:18:31 PM |
|
|
On Feb 17, 8:36 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 2:29 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
A lot of people seem to think they know about Black Holes.
But by definition if a Black Hole exists as supposed, it could
not emit any information. And we could not know
anything about it.
Even unknowables have size, shape and
appearance -- at least, the ones we know about do.
i think black holes make great examples here
they are something predicted inside general relativity
where causality is violated communicating across the event horizon
the separation is entirely topological
due to the structure of the poincare group
space is separated into two components
timelike and spacelike
whose boundary is the light cone
and across which information cannot travel
the geometry of black holes
is that the event horizon is entirely lightlike
and therefore the "other side" is unknowable
( in that model )
of course
models never relate _isness_
so we can always find that black holes
may not have unknowable interiors
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
even lies have information
every interaction exchanges information
unknowables are meaningless
but there are also knowable things that are meaningless
meaning is an agreement amongst agents
of model interpretation
models are built from ontologies and their languages
this has been the case ever since tarski
no matter how complex an agent
the more information we receive from it
the better we may predict it
i have always wanted to build a radioactive decay counter
maybe grab some of the americanium from my smoke detectors
and apply a learning algorithm that grows in complexity
to predict it
all i'd need is some type of gamma or xray scintillator
and a pulse counter
( we use to set these up in lab )
we may approach the law of large numbers
and find inherent randomness
in the algorithmic sense
that is what our current models predict
but if we ever began to predict better...
$%#*&*&*&*#@&$*&($&(#&@$*&#*
all syntactic relationships are mereological
and mereology has been topological
ever since tarski as well
( i've heard so often how spinoza was years ahead of his time
how he predicted the evolution of philosophical thought
but those of his time did not understand
i believe tarski was a more exceptional case still )
knowing is possible through the fundamental lie
that the sound of rustling leaves
is acinonyx jubatus with hunger in its belly
that one thing is associated another
from this fundamental lie
we interpret
meaning is possible through coordination of interpretation
here coordination may mean only correlation
there need not be isomorphy
meaning is possible through this agreement of language
that was how science was structured by tarski
and also korzybski
and many in the polish school of logic
and why it is so structured today
(((((((((((((((((..))))))))))))))))))
all exchange of information is finite
if the world has infinite interaction potential
we will never know it with certainty
this is what constructivism teaches
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
18 Feb 2007 07:47:18 PM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 7:18 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:36 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 2:29 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
A lot of people seem to think they know about Black Holes.
But by definition if a Black Hole exists as supposed, it could
not emit any information. And we could not know
anything about it.
Even unknowables have size, shape and
appearance -- at least, the ones we know about do.
i think black holes make great examples here
they are something predicted inside general relativity
where causality is violated communicating across the event horizon
the separation is entirely topological
due to the structure of the poincare group
space is separated into two components
timelike and spacelike
whose boundary is the light cone
and across which information cannot travel
the geometry of black holes
is that the event horizon is entirely lightlike
and therefore the "other side" is unknowable
( in that model )
of course
models never relate _isness_
so we can always find that black holes
may not have unknowable interiors
Models _relate_ to isness, do they not? Even
if at a distance. They are not, but point to, make
gestures at.
Unfortunately I probably do not know enough
about physics to pursue Black Hole varieties
intelligently. I have heard that quantum
indeterminacy demands that a Black Hole
"evaporate" energy at its event horizon. But
setting that aside, it seems that the Black
Hole model postulated by Relativity alone
contains a paradox, in that although no
information can be emitted by the Black
Hole, we can still know about it. Once
formed, it would seem reasonable for it
to disappear from view forever. Yet
astronomers talk confidently about where
they are at what they do.
Models.... Is the Ding an sich subject
to Quantum Mechanics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
27 Feb 2007 03:24:15 PM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 5:47 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 7:18 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:36 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 2:29 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
A lot of people seem to think they know about Black Holes.
But by definition if a Black Hole exists as supposed, it could
not emit any information. And we could not know
anything about it.
Even unknowables have size, shape and
appearance -- at least, the ones we know about do.
i think black holes make great examples here
they are something predicted inside general relativity
where causality is violated communicating across the event horizon
the separation is entirely topological
due to the structure of the poincare group
space is separated into two components
timelike and spacelike
whose boundary is the light cone
and across which information cannot travel
the geometry of black holes
is that the event horizon is entirely lightlike
and therefore the "other side" is unknowable
( in that model )
of course
models never relate _isness_
so we can always find that black holes
may not have unknowable interiors
Models _relate_ to isness, do they not? Even
if at a distance. They are not, but point to, make
gestures at.
yeah
sort of
models are existential
in that models derive existence relationships
in the logical sense
but it is an odd sort of existence
in the metaphysical sense
models can be wrong
isness that might not be
is not the type of isness common to metaphysical realism
that was really the distinction i tried to make
that just because our models say something is unknowable
in the principles of that model
does not mean that it really _is_ unknowable
maybe we can tunnel through the event horizons
with our future wormhole technology
maybe the horizon is littered with quantum wormholes
spontaneously providing windows into the interior
Unfortunately I probably do not know enough
about physics to pursue Black Hole varieties
intelligently. I have heard that quantum
indeterminacy demands that a Black Hole
"evaporate" energy at its event horizon. But
setting that aside, it seems that the Black
Hole model postulated by Relativity alone
contains a paradox, in that although no
information can be emitted by the Black
Hole, we can still know about it. Once
formed, it would seem reasonable for it
to disappear from view forever. Yet
astronomers talk confidently about where
they are at what they do.
as others mentioned
black holes do not have zero information content
the models show we can experience their gravity
outside the event horizon
and this is one technology astronomy has really advanced
addtionally
energetic events like polar jets
also help mark the amount of compact grvitational energy in a region
and through heuristics like thee chandrasekhar limit
potential black hole activity can be identified
but there certainly are possible paradoxes here
since thermodynamics intimately unites the concepts
of information and entropy
black holes might violate some sacred principles
particular if they radiate or can shrink
additionally
gravitational theories based on graviton exchange
have some difficult hurdles
and this relates directly
i think
to your reason for bringing these points up
how can information exchange occur
with the unknowable singularity?
virtual exchange still has difficulties here
Models.... Is the Ding an sich subject
to Quantum Mechanics?
i think if there is any meaning to ding an sich
the relationship is the other way
quantum mechanics
the model
is subject to the reality
but the only reality i acknowledge is the phenomenon
the ding an sich appears a meaningless abstraction to me
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
28 Feb 2007 09:39:29 AM |
|
|
On Feb 27, 4:24 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:47 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 7:18 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 8:36 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 2:29 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
A lot of people seem to think they know about Black Holes.
But by definition if a Black Hole exists as supposed, it could
not emit any information. And we could not know
anything about it.
Even unknowables have size, shape and
appearance -- at least, the ones we know about do.
i think black holes make great examples here
they are something predicted inside general relativity
where causality is violated communicating across the event horizon
the separation is entirely topological
due to the structure of the poincare group
space is separated into two components
timelike and spacelike
whose boundary is the light cone
and across which information cannot travel
the geometry of black holes
is that the event horizon is entirely lightlike
and therefore the "other side" is unknowable
( in that model )
of course
models never relate _isness_
so we can always find that black holes
may not have unknowable interiors
Models _relate_ to isness, do they not? Even
if at a distance. They are not, but point to, make
gestures at.
yeah
sort of
models are existential
in that models derive existence relationships
in the logical sense
but it is an odd sort of existence
in the metaphysical sense
models can be wrong
isness that might not be
is not the type of isness common to metaphysical realism
that was really the distinction i tried to make
that just because our models say something is unknowable
in the principles of that model
does not mean that it really _is_ unknowable
maybe we can tunnel through the event horizons
with our future wormhole technology
maybe the horizon is littered with quantum wormholes
spontaneously providing windows into the interior
Unfortunately I probably do not know enough
about physics to pursue Black Hole varieties
intelligently. I have heard that quantum
indeterminacy demands that a Black Hole
"evaporate" energy at its event horizon. But
setting that aside, it seems that the Black
Hole model postulated by Relativity alone
contains a paradox, in that although no
information can be emitted by the Black
Hole, we can still know about it. Once
formed, it would seem reasonable for it
to disappear from view forever. Yet
astronomers talk confidently about where
they are at what they do.
as others mentioned
black holes do not have zero information content
the models show we can experience their gravity
outside the event horizon
and this is one technology astronomy has really advanced
addtionally
energetic events like polar jets
also help mark the amount of compact grvitational energy in a region
and through heuristics like thee chandrasekhar limit
potential black hole activity can be identified
but there certainly are possible paradoxes here
since thermodynamics intimately unites the concepts
of information and entropy
black holes might violate some sacred principles
particular if they radiate or can shrink
additionally
gravitational theories based on graviton exchange
have some difficult hurdles
and this relates directly
i think
to your reason for bringing these points up
how can information exchange occur
with the unknowable singularity?
virtual exchange still has difficulties here
Models.... Is the Ding an sich subject
to Quantum Mechanics?
i think if there is any meaning to ding an sich
the relationship is the other way
quantum mechanics
the model
is subject to the reality
but the only reality i acknowledge is the phenomenon
the ding an sich appears a meaningless abstraction to me
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A model does not need to be looked at as a model of
'reality' (whatever that is). A model can be a model of what we can
imagine. At one time, the non-Euclidean geometries were considered to
be models of what was not 'real'.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
28 Feb 2007 08:00:32 PM |
|
|
On Feb 28, 10:39 am, "Ed" <solon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
A model does not need to be looked at as a model of
'reality' (whatever that is). A model can be a model of what we can
imagine. At one time, the non-Euclidean geometries were considered to
be models of what was not 'real'.
Ed
But the capacity to model things seems to begin with
the need or desire of living organisms to deal with their
physical environment. Or rather, evolution selected
those who could model it over those who could not,
at least along some ancestral lines. (I don't suppose
bacteria do a lot of modeling, and they have been
fairly successful.) Later the capacity to model could
be advantageously extended to include imaginary and
remembered things.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
28 Feb 2007 08:15:51 AM |
|
|
On Feb 27, 4:24 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:47 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Models.... Is the Ding an sich subject
to Quantum Mechanics?
i think if there is any meaning to ding an sich
the relationship is the other way
quantum mechanics
the model
is subject to the reality
but the only reality i acknowledge is the phenomenon
the ding an sich appears a meaningless abstraction to me
Consider a universe in which there are two beings. Each
is conscious and self-aware, and is also philosophical
enough to separate self-awareness from perception of
other beings. There is also a third item in this universe,
the space which separates the two beings and which
permits only limited messages to pass from one to the
other. Thus each perceives the other but is not directly
in contact with the consciousness of the other. However,
being philosophical, each can _suppose_ that the other
is conscious like itself and has a corresponding
imperfect awareness of _its_ other. It calls its
supposition of the other, its model, so to speak, the
Ding an sich, and it calls the space the Great Gulf
Between Soul and Soul.
Perhaps, though, one being is only speaking to a
mirror. There is no guarantee.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mantar, Feyelno nek dusa" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
19 Feb 2007 05:51:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:47:18 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
setting that aside, it seems that the Black Hole model postulated by
Relativity alone contains a paradox, in that although no information can
be emitted by the Black Hole, we can still know about it. Once formed, it
would seem reasonable for it to disappear from view forever. Yet
astronomers talk confidently about where they are at what they do.
Not a paradox. It's true that the hole itself emits (almost) no
information past the event horizon, but it's quite easy to detect the
effects of a black hole's presence, as the gravitational pull of a
stellar-body black hole reach well beyond that same event horizon.
It's easy to spot matter spiralling down into the hole as it's compressed
and superheated (to the point of being incredibly bright), up until the
point when it hits the event horizon and its light can no longer escape.
If there is no nearby matter for a black hole to feed on, we can still
detect it by the gravitational lensing effect, whereby the black hole's
gravity well bends the light of stars as it passes by, distorting an area
of the sky. Any stars in a direct line from the observer to the black hole
will vanish completely, but the surronding starfield will just be bent.
--
- Mantar --- Drop YourPantiesSirWilliam to email me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
19 Feb 2007 10:37:33 PM |
|
|
On Feb 19, 6:51 pm, "Mantar, Feyelno nek dusa"
<mantar.feye...@YourPantiesSirWilliamfrontiernet.net> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:47:18 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
setting that aside, it seems that the Black Hole model postulated by
Relativity alone contains a paradox, in that although no information can
be emitted by the Black Hole, we can still know about it. Once formed, it
would seem reasonable for it to disappear from view forever. Yet
astronomers talk confidently about where they are at what they do.
Not a paradox. It's true that the hole itself emits (almost) no
information past the event horizon, but it's quite easy to detect the
effects of a black hole's presence, as the gravitational pull of a
stellar-body black hole reach well beyond that same event horizon.
It's easy to spot matter spiralling down into the hole as it's compressed
and superheated (to the point of being incredibly bright), up until the
point when it hits the event horizon and its light can no longer escape.
If there is no nearby matter for a black hole to feed on, we can still
detect it by the gravitational lensing effect, whereby the black hole's
gravity well bends the light of stars as it passes by, distorting an area
of the sky. Any stars in a direct line from the observer to the black hole
will vanish completely, but the surronding starfield will just be bent.
Thus the (Relativistic) Black Hole is not really black. We
can know of its existence, and we can know things about
it such as its mass. This seems paradoxical to me.
There is a perhaps related issue: in order for something to
pass through the event horizon, it must reach the speed of
light, but nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.
As the object approached the EH, however, it would be
torn apart by gravitational forces and its own increasing
mass, down to the level of subatomic particles. I imagine
this process would cause the emission of a lot of energy,
in effect transferring energy out of the Black Hole, which
was supposed to be forbidden.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rc" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
18 Feb 2007 07:48:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:29:20 -0600, galathaea wrote
(in article <1171697360.804051.89260@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
Some model. Any model? Speak to the connected or non connectedness of models.
Am I off base in how you intend model? How do you mean model?
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
even lies have information
every interaction exchanges information
unknowables are meaningless
but there are also knowable things that are meaningless
Unless unknowables are the meaning behind your voyage. Which I take it they
are.
meaning is an agreement amongst agents
of model interpretation
Please elaborate this argument, or if you choose, elaborate in some other
way. I don't know what model. Interpretation model? In interpretation model,
meaning is an agreement amongst agents of interpretation model?
models are built from ontologies and their languages
this has been the case ever since tarski
no matter how complex an agent
the more information we receive from it
the better we may predict it
i have always wanted to build a radioactive decay counter
maybe grab some of the americanium from my smoke detectors
and apply a learning algorithm that grows in complexity
to predict it
all i'd need is some type of gamma or xray scintillator
and a pulse counter
( we use to set these up in lab )
we may approach the law of large numbers
and find inherent randomness
in the algorithmic sense
that is what our current models predict
but if we ever began to predict better...
$%#*&*&*&*#@&$*&($&(#&@$*&#*
all syntactic relationships are mereological
and mereology has been topological
ever since tarski as well
( i've heard so often how spinoza was years ahead of his time
how he predicted the evolution of philosophical thought
but those of his time did not understand
i believe tarski was a more exceptional case still )
knowing is possible through the fundamental lie
that the sound of rustling leaves
is acinonyx jubatus with hunger in its belly
that one thing is associated another
from this fundamental lie
we interpret
meaning is possible through coordination of interpretation
here coordination may mean only correlation
there need not be isomorphy
meaning is possible through this agreement of language
that was how science was structured by tarski
and also korzybski
and many in the polish school of logic
and why it is so structured today
(((((((((((((((((..))))))))))))))))))
all exchange of information is finite
if the world has infinite interaction potential
we will never know it with certainty
this is what constructivism teaches
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
18 Feb 2007 11:07:55 PM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 5:48 pm, rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:29:20 -0600, galathaea wrote
(in article <1171697360.804051.89...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
Some model. Any model? Speak to the connected or non connectedness of models.
Am I off base in how you intend model? How do you mean model?
i mean a structure that interprets truth/assertion/prediction
in a given ontology
and obeys the dynamics of a given logic
i am saying that the only meaningful way we can speak of unknowables
is that they are unknowable inside some model
that brings this mathematical apparatus with it
a language and logical inference
interpreted on a structure
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
even lies have information
every interaction exchanges information
unknowables are meaningless
but there are also knowable things that are meaningless
Unless unknowables are the meaning behind your voyage. Which I take it they
are.
clarifying the mereology
of meaning and unknowability
is interesting i think
but not an end
meaning is an agreement amongst agents
of model interpretation
Please elaborate this argument, or if you choose, elaborate in some other
way. I don't know what model. Interpretation model? In interpretation model,
meaning is an agreement amongst agents of interpretation model?
here the model agreement is simply a correlation of expectation
*********..
we have internal models to help us predict
some are very immediate
like curvilinear path tracing
audiolocation
some more long term
linguistic deductions and formal symbolic prediction
the key to the meaning is in the prediction
and this simply requires correlation
models are built from ontologies and their languages
this has been the case ever since tarski
no matter how complex an agent
the more information we receive from it
the better we may predict it
i have always wanted to build a radioactive decay counter
maybe grab some of the americanium from my smoke detectors
and apply a learning algorithm that grows in complexity
to predict it
all i'd need is some type of gamma or xray scintillator
and a pulse counter
( we use to set these up in lab )
we may approach the law of large numbers
and find inherent randomness
in the algorithmic sense
that is what our current models predict
but if we ever began to predict better...
$%#*&*&*&*#@&$*&($&(#&@$*&#*
all syntactic relationships are mereological
and mereology has been topological
ever since tarski as well
( i've heard so often how spinoza was years ahead of his time
how he predicted the evolution of philosophical thought
but those of his time did not understand
i believe tarski was a more exceptional case still )
knowing is possible through the fundamental lie
that the sound of rustling leaves
is acinonyx jubatus with hunger in its belly
that one thing is associated another
from this fundamental lie
we interpret
meaning is possible through coordination of interpretation
here coordination may mean only correlation
there need not be isomorphy
meaning is possible through this agreement of language
that was how science was structured by tarski
and also korzybski
and many in the polish school of logic
and why it is so structured today
(((((((((((((((((..))))))))))))))))))
all exchange of information is finite
if the world has infinite interaction potential
we will never know it with certainty
this is what constructivism teaches
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
18 Feb 2007 11:52:55 PM |
|
|
On Feb 18, 11:07 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:48 pm, rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:29:20 -0600, galathaea wrote
(in article <1171697360.804051.89...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
Some model. Any model? Speak to the connected or non connectedness of models.
Am I off base in how you intend model? How do you mean model?
i mean a structure that interprets truth/assertion/prediction
in a given ontology
and obeys the dynamics of a given logic
i am saying that the only meaningful way we can speak of unknowables
is that they are unknowable inside some model
that brings this mathematical apparatus with it
a language and logical inference
interpreted on a structure
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
even lies have information
every interaction exchanges information
unknowables are meaningless
but there are also knowable things that are meaningless
Unless unknowables are the meaning behind your voyage. Which I take it they
are.
clarifying the mereology
of meaning and unknowability
is interesting i think
but not an end
meaning is an agreement amongst agents
of model interpretation
Please elaborate this argument, or if you choose, elaborate in some other
way. I don't know what model. Interpretation model? In interpretation model,
meaning is an agreement amongst agents of interpretation model?
here the model agreement is simply a correlation of expectation
*********..
we have internal models to help us predict
some are very immediate
like curvilinear path tracing
audiolocation
some more long term
linguistic deductions and formal symbolic prediction
the key to the meaning is in the prediction
and this simply requires correlation
models are built from ontologies and their languages
this has been the case ever since tarski
no matter how complex an agent
the more information we receive from it
the better we may predict it
i have always wanted to build a radioactive decay counter
maybe grab some of the americanium from my smoke detectors
and apply a learning algorithm that grows in complexity
to predict it
all i'd need is some type of gamma or xray scintillator
and a pulse counter
( we use to set these up in lab )
we may approach the law of large numbers
and find inherent randomness
in the algorithmic sense
that is what our current models predict
but if we ever began to predict better...
$%#*&*&*&*#@&$*&($&(#&@$*&#*
all syntactic relationships are mereological
and mereology has been topological
ever since tarski as well
( i've heard so often how spinoza was years ahead of his time
how he predicted the evolution of philosophical thought
but those of his time did not understand
i believe tarski was a more exceptional case still )
knowing is possible through the fundamental lie
that the sound of rustling leaves
is acinonyx jubatus with hunger in its belly
that one thing is associated another
from this fundamental lie
we interpret
meaning is possible through coordination of interpretation
here coordination may mean only correlation
there need not be isomorphy
meaning is possible through this agreement of language
that was how science was structured by tarski
and also korzybski
and many in the polish school of logic
and why it is so structured today
(((((((((((((((((..))))))))))))))))))
all exchange of information is finite
if the world has infinite interaction potential
we will never know it with certainty
this is what constructivism teaches
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Meow, meow, meow, meow,
Meow, meow, meow, meow,
Meow, meow, meow, meow,
Meow, meow, meow, meow...
- Morris the cat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rc" |
|
| Title: Re: the laws of the unknowable |
20 Feb 2007 10:27:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:07:55 -0600, galathaea wrote
(in article <1171861675.864125.225500@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
On Feb 18, 5:48 pm, rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:29:20 -0600, galathaea wrote
(in article <1171697360.804051.89...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
On Feb 16, 1:53 pm, "Paul" <pgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Bryan Magee also wrote the standard introduction to Karl Popper, so he
has a lot to say about "philosophy of science". His main conclusion is
that philosophy should be about reality, not langauge, and indeed
science is to do with one aspect of reality and is very important --
but so also is art. Language, for him, is just a tool and not
something that should be made central to philosophy. Bertrand Russell
is quoted as agreeing with this viewpoint, and Magee uses the great
philosophers as examples of how philosophy should be done. He calls
the modern age of Oxford based linguistic philosophy a one step
backwards era - with Plato, Aristotle and Kant providing giant steps
forwards.
one can only speak of unknowables
in some model
Some model. Any model? Speak to the connected or non connectedness of
models.
Am I off base in how you intend model? How do you mean model?
i mean a structure that interprets truth/assertion/prediction
in a given ontology
and obeys the dynamics of a given logic
Not poetics?
i am saying that the only meaningful way we can speak of unknowables
is that they are unknowable inside some model
that brings this mathematical apparatus with it
a language and logical inference
interpreted on a structure
the dynamics of the logic determine when interaction is possible
the unknowable always have zero information content
because they are precisely those things in a model
that do not interact in the observers' component of interaction
unknowable is a topological property
in some model
even lies have information
every interaction exchanges information
unknowables are meaningless
but there are also knowable things that are meaningless
Unless unknowables are the meaning behind your voyage. Which I take it they
are.
clarifying the mereology
of meaning and unknowability
is interesting i think
but not an end
I think so too, along with other things I throw in the mix.
meaning is an agreement amongst agents
of model interpretation
Please elaborate this argument, or if you choose, elaborate in some other
way. I don't know what model. Interpretation model? In interpretation model,
meaning is an agreement amongst agents of interpretation model?
here the model agreement is simply a correlation of expectation
*********..
we have internal models to help us predict
some are very immediate
like curvilinear path tracing
audiolocation
some more long term
linguistic deductions and formal symbolic prediction
the key to the meaning is in the prediction
and this simply requires correlation
No correlation means no meaning. And what of the rustling of leaves? Maybe I
misunderstood? How does the lie have meaning when nothing is correlated?
Meaningless. Except, now the lie is the meaning.
models are built from ontologies and their languages
this has been the case ever since tarski
no matter how complex an agent
the more information we receive from it
the better we may predict it
i have always wanted to build a radioactive decay counter
maybe grab some of the americanium from my smoke detectors
and apply a learning algorithm that grows in complexity
to predict it
all i'd need is some type of gamma or xray scintillator
and a pulse counter
( we use to set these up in lab )
we may approach the law of large numbers
and find inherent randomness
in the algorithmic sense
that is what our current models predict
but if we ever began to predict better...
$%#*&*&*&*#@&$*&($&(#&@$*&#*
all syntactic relationships are mereological
and mereology has been topological
ever since tarski as well
( i've heard so often how spinoza was years ahead of his time
how he predicted the evolution of philosophical thought
but those of his time did not understand
i believe tarski was a more exceptional case still )
knowing is possible through the fundamental lie
that the sound of rustling leaves
is acinonyx jubatus with hunger in its belly
that one thing is associated another
from this fundamental lie
we interpret
meaning is possible through coordination of interpretation
here coordination may mean only correlation
there need not be isomorphy
meaning is possible through this agreement of language
that was how science was structured by tarski
and also korzybski
and many in the polish school of logic
and why it is so structured today
(((((((((((((((((..))))))))))))))))))
all exchange of information is finite
if the world has infinite interaction potential
we will never know it with certainty
this is what constructivism teaches
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
