The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9101
Report 4 years ago
#9101
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The Godel being an issue is only for level IV. The reason the lower levels are simpler is that if we suppose there just to be this universe we have to define a hell of a lot of things for it to be so, while level I and II reduce the number of things needing to be defined at the start, hence simplifying the system.
But why?

One universe: There's some big arse universe here.

Multiverse: There's lots and lots of big arse universes here.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9102
Report 4 years ago
#9102
(Original post by KingStannis)
But why?

One universe: There's some big arse universe here.

Multiverse: There's lots and lots of big arse universes here.
Because less needs defining, less is needed to generate the system.
The integers are very easy to generate, a given integer, not so much; the whole system is simpler.
A string of 1000 characters forming words is simpler than 1000 characters, or, given an example, gvafreshgqdasdasfh is far more complex than ababababababababab.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9103
Report 4 years ago
#9103
(Original post by Aph)
I never saw you as a philosopher... Well can you prove that consciousness would be lost? and personally I'd say that death is not ceasing to exist but instead ceasing to exist in the minds of others, for so long as it is one person in this yea ceasing to exist but instead ceasing to exist in the minds of others, for so long as it is one person remembers you, you are a real person in at least one sense.
I like philosophy yeah. If people actually knew what it was people would respect as much as maths and science as a truth finding enterprise.

Well, if consciousness is your personal identity, and you revert it to it's begining, and divide it up, which one of those divisions is you? And if they're all you, but each have separate and mutually closed experiences, in what sense exist does you personal identity exist?

Your last point is wishy washy nonsense sorry.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9104
Report 4 years ago
#9104
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Because less needs defining, less is needed to generate the system.
The integers are very easy to generate, a given integer, not so much; the whole system is simpler.
A string of 1000 characters forming words is simpler than 1000 characters, or, given an example, gvafreshgqdasdasfh is far more complex than ababababababababab.
But we're not dealing with integers, We're dealing with objects.

And, it has to be said, if we postulate a God, that is more simple a thing to define than both a single universe and a multiverse.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9105
Report 4 years ago
#9105
(Original post by KingStannis)
I like philosophy yeah. If people actually knew what it was people would respect as much as maths and science as a truth finding enterprise.

Well, if consciousness is your personal identity, and you revert it to it's begining, and divide it up, which one of those divisions is you? And if they're all you, but each have separate and mutually closed experiences, in what sense exist does you personal identity exist?

Your last point is wishy washy nonsense sorry.
Lots of people combine maths and philosophy.

It is a very difficult question which I cannot postulate an answer to.

Well we define things into existence all The time, nothing being the best example so why can't we define people into existence?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9106
Report 4 years ago
#9106
(Original post by KingStannis)
But we're not dealing with integers, We're dealing with objects.

And, it has to be said, if we postulate a God, that is more simple a thing to define than both a single universe and a multiverse.
but a god leaves nor even questions then answers. Like 'what caused it?' 'Does it live external to our universe and if so where does it like and what caused its relm to exist?' for example.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9107
Report 4 years ago
#9107
(Original post by Bornblue)
What if you're personal ambition is to help create a more equal prosperous society for everyone? That's mine.

But my issue rakas, is that there do seem to be a lot in the new labour + Tory ranks who use the buzzword ambition/aspiration to mean lowering taxes rather than anything remotely ambitious or aspirational such as tackling food poverty or homelessness.
If that's your only ambition then that's very selfless of you.

Well lowering taxes does aid in creating prosperity by making people better off. That allows people to achieve their aspirations.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9108
Report 4 years ago
#9108
(Original post by Aph)
Lots of people combine maths and philosophy.

It is a very difficult question which I cannot postulate an answer to.

Well we define things into existence all The time, nothing being the best example so why can't we define people into existence?
Since when do we define nothing into existence? And we can define people, not into existence, but into semantic usage by placing them into a possible world. We can say that any definable person can be located on some logically possible and complete state of affairs. However, saying that that defined person exists on the actual world (our world) requires us actually checking if the proposition is true (explained by other propositions on the actual world).

Interestingly some philosophers, notably David Lewis, have suggested that all possible worlds are actual (the possible world that contains us generally being consider the "actual world"). The argument being that actuality refers to the truth of some proposition in a reflexive relation to some definable possible world, and that there is no logical distinction between actuality of propositions semantically relating to our world and propositions semantically relating to other worlds. The consequence of this is every logically possible thing you can imagine MUST exist, in some causally closed state of affairs independent to us. It's not just the physicists who get to have crazy theories!
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9109
Report 4 years ago
#9109
(Original post by KingStannis)
But we're not dealing with integers, We're dealing with objects.
Are integers not objects?

Hint: they are.

And, it has to be said, if we postulate a God, that is more simple a thing to define than both a single universe and a multiverse.
Annoyingly I cannot find the video that sums up that it would suggest otherwise, nor can I remember the entirety of the argument >
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9110
Report 4 years ago
#9110
(Original post by Rakas21)
If that's your only ambition then that's very selfless of you.

Well lowering taxes does aid in creating prosperity by making people better off. That allows people to achieve their aspirations.
I agree with you, but I also believe that healthcare and education are fundamentally important in making sure that people can achieve their aspirations, so I believe that taxes are necessary. Just not so high that they become a hindrance, it's just hard to find that balance
0
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9111
Report 4 years ago
#9111
(Original post by Rakas21)
If that's your only ambition then that's very selfless of you.

Well lowering taxes does aid in creating prosperity by making people better off. That allows people to achieve their aspirations.
I'm certainly not selfless, I happened to come from a very comfortable background but I've never taken it granted. I've had opportunities simply because of the background I was born into which just aren't offered to millions of people through nothing other than the postcode lottery and it's only fair others have the same opportuntity. If having to cut down slightly on luxuries means thousands at the bottom can be brought out of poverty then it's an absolute must.

Lowering taxes is great... Until you take Ill and have to sell your home to afford treatment which is exactly what happens in 'aspirational America'Or until schools become so bad but you can't afford to send your kid to a private one...
Lowering taxes isn't aspirational nor does it make people better off. It makes the very wealthy who don't need public services better off, not the rest of society. Increasing taxes to have the best healthcare system in the world - now that's aspiration.
I always believe we can achieve far more together then we can do individually. Imagine a society where everyone worked to create better circumstances for everyone rather than the dog eat dog world we have now.
The common response is 'socialism doesn't work in reality' but neither does capitalism, yet we stick with that.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9112
Report 4 years ago
#9112
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Are integers not objects?

Hint: they are.



Annoyingly I cannot find the video that sums up that it would suggest otherwise, nor can I remember the entirety of the argument >
Not physical objects, they're merely semantic ones (that's my bias in assuming non literalist theories of maths though).

If the video is of some Dawkins fanboy we a T shirt with "logic" on it then I don't want to hear it. I have to deal with these low level atheists all the time. But to define a singe universe with God as its creator you only need to define the universe being a relation to one object, and that object being wholly simple and eternal (you don't need to define it as relating to anything else). ie childs play.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9113
Report 4 years ago
#9113
(Original post by Aph)
but a god leaves nor even questions then answers. Like 'what caused it?' 'Does it live external to our universe and if so where does it like and what caused its relm to exist?' for example.
You can define God as not requiring explanation by defining it as non physical and logically independent from other propositions.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9114
Report 4 years ago
#9114
(Original post by KingStannis)
Not physical objects, they're merely semantic ones (that's my bias in assuming non literalist theories of maths though).

If the video is of some Dawkins fanboy we a T shirt with "logic" on it then I don't want to hear it. I have to deal with these low level atheists all the time. But to define a singe universe with God as its creator you only need to define the universe being a relation to one object, and that object being wholly simple and eternal (you don't need to define it as relating to anything else). ie childs play.
Nah, was a rather well made video that ran through the logic in a real world example first and then shifted it to a system with deity vs not a deity after leading people to accept the "real world" example.

As for the integers and physical objects. Tell me, I have a box of after eights here, suppose you were from another world, we have some way of translating communications, and all I have is oral communication, how do you think I would define this box?

I think after one of my modules next year I might be able to argue this much better with you.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9115
Report 4 years ago
#9115
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Nah, was a rather well made video that ran through the logic in a real world example first and then shifted it to a system with deity vs not a deity after leading people to accept the "real world" example.

As for the integers and physical objects. Tell me, I have a box of after eights here, suppose you were from another world, we have some way of translating communications, and all I have is oral communication, how do you think I would define this box?

I think after one of my modules next year I might be able to argue this much better with you.
I'd be interested to see it then. I just consider books like "The God Delusion" to be as anti intellectual as fundamentalist Islam at its worse.

I'd describe it as a box with food in it.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9116
Report 4 years ago
#9116
(Original post by KingStannis)
Since when do we define nothing into existence? And we can define people, not into existence, but into semantic usage by placing them into a possible world. We can say that any definable person can be located on some logically possible and complete state of affairs. However, saying that that defined person exists on the actual world (our world) requires us actually checking if the proposition is true (explained by other propositions on the actual world).
the idea of nothing is wrong because there is no such thing as nothing.
Well we can assume that the body exists and then do you define the person from body or mind?

Interestingly some philosophers, notably David Lewis, have suggested that all possible worlds are actual (the possible world that contains us generally being consider the "actual world". The argument being that actuality refers to the truth of some proposition in a reflexive relation to some definable possible world, and that there is no logical distinction between actuality of propositions semantically relating to our world and propositions semantically relating to other worlds. The consequence of this is every logically possible thing you can imagine MUST exist, in some causally closed state of affairs independent to us. It's not just the physicists who get to have crazy theories!
That is a theory in physics and there are plenty of thought experiments to shoe it.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9117
Report 4 years ago
#9117
(Original post by KingStannis)
I'd be interested to see it then. I just consider books like "The God Delusion" to be as anti intellectual as fundamentalist Islam at its worse.

I'd describe it as a box with food in it.
What is a box?
How big is this "box"?


I was thinking how would I describe this physically.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9118
Report 4 years ago
#9118
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
What is a box?
How big is this "box"?
I think the other guy doesn't care
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9119
Report 4 years ago
#9119
(Original post by KingStannis)
I think the other guy doesn't care
How would I define it? Mathematically.
What is it? well, a cuboid of approximately 1 unit x 1 unit x 4 units (approximating to keep it to integers given they are very simple to define, fractions and reals, not so much). If necerssary I can assume that they are aware of the plank length and define 1 unit accordingly. I would be defining my world mathematically.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9120
Report 4 years ago
#9120
(Original post by Aph)
the idea of nothing is wrong because there is no such thing as nothing.
Well we can assume that the body exists and then do you define the person from body or mind?

That is a theory in physics and there are plenty of thought experiments to shoe it.
You can't prove there is no such thing as nothing.

Don't get into the metaphysics of personal identity. Just don't. You will lose your mind.
I think you're thinking of parallel universes. No, these possible worlds are unrelated to each other entirely.

This should be worth reading for those interested in possible worlds metaphysics:

http://www.academia.edu/1726047/Tran...ossible_worlds
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (140)
17.86%
It's just nice to be back! (212)
27.04%
Not great so far... (281)
35.84%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.26%

Watched Threads

View All