On Idealism, repeated

Cito di Pense · **#581** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 23, 2021 9:26 pm

hackenslash wrote:The entire notion of an irrefutable set of axioms is a naïve wish even in mathematics, as a gentleman from Brno showed in his doctoral dissertation in 1929.

Axioms are accepted or rejected, not justified. Of course, accepting them is optional, unless you want to prove stuff. Machines prove stuff every day. What we have is just not everything:

: Topics Everything.jpg (37.97 KiB) Viewed 709 times

Cito di Pense · **#582** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 23, 2021 9:42 pm

Frozenworld wrote:I don't favor solipsism, but I find it difficult to argue against it when it's right about a lot of things.

No, you just uncritically take it to be a stronger argument. You find it difficult, nigh impossible, to argue against it or anything else. You find it difficult, nigh impossible, to argue in favor of anything at all. Your preferred modus operandi is to find a title to link that sounds good to you. What you find easy is to imply that nobody but you and the authors you link understand the problem. Pro Tip, FW: links are not citations, because you aren't writing anything that uses them. You're spreading around a lot of unmet obligations.

Frozenworld wrote:
Apparently someone also proved it mathematically too:

What does "apparently" denote, there? If you didn't waffle with words like that, you'd be lying with the rest of it. So the question is, what's apparent about it besides Ransford's title, and that, of course, is not a proof of anything. You're not the only bloke in this conversation with a user account at ResearchGate.

By the way, here's what Ransford lists to inspire our confidence in his utterances on the fundamental nature of reality:

University of Melbourne
March 1982 - January 1984
Department
Chemical Engineering
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Position
Tutor & Supply Lecturer

Monash University
March 1982 - January 1984
Department
Chemical Engineering
Location
Clayton, Australia
Position
Research Fellow

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
September 1977 - April 1978
Department
Institute of Physical Chemistry
Location
Germany
Position
Gast Akademiker on DAAD Exchange

I guess the one thing you can say about this yo-yo is that he's up-to-date. The person who improves his confidence in solipsism on a basis such as this is unable to do even this much basic research. To blather about it all over the internet makes him a fool, to boot. Egad! What have I done? I hope like fuck that FW and Ransford aren't the same phantasm!

hackenslash · **#583** by **hackenslash** » Dec 23, 2021 10:05 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:Axioms are accepted or rejected, not justified. Of course, accepting them is optional,

Especially the axiom of choice. Fraenkel, my dear, I don't give a damn. Zermelo may differ.

hackenslash · **#584** by **hackenslash** » Dec 23, 2021 10:07 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:I hope like fuck that FW and Ransford aren't the same phantasm!

There's a thought. There's been a certain wendiness...

Cito di Pense · **#585** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 23, 2021 10:16 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Axioms are accepted or rejected, not justified. Of course, accepting them is optional,

Especially the axiom of choice. Fraenkel, my dear, I don't give a damn. Zermelo may differ.

I've gotten as far as entertaining questions that run like this:

Let A and B be two decision problems. Suppose we know that A polynomial-time reduces to B. Which of the following can we infer? Mark all that apply.

• If A is NP-complete and B is in NP then B is NP-complete
• If B is NP-complete then so is A
• If A is NP-complete then so is B
• A and B cannot both be NP-complete
• If B is NP-complete and A is in NP then A is NP-complete
• If A is in P, then B is in P
• If B is in P, then A is in P

You could, to select the options you think are correct, quote the block and then remove the leading bullet symbol to nod assent.

Greg the Grouper · **#586** by **Greg the Grouper** » Dec 24, 2021 12:58 am

I definitely grasp this part of the conversatoon. Totally.

hackenslash · **#587** by **hackenslash** » Dec 24, 2021 1:30 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Axioms are accepted or rejected, not justified. Of course, accepting them is optional,

Especially the axiom of choice. Fraenkel, my dear, I don't give a damn. Zermelo may differ.

I've gotten as far as entertaining questions that run like this:

Let A and B be two decision problems. Suppose we know that A polynomial-time reduces to B. Which of the following can we infer? Mark all that apply.

• If A is NP-complete and B is in NP then B is NP-complete
• If B is NP-complete then so is A
• If A is NP-complete then so is B
• A and B cannot both be NP-complete
• If B is NP-complete and A is in NP then A is NP-complete
• If A is in P, then B is in P
• If B is in P, then A is in P

You could, to select the options you think are correct, quote the block and then remove the leading bullet symbol to nod assent.

I vaguely understand what NP-completeness is, and what the question is pointing to, but wouldn't deign to evince a response. I grasp the mechanics of mathematics from a systemic perspective. Never been much good below the meta... :lol:

Cito di Pense · **#588** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 24, 2021 5:35 am

There are lots of interesting problems in computation (e.g. involving paths on graphs) which we (so far) only know how to solve by brute-force methods, trying every alternative to see if it works, and this takes exponential or factorial time to compute because of the combinatorial how-many-ways aspect. A P problem can be solved in polynomial time, that is, N to some real number power where N is the size of the problem, and this is considered easy even if the power is a million, such as the number of nodes on a graph and the multiplicity of edges emanating at each node, even on average. Above, we have problems A and B and we want to know if they are equivalent in difficulty. A way it's sometimes expressed is that it's easier to check a solution than to find one. An NP algorithm solves in non-deterministic-polynomial time, for example, by guessing at solutions, and there's even educated guessing. NP is the class of questions where solutions can be verified in polynomial time when presented without much useful information about how the solution was achieved (by "guessing"). The wikipedia article is eminently readable, at least for the first few paragraphs.

The kind of question I posted up there is merely one of understanding the definitions, which have subtlety, including how a "decision problem" is defined. Apropos of this discussion here, by way of analogy, it's easier to check someone's proof than it is to come up with the proof. For me, it's about how we only learn mathematics by solving lots and lots of exercises, instead of just checking the solutions of "worked examples". When FW uses the word "proof", he has no idea what he's talking about. If FW is persuaded by an argument, or even by the turn of phrase in some google search result, he calls it a proof, but this isn't mathematics, and it certainly isn't proof. It's only where we run off the rails. It's a "Chalk Mark in a Rainstorm", to recall an image that Joni Mitchell used as an album title, and I'm glad its author is an artist I respect. It's ridiculous to treat the problem of "idealism, repeated" as more difficult than P vs. NP until FW shows that he has any kind of expertise at all. If he's Ransford, at least he has some nameable expertise, even if it's a few decades old. Ransford is a crank who stopped doing academic work decades ago, and who now self-publishes in gray literature and posts at ResearchGate.

Spearthrower · **#589** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 24, 2021 6:46 am

Cito di Pense wrote: I hope like fuck that FW and Ransford aren't the same phantasm!

I would put sizeable bets against them being the same person. Regardless of the informational value contained within it, does FW strike you as someone who could write a book?

Frozenworld · **#590** by **Frozenworld** » Dec 25, 2021 5:22 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:I don't favor solipsism, but I find it difficult to argue against it when it's right about a lot of things.

No, you just uncritically take it to be a stronger argument. You find it difficult, nigh impossible, to argue against it or anything else. You find it difficult, nigh impossible, to argue in favor of anything at all. Your preferred modus operandi is to find a title to link that sounds good to you. What you find easy is to imply that nobody but you and the authors you link understand the problem. Pro Tip, FW: links are not citations, because you aren't writing anything that uses them. You're spreading around a lot of unmet obligations.

Frozenworld wrote:
Apparently someone also proved it mathematically too:

What does "apparently" denote, there? If you didn't waffle with words like that, you'd be lying with the rest of it. So the question is, what's apparent about it besides Ransford's title, and that, of course, is not a proof of anything. You're not the only bloke in this conversation with a user account at ResearchGate.

By the way, here's what Ransford lists to inspire our confidence in his utterances on the fundamental nature of reality:

University of Melbourne
March 1982 - January 1984
Department
Chemical Engineering
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Position
Tutor & Supply Lecturer

Monash University
March 1982 - January 1984
Department
Chemical Engineering
Location
Clayton, Australia
Position
Research Fellow

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
September 1977 - April 1978
Department
Institute of Physical Chemistry
Location
Germany
Position
Gast Akademiker on DAAD Exchange

I guess the one thing you can say about this yo-yo is that he's up-to-date. The person who improves his confidence in solipsism on a basis such as this is unable to do even this much basic research. To blather about it all over the internet makes him a fool, to boot. Egad! What have I done? I hope like fuck that FW and Ransford aren't the same phantasm!

No we aren't but I don't know what's good against it or not. All the arguments for it sound more convincing then the ones against it.

Like this:

What is the problem with solipsism? It seems you are looking for a solution without a problem.

Philosophically, I am a solipsist and a panpsychist.

My position (super) is that we are all solipsists in superposition with each other and so the only mind that exists that we can know for certain is our own.

From that standpoint (mine), all the other entities (solipsists) might as well be p-zombies (7.5 billion at least – from fully fleshed examples fading to abstract conceptual entities. I believe that the others to themselves are fully fledged solipsists in their own right and not p-zombies but from each of our individual existences, the all the others are p-zombies.

For example: I am writing these words and from my vantage, I am a sentient being that experiences all the trappings of existence. Qualia and physicality are mine and exist because I consciously/subconsciously create and experience them.

To you however I am whatever you conjure as an abstract concept. I am the pixels on a screen that you conceive/perceive as some Quora user with the label “Bert Leysath” generated in replies to questions. Your brain translates those pixels into symbols that you perceive as words which point to connotations within your consciousness and cobble their (your) meanings into concepts.

These concepts are entirely yours and may be associated with the label (me) and if you extend the concept you may form a mental image of an entity that you suppose to represent the p-zombie Quora user known as “Bert Leysath”.

If this process is repeated, then the image is sculpted/refined into a richer concept (still entirely yours) and it acquires depth to which you may attach (project) emotions (or not) concerning what you have projected onto the occupant of the mental niche reserved for your concept of me.

That is a far cry from the me I know and if you were to meet me in person and we were to chat at length, you would alter your image of me by the filter of personal prejudice (pro or con) but it still wouldn’t have anything to do with my me (unless you were to physically affect me). I am still a p-zombie as far as you are concerned (even though I appear to be a sentient human) and I am still a solipsist and you are a p-zombie to me.

I accept the fact (alternative fact?) that you are not a p-zombie in your reality but I realize you are a projection of my consciousness and I have created you (my you, not your you) to further my autodidactism on the journey/drama we call personal reality experience.

As far as panpsychism is concerned, I believe consciousness (not our aggregated personal consciousness but a component of it) is fundamental – I afford conscious awareness to all sub-subatomic entities and the Turtles All the Way Down

It sounds more convincing to me than people simply insisting it's nonsense. WHY is this guy wrong, tell me. Because I don't know myself.

Greg the Grouper · **#591** by **Greg the Grouper** » Dec 25, 2021 5:53 am

Uh...it's inherently contradictory? He's declared other people to be sapient beings and solipsists in their own right, and philosophical zombies that are merely a projection of his own mind.

I dunno how something so obviously contradictory strikes you as a convincing argument, but sure, go off.

Spearthrower · **#592** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 25, 2021 6:16 am

Frozenworld wrote:
It sounds more convincing to me than people simply insisting it's nonsense. WHY is this guy wrong, tell me. Because I don't know myself.

Or how about you stop evading addressing all the criticisms of your contentions and start responding to questions?

You have claimed numerous times that you can verify your own existence but have repeatedly failed to substantiate this.

So substantiate it or get the fuck out.

And Happy Christmas.

BlackBart · **#593** by **BlackBart** » Dec 25, 2021 9:18 am

Frozenworld wrote:
It sounds more convincing to me than people simply insisting it's nonsense.

So? Lots of things SOUND convincing. Especially if you haven't got the nous to work out why they're not.

WHY is this guy wrong, tell me. Because I don't know myself.

If don't know why he's wrong then you don't know why he's right. So you quoted something that you don't know
supports your position. Well done.

BWE · **#594** by **BWE** » Dec 26, 2021 7:47 pm

Frozenworld wrote:[

Like I said, you guys just aren't getting it. Nothing you have said so far gets around this and just draws conclusions from essentially nothing.

Apparently someone also proved it mathematically too:

https://www.amazon.com/God-Mathematics- ... nskepti-20
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... e_Doctor_1
https://www.quora.com/profile/H-Chris-Ransford

You can't prove an ontology. It is what you use to prove something within it.

Otherwise, carry on

Frozenworld · **#595** by **Frozenworld** » Dec 27, 2021 8:51 pm

BlackBart wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
It sounds more convincing to me than people simply insisting it's nonsense.

So? Lots of things SOUND convincing. Especially if you haven't got the nous to work out why they're not.

WHY is this guy wrong, tell me. Because I don't know myself.

If don't know why he's wrong then you don't know why he's right. So you quoted something that you don't know
supports your position. Well done.

But how can you justify realism or an external world given the existence of illusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ_ERQ7ZlGs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Westerhoff

Greg the Grouper · **#596** by **Greg the Grouper** » Dec 27, 2021 8:59 pm

Frozenworld wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
It sounds more convincing to me than people simply insisting it's nonsense.

So? Lots of things SOUND convincing. Especially if you haven't got the nous to work out why they're not.

WHY is this guy wrong, tell me. Because I don't know myself.

If don't know why he's wrong then you don't know why he's right. So you quoted something that you don't know
supports your position. Well done.

But how can you justify realism or an external world given the existence of illusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ_ERQ7ZlGs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Westerhoff

Do you mean to say, then, that you didn't understand what you previously quoted as proof of your position? If you didn't understand the proof you cited, how then did you come to your position?

To answer your question, though, wouldn't the illusory be proof of an external reality? After all, in order for one to distinguish something as illusory, one would need to be able to differentiate it from something else which strikes them as less tenuous, no? How else would we deem something as being illusory?

In fact, what do you think makes something real to begin with? Maybe if you answer that, we might be able to have a more productive conversation.

hackenslash · **#597** by **hackenslash** » Dec 27, 2021 9:00 pm

Illusions can only exist with the existence of an external world.

Congratulations, you just applied Paley's Watch to ontology.

Edit: Only a ninja...

Greg the Grouper · **#598** by **Greg the Grouper** » Dec 27, 2021 9:02 pm

Fucking ninjas.

newolder · **#599** by **newolder** » Dec 27, 2021 9:07 pm

Frozenworld wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
It sounds more convincing to me than people simply insisting it's nonsense.

So? Lots of things SOUND convincing. Especially if you haven't got the nous to work out why they're not.

WHY is this guy wrong, tell me. Because I don't know myself.

If don't know why he's wrong then you don't know why he's right. So you quoted something that you don't know
supports your position. Well done.

But how can you justify realism or an external world given the existence of illusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ_ERQ7ZlGs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Westerhoff

There is no "But". It's your claim and you keep dodging the burden of proof.

Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Because unlike everything else I can verify my existence.

Go on then.

You keep declaring you can, but it's all mouth and no trousers.

Time to put up.

All mouth, no trousers.

Trousers, then verify. :popcorn:

Spearthrower · **#600** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 27, 2021 11:03 pm

Frozenworld wrote:
But how can you...

Nope FW - it's past time for YOU to start addressing the many challenges you keep ignoring.

On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Re: On Idealism, repeated

Who is online