Philosoblog

Anything and all things

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Philosoblog

#561  Postby Thommo » Dec 07, 2017 4:48 am

Oh for goodness sake, you said something incorrect and then describe (among numerous other personal attacks) saying that a premise doesn't support a conclusion as "you're a poopyhead", and then ask me if I'm autistic?

I think you need some perspective. But clearly this conversation is not productive, so I won't seek to clarify further as you've evidently seen earlier attempts as provocation, and indeed excuse for some extremely poor behaviour.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Philosoblog

#562  Postby BWE » Dec 07, 2017 5:01 am

Thommo wrote:Oh for goodness sake, you said something incorrect and then describe (among numerous other personal attacks) saying that a premise doesn't support a conclusion as "you're a poopyhead", and then ask me if I'm autistic?

I asked because if you are, then I was operating under false assumptions which I needed to amend. If you are not, then thank you for pointing out I used the wrong word. The rest of what you wrote would be ridiculously juvenile unless you were coming from a rigidly literal pov.

I think you need some perspective. But clearly this conversation is not productive, so I won't seek to clarify further as you've clearly seen earlier attempts as provocation, and indeed excuse for some poor behaviour.

Your earlier attempts were either silly juvenile behavior or were far more fixated on minutia than I was prepared to respond to.

The point of SoS's theory is that everything can be boiled down to physical maps. That is what I was responding to and was the subject of my posts. But otherwise, yes. Thank you.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2191

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#563  Postby Thommo » Dec 07, 2017 5:36 am

It actually wasn't just a terminological point, although I would think it shouldn't need to be pointed out that saying what you mean is generally an improvement over saying what you don't mean.

The thing is that there are lots of ways that SOS could be correct (although I would not say I think he necessarily is), one simple example would be that there are only ever finitely many instances of a dishonest act, and that each act occurs in a physically distinguishable situation (and one may, or may not restrict the domain of which physical measurements they consider).

What's worse is that even if SOS was wrong and no isomorphism could ever be found that would only prove indeterminism (because it would show that the physical is underspecified, not that there are non physical explanations to be found), it would not actually constitute evidence or argument against physicalism. Different issues have been conflated here, in contradiction to some of the more overblown claims.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#564  Postby BWE » Dec 07, 2017 5:51 am

Thommo wrote:It actually wasn't just a terminological point, although I would think it shouldn't need to be pointed out that saying what you mean is generally an improvement over saying what you don't mean.

The thing is that there are lots of ways that SOS could be correct (although I would not say I think he necessarily is), one simple example would be that there are only ever finitely many instances of a dishonest act, and that each act occurs in a physically distinguishable situation (and one may, or may not restrict the domain of which physical measurements they consider).

What's worse is that even if SOS was wrong and no isomorphism could ever be found that would only prove indeterminism (because it would show that the physical is underspecified, not that there are non physical explanations to be found), it would not actually constitute evidence or argument against physicalism. Different issues have been conflated here, in contradiction to some of the more overblown claims.

Ah. Thank you for clarifying. You missed my point entirely. The entire concept of a dishonest act is a matter of map rather than territory. The reason I pointed out that dishonest is not physical is that In a world where what is physical is what is known, there are no honest or dishonest acts. There are only reactions or perhaps actions. By using valuations like that, we obscure the entire content of the reaction behind the lens of value. While the standard argument is along the lines of "well, you could theoretically translate it into purely physical terms", my argument is that wherever we don't, we are literally experiencing the values of our maps rather than those of our sensations. The actual information we parse is literally coming from our own heads. My argument is that we can't use any map to get around this because we are always going to assume the information filled in by the map rather than the environment is the reality.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2191

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#565  Postby Thommo » Dec 07, 2017 6:05 am

BWE wrote:
Thommo wrote:It actually wasn't just a terminological point, although I would think it shouldn't need to be pointed out that saying what you mean is generally an improvement over saying what you don't mean.

The thing is that there are lots of ways that SOS could be correct (although I would not say I think he necessarily is), one simple example would be that there are only ever finitely many instances of a dishonest act, and that each act occurs in a physically distinguishable situation (and one may, or may not restrict the domain of which physical measurements they consider).

What's worse is that even if SOS was wrong and no isomorphism could ever be found that would only prove indeterminism (because it would show that the physical is underspecified, not that there are non physical explanations to be found), it would not actually constitute evidence or argument against physicalism. Different issues have been conflated here, in contradiction to some of the more overblown claims.

Ah. Thank you for clarifying. You missed my point entirely.


Err, no. Your point included making a series of claims towards a conclusion. By addressing mistakes in that series of claims the conclusion is affected.

Simply restating that conclusion, that "point" isn't helping anyone. Maybe it feels better to continually try and cast blame, I don't know, I guess it doesn't matter though since it's obstructive to both polite and constructive discourse either way.

None of this map/value/experience sideshow actually speaks to the truth of physicalism. On the physicalist view all those things denote (ordered structures or relations on) physical things, that's all. On a non physicalist view, they do not.

The reason I am not discussing woolly notions or loose intuitions regarding the structure that is imputed to exist is very simple, I'm not interested in it because I don't think it has any value. Repetition of those intutions or notions will not change that and is no more welcome or necessary than the cod psychology and insults were.

Incidentally, if you want to stop drawing me in to further explanations I strongly suggest you stop this speculation about what I have missed, about my mental state and other such things. If you have found an error in what I have written, or something you disagree (or agree) with in what I have written then further conversation would be welcome.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#566  Postby BWE » Dec 07, 2017 6:25 am

Thommo wrote:
BWE wrote:
Thommo wrote:It actually wasn't just a terminological point, although I would think it shouldn't need to be pointed out that saying what you mean is generally an improvement over saying what you don't mean.

The thing is that there are lots of ways that SOS could be correct (although I would not say I think he necessarily is), one simple example would be that there are only ever finitely many instances of a dishonest act, and that each act occurs in a physically distinguishable situation (and one may, or may not restrict the domain of which physical measurements they consider).

What's worse is that even if SOS was wrong and no isomorphism could ever be found that would only prove indeterminism (because it would show that the physical is underspecified, not that there are non physical explanations to be found), it would not actually constitute evidence or argument against physicalism. Different issues have been conflated here, in contradiction to some of the more overblown claims.

Ah. Thank you for clarifying. You missed my point entirely.


Err, no. Your point is that you made a series of claims towards a conclusion. By addressing mistakes in that series of claims the conclusion is affected.

Simply restating that conclusion, that "point" isn't helping anyone. Maybe it feels better to continually try and cast blame, I don't know, I guess it doesn't matter though since it's obstructive to both polite and constructive discourse either way.

Well, you may be british or something but we apparently define polite differently. Your earlier posts were full of 10 year old pseudo clever internet bullshit. My question about autism was sincere.


None of this map/value/experience sideshow actually speaks to the truth of physicalism. On the physicalist view all those things denote (ordered structures or relations on) physical things, that's all. On a non physicalist view, they do not.
It isn't a sideshow. It's the actual fucking point of the conversation. This has been a long running discussion and these are points long ago covered. If it seems like I am defending or attacking physicalism as an ontological stance, I am not. If you feel that I should be more careful with my words because it looks like that's what I'm doing, well, ok. To get you up to speed on where I think SoS and I are (and I have been addressing SoS individually since this has been a long-running discussion), I am dismissing physicalism or a class of ontology in general as irrelevant and that was possibly even years ago in this whole SoS discussion, however, it was also just a page ago involving James' deal with physicalism.

I don't give two shits about something which has no effect at all on anything. I am describing to SoS why he cannot make a purely physicalism map that accurately informs his actions. It is impossible without entirely or nearly entirely dispensing with value because value will always fill in data as if it were really experienced when it isn't and wasn't. Dishonest is a perfect example. It cannot be squared with his idea of making his ontology into a model based on physicalist premises.


The reason I am not discussing woolly notions or loose intuitions regarding the structure that is imputed to exist is very simple, I'm not interested in it because I don't think it has any value. Repetition of those intutions or notions will not change that and is no more welcome or necessary than the cod psychology and insults were.

you must be a blast at parties.


Incidentally, if you want to stop drawing me in to further explanations I strongly suggest you stop this speculation about what I have missed, about my mental state and other such things. If you have found an error in what I have written, or something you disagree (or agree) with in what I have written then further conversation would be welcome.


You are talking about a subject that is not the subject of this thread so, maybe... I dunno what to do with that. Hopefully I have clarified. If you still think this is a discussion on the ontological truth of the physical nature of existence, well, it isn't.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2191

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#567  Postby Thommo » Dec 07, 2017 6:34 am

BWE wrote:Well, you may be british or something but we apparently define polite differently. Your earlier posts were full of 10 year old pseudo clever internet bullshit. My question about autism was sincere.


Then you need to get a fucking clue about psychology not to mention the FUA. Your behaviour, is yet again, disgraceful.

Cut it out.

This is your level of "politeness" before I even entered the conversation:-
"You have no fucking idea whatsoever what is physical and what isn't because it is almost entirely impossible to separate that category from our ideas about the category. You think you can and that it's easy but your ignorant and stupid use of statistics as some sort of physical reality defies your claim. Blacks are statistically more likely to mug you in a black part of town. Right? TGo make some policy reflecting that truth about the physical world. And women are statistically more likely to suck cock than men which makes it physically unreal when a man sucks cock I suppose."

And I've not said anything remotely approaching that level of rudeness, juvenileness or pseudo cleverness at any point.

And if you're not interested in drawing out comments about physicalism, then don't say things like this either:-
BWE wrote:
Thommo wrote:Dishonesty actually has many physical correlates. Galvanic skin response is an obvious one.

It also correlates with people saying things that are provably not true.

This response is exactly the reason that physicalism fails. Not because we can't model everything physically but because those models incorporate the nonphysical as properties.

Where you specifically claim that it's relevant to my correction, that it fails and that there are nonphysical things incorporated as properties. This response introducing it is the only reason I ever mentioned the concept.

Overall, there's a staggering lack of awareness of your own posts here.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Philosoblog

#568  Postby BWE » Dec 07, 2017 6:49 am

Thommo wrote:
BWE wrote:Well, you may be british or something but we apparently define polite differently. Your earlier posts were full of 10 year old pseudo clever internet bullshit. My question about autism was sincere.


Then you need to get a fucking clue about psychology not to mention the FUA. Your behaviour, is yet again, disgraceful.

I don't give a rat's ass about the FUA. If you are autistic or on that spectrum, then I would respond to your posts with a bit more patience for unnecessary detail and focusing on shit that is irrelevant to me.


Cut it out.

No thank you.

This is your level of "politeness" before I even entered the conversation:-
"You have no fucking idea whatsoever what is physical and what isn't because it is almost entirely impossible to separate that category from our ideas about the category. You think you can and that it's easy but your ignorant and stupid use of statistics as some sort of physical reality defies your claim. Blacks are statistically more likely to mug you in a black part of town. Right? TGo make some policy reflecting that truth about the physical world. And women are statistically more likely to suck cock than men which makes it physically unreal when a man sucks cock I suppose."

And I've not said anything remotely approaching that level of rudeness, juvenileness or pseudo cleverness at any point.

I am American. That isn't rude to me. Whereas, your "If you think that what you said was unintelligible, that's up to you, I guess. I'm not sure that really redeems its value in discussion though, I have to say." was.



And if you're not interested in drawing out comments about physicalism, then don't say things like this either:-
BWE wrote:
Thommo wrote:Dishonesty actually has many physical correlates. Galvanic skin response is an obvious one.

It also correlates with people saying things that are provably not true.

This response is exactly the reason that physicalism fails. Not because we can't model everything physically but because those models incorporate the nonphysical as properties.

Where you specifically claim that it's relevant to my correction, that it fails and that there are nonphysical things incorporated as properties. This response introducing it is the only reason I ever mentioned the concept.

Overall, there's a staggering lack of awareness of your own posts here.


Staggering lack of awareness regarding the fact that you don't know what the conversation is about, I'll grant you that. Just so you know, I will continue to use language sloppily because I don't give enough of a shit to humor you. I do hope that my failure to consider your school's standards can be forgiven. If you'd like clarification on a particular point, I'm usually happy to clarify. This isn't a contest for me.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2191

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#569  Postby Thommo » Dec 07, 2017 7:45 am

Ok, I'll try and conform my points to your standards of politeness, as conforms with "being American" and the context of your quote that you say is polite:
"You have no fucking idea whatsoever what is physical and what isn't because it is almost entirely impossible to separate that category from our ideas about the category. You think you can and that it's easy but your ignorant and stupid use of statistics as some sort of physical reality defies your claim. Blacks are statistically more likely to mug you in a black part of town. Right? TGo make some policy reflecting that truth about the physical world. And women are statistically more likely to suck cock than men which makes it physically unreal when a man sucks cock I suppose."


Your repeated ignorance of logical structure, of the words you use incorrectly (boundary condition, isomorphism, correlation) and of psychology are fucking stupid. You have no idea what you're talking about or about what I said.

Go read the FUA and get a fucking clue about how to behave and about how insulting repeatedly referring to someone as potentially autistic is (and the irony of being unaware of the social implications of using that term).

Is that better? I genuinely hope so, I've only used emphasis words found in the polite passage you linked there. Whatever is offensive, childish or pseudo-clever in "If you think that what you said was unintelligible, that's up to you, I guess. I'm not sure that really redeems its value in discussion though, I have to say.", you can consider it withdrawn.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#570  Postby BWE » Dec 07, 2017 8:03 am

Thommo wrote:Ok, I'll try and conform my points to your standards of politeness, as conforms with "being American" and the context of your quote that you say is polite:

again, I was unclear. I do not need you to be polite. It is your business what tone you choose.

"You have no fucking idea whatsoever what is physical and what isn't because it is almost entirely impossible to separate that category from our ideas about the category. You think you can and that it's easy but your ignorant and stupid use of statistics as some sort of physical reality defies your claim. Blacks are statistically more likely to mug you in a black part of town. Right? TGo make some policy reflecting that truth about the physical world. And women are statistically more likely to suck cock than men which makes it physically unreal when a man sucks cock I suppose."


Your repeated ignorance of logical structure, of the words you use incorrectly (boundary condition, isomorphism, correlation) and of psychology are fucking stupid. You have no idea what you're talking about or about what I said.

says you. anyway, it might be true that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I might just be randomly picking ideas out of a pomo generator or something like that. but it is definitely true that I am not trying to conform to the standards which you seem to want me to conform to so maybe there is a little bit of miss on your end too.



Go read the FUA and get a fucking clue about how to behave and about how insulting repeatedly referring to someone as potentially autistic is (and the irony of being unaware of the social implications of using that term).

If it is a fact, then it is a fact that would change how I interacted with you. If you think it is rude to ask, then I guess you aren't autistic. I don't need to read the FUA. It doesn't matter to me what it says. I can police my own behavior well enough for my needs and if someone else wants to police it a bit more that's their business. I am fine with the moderation here.


Is that better? I genuinely hope so, I've only used emphasis words found in the polite passage you linked there. Whatever is offensive, childish or pseudo-clever in "If you think that what you said was unintelligible, that's up to you, I guess. I'm not sure that really redeems its value in discussion though, I have to say.", you can consider it withdrawn.

Thank you but it isn't necessary. The fact that our standards are different is just a fact. It makes it easier to have discussion if we are aware of those different standards I guess.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2191

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#571  Postby Thommo » Dec 07, 2017 8:06 am

Absolutely, thank you for informing me that I should have simply pointed out that your argument wasn't even good enough to warrant* more than being pissed on, instead of pointing out what I perceived to be the errors it contained.

I'm sure this will lead to a much more constructive continuation. As, equally, I'm sure willfully ignoring the FUA will too.

*I've said "warrant" here, rather than be "worthy" of, I hope that's ok, as it does differ a little from the model example you put forward.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21926

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#572  Postby BWE » Dec 07, 2017 8:22 am

Stereotyping is ignorant and stupid and we all do it almost all the time. I suppose I should have phrased that nicer. Or, more nicely. If SoS took offense, I apologize in advance for using a royal tone there.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2191

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#573  Postby BWE » Dec 07, 2017 8:23 am

Thommo wrote:Absolutely, thank you for informing me that I should have simply pointed out that your argument wasn't even good enough to warrant* more than being pissed on, instead of pointing out what I perceived to be the errors it contained.

I'm sure this will lead to a much more constructive continuation. As, equally, I'm sure willfully ignoring the FUA will too.

*I've said "warrant" here, rather than be "worthy" of, I hope that's ok, as it does differ a little from the model example you put forward.

I'm glad we've got that settled. I feel better.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2191

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#574  Postby GrahamH » Dec 07, 2017 10:02 am

BWE wrote: The entire concept of a dishonest act is a matter of map rather than territory. The reason I pointed out that dishonest is not physical is that In a world where what is physical is what is known, there are no honest or dishonest acts. There are only reactions or perhaps actions. By using valuations like that, we obscure the entire content of the reaction behind the lens of value. While the standard argument is along the lines of "well, you could theoretically translate it into purely physical terms", my argument is that wherever we don't, we are literally experiencing the values of our maps rather than those of our sensations. The actual information we parse is literally coming from our own heads. My argument is that we can't use any map to get around this because we are always going to assume the information filled in by the map rather than the environment is the reality.


That seems to be begging the question. How is 'value' constructed? How are 'maps' made? Jamest is at least clear on that. He believes in qualia. Everything is 'mental' and meaning comes first as a given rather than as a relation between things (since there are no things). I'm not clear on your stance on that. It seems to me you that the best you can do on that path is just to assume your conclusion and live with it.

I think our experiences are features on a map and there are things we may yet understand about mapmaking even if we do so by more maps being drawn.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17717

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#575  Postby BWE » Dec 07, 2017 10:11 am

GrahamH wrote:
BWE wrote: The entire concept of a dishonest act is a matter of map rather than territory. The reason I pointed out that dishonest is not physical is that In a world where what is physical is what is known, there are no honest or dishonest acts. There are only reactions or perhaps actions. By using valuations like that, we obscure the entire content of the reaction behind the lens of value. While the standard argument is along the lines of "well, you could theoretically translate it into purely physical terms", my argument is that wherever we don't, we are literally experiencing the values of our maps rather than those of our sensations. The actual information we parse is literally coming from our own heads. My argument is that we can't use any map to get around this because we are always going to assume the information filled in by the map rather than the environment is the reality.


That seems to be begging the question. How is 'value' constructed? How are 'maps' made? Jamest is at least clear on that. He believes in qualia. Everything is 'mental' and meaning comes first as a given rather than as a relation between things (since there are no things). I'm not clear on your stance on that. It seems to me you that the best you can do on that path is just to assume your conclusion and live with it.

I think our experiences are features on a map and there are things we may yet understand about mapmaking even if we do so by more maps being drawn.

I agree with that to a point. The problem I have with ontologies like idealism/physicalism is they try to account for the model with a model which is a self reference can't escape the trap situation. Modeling is how we navigate experience but the two are so intertwined that we cannot easily distinguish between them. I would say it is impossible but I think that's wrong. Not easy and maybe not more than a few times a millennium, but not, I think, impossible. At any rate, ontologies are self refuting because of that. The typical approach is to fold them into the same background strata and in that case, I prefer some form of idealism not because its more better, but because models simply don't fold into physical backgrounds in any way that allows us to distinguish the map from the territory. At least with idealism, it's the territory that goes. Although that doesn't work any better in terms of logic. Just that we don't have to pretend we're on to something that we can't use models to be onto.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2191

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Philosoblog

#576  Postby GrahamH » Dec 07, 2017 10:18 am

BWE wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
BWE wrote: The entire concept of a dishonest act is a matter of map rather than territory. The reason I pointed out that dishonest is not physical is that In a world where what is physical is what is known, there are no honest or dishonest acts. There are only reactions or perhaps actions. By using valuations like that, we obscure the entire content of the reaction behind the lens of value. While the standard argument is along the lines of "well, you could theoretically translate it into purely physical terms", my argument is that wherever we don't, we are literally experiencing the values of our maps rather than those of our sensations. The actual information we parse is literally coming from our own heads. My argument is that we can't use any map to get around this because we are always going to assume the information filled in by the map rather than the environment is the reality.


That seems to be begging the question. How is 'value' constructed? How are 'maps' made? Jamest is at least clear on that. He believes in qualia. Everything is 'mental' and meaning comes first as a given rather than as a relation between things (since there are no things). I'm not clear on your stance on that. It seems to me you that the best you can do on that path is just to assume your conclusion and live with it.

I think our experiences are features on a map and there are things we may yet understand about mapmaking even if we do so by more maps being drawn.

I agree with that to a point. The problem I have with ontologies like idealism/physicalism is they try to account for the model with a model which is a self reference can't escape the trap situation. Modeling is how we navigate experience but the two are so intertwined that we cannot easily distinguish between them. I would say it is impossible but I think that's wrong. Not easy and maybe not more than a few times a millennium, but not, I think, impossible. At any rate, ontologies are self refuting because of that. The typical approach is to fold them into the same background strata and in that case, I prefer some form of idealism not because its more better, but because models simply don't fold into physical backgrounds in any way that allows us to distinguish the map from the territory. At least with idealism, it's the territory that goes. Although that doesn't work any better in terms of logic. Just that we don't have to pretend we're on to something that we can't use models to be onto.


I take your point, we can't escape the models, but it seems preferable to me to keep the territory, that may be making the maps, rather than discard it and assume the maps are the thing.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17717

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#577  Postby SpeedOfSound » Dec 07, 2017 11:04 am

BWE wrote:http://complexitylabs.io/nonlinear-causality/

Do you understand how deeply nonlinear causality depends on causality?
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 31960
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#578  Postby SpeedOfSound » Dec 07, 2017 11:11 am

BWE wrote:...
Perhaps you would be happier with the word analogs. There is no possible isomorphism to use SoS's wishful phrase.
.

My usage was 'up to isomorphism'. Quite different to 1:1 overall. Very important to understand this in understanding what I am saying about the actual meaning of physicality.

Repeatedly you have pointed out some characteristic of physical things, then correlated that in general with physicality, then claimed physicality does not therefore exist. To give yourself clarity consider that being an object has nothing whatever to do with identity or sharp boundaries. A misunderstanding of physicalism is not a critique of physicalism. Naive physicalism is the strawman.

Persistent little fucker he is.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 31960
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#579  Postby GrahamH » Dec 07, 2017 11:42 am

BWE wrote:http://complexitylabs.io/nonlinear-causality/


That all seems rather obvious except for this bit:

With a control system the structure and initial conditions may not matter, what matters is the goal, future goals can determine current actions. Here we can note causality reversing as it goes from some projected future event, back to affect the present state.


A goal is a present state predicting what may happen later, not a 'future event'. There is no 'causality reversing' to that. Whether the prediction turns out to be accurate, or th event never happens later makes no difference to the present state.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17717

Print view this post

Re: Philosoblog

#580  Postby SpeedOfSound » Dec 07, 2017 2:11 pm

GrahamH wrote:
BWE wrote:http://complexitylabs.io/nonlinear-causality/


That all seems rather obvious except for this bit:

With a control system the structure and initial conditions may not matter, what matters is the goal, future goals can determine current actions. Here we can note causality reversing as it goes from some projected future event, back to affect the present state.


A goal is a present state predicting what may happen later, not a 'future event'. There is no 'causality reversing' to that. Whether the prediction turns out to be accurate, or th event never happens later makes no difference to the present state.

That was a little strange. Not surprised that a little wooful thinking gets injected when real science does a close fly-by.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 31960
Age: 66
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest