Does anything exist?

[Thermal]

Go back to quoting the names of subreddits if you're just going to make the same argument over and over. At least that takes less time to read so it wastes less of my time.

The "But you're doing a type of philosophy!" argument has already been used and rejected.

The fact that you continue to reject the facts is exactly the problem. Two points for sticking to your anti-intellectual guns, anyway. I note you continue to duck the straightforward, honest question. Telling, that.

Philosophy is a way of thinking about things. That's all. Trying to make it into a bogeyman that denies/competes with science is just...weird.

 

[Thermal]

As long as you define everything you want as philosophy, everything you want will be philosophy.

Its fairly limited, as I've said all along.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah you say one thing all along, then you argue any entirely different point. It's your entire MO.

That's why it's so important to you to trap us in a gotcha of using some kind of philosophy, but you're so utterly convinced it will prove... something.

Belz and my points the entire time has been that philosophy is a meaningless term. You planting a patented "Hill that Thermal Will Die Defending" flag in your quest to make us admit to using some form of philosophy proves how much effort your are putting into missing the point.

 

[Thermal]

And it continues to be a mindless position. Knee jerk response to something you feeeeeeeel is too close to religion or something.

It just ain't that ******* complicated. No, you haven't out thought MIT and Stanford and the rest in demonstrating that philosophy is meaningless. You are simply resistant to the meaning. Your problem, not external reality's.

Eta: re your edit: your silly ass is posting over 3x more than me, and I'm dying on a hill? Christ, this is dull. Do you have any argument at all besides your Proud Parade of Every Logical Fallacy Known to Man?

 

[Belz...]

Its fairly limited, as I've said all along.

I understand that. But my point is that "thinking about something" isn't necessarily philosophy. And I think we're conflating two definitions of the word here. "Philosophy" as in existential and conceptual thinking about the universe, and the much broader "philosophy" as in collection of ideas. We're talking about the former, you're talking about the latter.

 

[Thermal]

I understand that. But my point is that "thinking about something" isn't necessarily philosophy

And I have specifically disagreed with that characterization as well.

. And I think we're conflating two definitions of the word here. "Philosophy" as in existential and conceptual thinking about the universe, and the much broader "philosophy" as in collection of ideas. We're talking about the former, you're talking about the latter.

Well, agreed. Your former is more closely aligned with metaphysics, though not entirely. Pretty much the posters have, with one voice, concurred that metaphysics is little more than fun mind games. I'd argue that putting all of philosophy under that dismissal is unfair, though, and we quite pointedly shouldn't be doing so. Babies and bathwater.

Also, one of my first comments (and most repeated) on the thread was that the two shouldn't be conflated.

 

[Belz...]

And I have specifically disagreed with that characterization as well.



Well, agreed. Your former is more closely aligned with metaphysics, though not entirely. Pretty much the posters have, with one voice, concurred that metaphysics is little more than fun mind games. I'd argue that putting all of philosophy under that dismissal is unfair, though, and we quite pointedly shouldn't be doing so. Babies and bathwater.

Also, one of my first comments (and most repeated) on the thread was that the two shouldn't be conflated.

Magnificent. Seems the two of us have to agree once in a while.

 

[Thermal]

Magnificent. Seems the two of us have to agree once in a while.

....

Hockey sucks. Fight me.

 

[Belz...]

....

Hockey sucks. Fight me.

You bastard!

 

[The Man]

A rhetorical construct itself based on the idea that contradictions are impossible! That's pretty funny.



Didn't I ask for actual examples, not rhetorical ones? I want examples of this philosophy having real-world impact. So far you have demonstrated that it doesn't.

Nope, you asked for paradoxes it purportedly deals with. I gave you that.

You JUST said "Now that is demonstrably disingenuous, I've been quite honest about what I known and don't know about it." I don't know how versed you are in language, but this implies that I called you dishonest about what you knew, when I did not. The fact of the matter is that you have NO IDEA how such a contradiction-friendly philosophy would work, or what it would entail beyond word games.

Synonyms of “honest” are sincere, truthful, open or forthright. So a simple claim of honesty, in no way necessitates a response to a claim of dishonesty. The implication of that statement, since I explicitly asserted otherwise and you actually quoted that, is entirely yours.

However, since you want to press the point. You have made the inference that I won’t discuss the issue “honestly” and even made the accusation that I was lying.

In other words you have no intention of discussing this issue honestly and rationally.

See my point about honesty? That's not what I said at all. You are lying.

Here’s your assertion of what you would wait for me to figure out.

I think you just contradicted yourself there. I'll wait to see if you can work out why.

As I said, in order to figure out what you “think” was me contradicting myself I’d need to have to figure out want you were thinking, I’d rather you just say what your thinking is or was, which you eventually did.

I tried to simply move past that. Evidently you don’t want to, so there, well, there you are.

Are you really unable to understand that I can accept X as an answer to a question without agreeing with it? So you are saying that if you don't agree with someone's answer to a question it means that it was never answered?

Honestly, yes, disagreeing with the answer given “as such” means you are not accepting it an actual answer to your question “as such”.

It’s actually one of the augments against dialetheism, that you lose the ‘absolute disagreement’ inherent in negation.

You are getting increasingly ridiculous.

You are becoming increasingly dishonest.

Is English your first language? You seem to have a VERY hard time following a simple conversation. I asked whether X was possible, and now that you say yes, I asked for examples/demonstrations in order to determine whether that "yes" was correct. There is no contradiction there.

What you asked was if ‘A and ~A are mutually exclusive' was a philosophical question’. I said “Yes” and gave an example of the philosophical position that asks that very question. Given, as I stated, by your own assertions, contradiction aren’t ‘real’ such a contradiction can only be a conceptual construct. Then, yes, it must be such a question. Agree or don’t, accept or don’t. It changes nothing; it is simply the consistent logic of your stated position.

We did move on, as illustrated by your feeble attempts at answering my second question.

If we had actually moved on you might be discussing the real world examples of self-contradiction you were given. You simply ignored mine and responded to lomiller's with ‘Prove it’. If you actually want to move on, we can do that. However, in order to do that you must directly address examples given.

You really should go into the Matrix to meet the Architect. You two would get along just fine.

It’s a simple consequence of adhering to a strict consistent classical logic in the ‘real world’ of human communication. As well as the conceptual constructs represented by such communication. Specifically why more formal languages like math, science and logic were developed. Now while JoeMorgue may bemoan the difference in language, like terms used in philosophy being intended to seem “deep”. However, they are used, as I noted, to simply maintain specificity and avoid ambiguity, at least as much as possible in any linguistic representation of a conceptual construct.

We're talking about philosophy. It makes all the difference in the world.

If we are talking about philosophy then, by your own assertions, in need not have anything to do with the real world. Again, if no ‘real’, contradictions exist in the real world, then they only exist as simply conceptual constructs.

By your own assertions philosophy, need not make any "difference in the" real "world". Certainly I don't recall any assertion within philosophy that says your agreement is a requirement just in, well, philosophy.

And yet the fact remains that you have no idea whether the philosophy you have touted as able to deal with contradiction works in the real world.

Again, by you're own assertions, contradictions don't exist in the 'real world'.

Hint: don't make arguments that you know you can't support.

Hint: Don't refute your own augments.

That sounds like you're saying that philosophy is rather useless. I've said several times that I'm not interested in whether you can phrase something as a contradiction. It's obvious that you can. The question is whether the philosophy in question is applicable to the real world. Right now it seems just as pointless and nonsensical as solipsism.

Nope, simply using your own assertions to refute your own augments. Not ignoring assertions is a more useful tactic than simply ignoring them.

It isn't my claim. It's yours. If you cannot demonstrate it, then it is rejected and your first answer, which was "yes", was actually wrong.

My claim was that the question of is A and ~A a question of philosophy. I demonstrated that with an example of such philosophical questioning. That you have demonstrated by claiming contradictions are unreal and ascribing philosophy as a mode of thinking that need not have anything to do with reality. Now you want a demonstration of ‘real world’ (that is not simply limited to conceptual constructs) contradiction being true. Again, you were given examples you simply ignored.

As both both lomiller and I asserted the quantum superposition of two opposing states would be a contradiction. Again under strict consistent logic.

Current experiments indicate that such real world contradictions can be true.

Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality


[url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03213-z] Hello quantum world! Google publishes landmark quantum supremacy claim

I also gave you an example of a macro world self-contradiction. Reflected waves out of phase canceling themselves. The waveform, in the media, must exist to cancel itself yet doesn't exist because it cancels itself. You can demonstrate this for yourself with some simple apparatus.


Frankly, if I was to make your argument with your chosen law of logic. I would argue that given the current state of experimentation contradictions , perhaps, can be true in ‘the real world’, making it, currently, simply a question physics.


As for if science and logic are still simply aspect of philosophy. My argument would have been that both have moved so far and so fast beyond that realm of thinking. That it the field of philosophy has had to fragment itself to dedicated disciplines such as the philosophy of science and the philosophy of logic just to keep up.

 

[The Man]

Those are both gibberish, cases of philosophy not (and continuing to just not) get that language doesn't create reality.

Defining something as one thing and then going "Okay but what if it didn't do that?" isn't clever or deep, it's just stupid.

Russell's Paradox is that a set of everything can't contain itself, therefore how can it be a set of everything, but that means something is outside of everything, and then you pretend to have a big made up existential crisis over it when all it is is yet more stupid word games that create surface level contradictions.

The Liar's Paradox is essentially the same thing. "If someone always lies what happens when they lie about telling lies LOL aren't I clever." No. It's just stupid word games.

The rest of your post is just a Gish Gallop of "I already told you!" because like all philosophy fanboys you don't get that "talking" and "actually explaining in anything resembling a meaningful way" aren't the same thing.

Philosophy never explains anything, it just declares stuff over and over and thinks that is the same thing.

I don’t recall anyone saying language creates reality. However, linguistics and conceptual constructs exist in reality, simply as such constructs. As I referred to Karl Popper’s philosophy of falsifiability before, simply questioning isn’t sufficient. You have to try to actively disprove your own conceptual constructs.

Such paradoxes (conceptual constructs) are certainly “gibberish” in a strictly A and ~ A are mutually exclusive logic. However, the question was if asking that they aren’t mutually exclusive is a question of philosophy. It has to be, since you can’t even question it within that strict A and ~ A are mutually exclusive logic, it’s an axiom of such logic.

Not word games but conceptual constructs within the field of consistent A and ~ A are mutually exclusive logic. That such a strict logic can’t deal with them, that’s the reason they are paradoxes within such a system, which means other types of questions need to be asked. That, technically, can’t be asked within a strict adherence to that mentioned system. That people tend to deal with such ‘paradoxes’ rather trivially, simply means that we do not operate or naturally think within such a strict A and ~ A are mutually exclusive logic, as I’ve already mention here. As I have asserted, on various threads, in this particular sub-forum section. We are a conglomeration of competing, and at times contradictory, neurological impulses. As indicated by, for the instance of contradicting notions, the psychological condition of cognitive dissonance.

No galish golop, if I have said ‘I already told you!’ it is simply a matter of historical fact, that either my posts display or I admit my mistake.

 

[Belz...]

You have made the inference that I won’t discuss the issue “honestly” and even made the accusation that I was lying.

For pete's sake, that was not about your knowledge at all. It was about your unwillingness to answer my challenge at the time. You are conflating things. You keep asserting that you are "using my own assertions" against me but you can't even get those assertions and arguments right.

You are becoming increasingly dishonest.

I am always honest. Point to one dishonest thing I have said here. You can't. Meanwhile, you persist in mischaracterising what I say. At first I thought it was just poor reading comprehension or attention, but as you insist on doing so, I find myself far less charitable.

What you asked was if ‘A and ~A are mutually exclusive' was a philosophical question’. I said “Yes” and gave an example of the philosophical position that asks that very question.

And then I asked you for a demonstration that those work in real life, and then you answered with rhetorical tricks that result in contradictions. Hardly an indication of a working philosophy.

If we are talking about philosophy then, by your own assertions, in need not have anything to do with the real world.

Then it's pointless. An exercise is mental masturbation. The whole point of the discussion about the usefulness of philosophy is whether it produces real world results. And yet you are still discussing theoreticals.

Hint: Don't refute your own augments.

I have done no such thing. As I told you earlier, you are confused by simple language. The very fact that you think an incorrect or disbelieved answer is not an answer says a lot.

Hint: learn to read.

As both both lomiller and I asserted the quantum superposition of two opposing states would be a contradiction.

Not any more than one person thinking Jazz is great music and another thinking Jazz is crap. You'll have to make a more robust demonstration of this claim.

I also gave you an example of a macro world self-contradiction. Reflected waves out of phase canceling themselves. The waveform, in the media, must exist to cancel itself yet doesn't exist because it cancels itself. You can demonstrate this for yourself with some simple apparatus.

Again, this is only a contradiction because you're playing with words.

 

[Belz...]

I don’t recall anyone saying language creates reality. However, linguistics and conceptual constructs exist in reality, simply as such constructs.

That's a distinction without a difference. The mere fact that you can say "This sentence is false" doesn't create a real-world paradox. It's just a rhetorical trick.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

As long as you define everything you want as philosophy, everything you want will be philosophy.

But if you define everything you want as not philosophy, then philosophy doesn't exist!

Some people here are saying that philosophy is so irrelevant that it might as well not exist. But they insist that in questioning the existence of actual philosophy they are not doing anything philosophical - because that would be a paradox (which only occurs in philosophy, which doesn't really exist...).

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's a distinction without a difference. The mere fact that you can say "This sentence is false" doesn't create a real-world paradox. It's just a rhetorical trick.

In digital logic it's quite easy to generate a 'real-world' paradox - just couple the output of a NOT gate back into its input. Either the output sits half way between 1 and 0, or it oscillates very rapidly between 1 and 0. This can sometimes happen by accident in more complex logic circuits, where it usually results in an uncontrolled oscillation.

But sometimes creating such a 'paradox' is useful, eg. for generating truly random numbers (which normally cannot be done with logic alone because it is fully deterministic).

 

[IanS]

How many legs does a dog have if we call a tail a leg?if a tree falls in the forest...Etc etc.

Yeah, great reductio and focusing on the part no one pays much attention to after their teen years.

Now, do you have a political philosophy or philosophy of self defense? I think you have both, as well as subjective value systems. Or is the anti-intellectual position you are so enamoured with to rename them as something more palatable and capriciously deny what they are: a way of thinking? In a word, a philosophy?

You do not have a "philosophy" about such things. You simply have an interest in those things. Some people have an interest in collecting stamps; is that a personal philosophy of stamp collecting? Our pre-human ancestors had an interest in hunting & gathering, and trying to create shelter or "homes" from selected caves or from using mud and plants and animal skins to create "huts" ... were they philosophers who had a personal philosophy about what methods of hunting were the best and what types of shelter and homes were the most "logical"?

You are trying to claim that all constructive thought is "philosophy".

You have been talking here about reasoning and logic, but if your reasoning & logic is as you've demonstrated above, then there is something seriously wrong with it.

 

[Belz...]

In digital logic it's quite easy to generate a 'real-world' paradox - just couple the output of a NOT gate back into its input. Either the output sits half way between 1 and 0, or it oscillates very rapidly between 1 and 0. This can sometimes happen by accident in more complex logic circuits, where it usually results in an uncontrolled oscillation.

Yeah but again it's not a real-world contradiction.

But sometimes creating such a 'paradox' is useful, eg. for generating truly random numbers (which normally cannot be done with logic alone because it is fully deterministic).

I'm not aware of true random number generation in IT.

 

[Thermal]

You do not have a "philosophy" about such things. You simply have an interest in those things. Some people have an interest in collecting stamps; is that a personal philosophy of stamp collecting? Our pre-human ancestors had an interest in hunting & gathering, and trying to create shelter or "homes" from selected caves or from using mud and plants and animal skins to create "huts" ... were they philosophers who had a personal philosophy about what methods of hunting were the best and what types of shelter and homes were the most "logical"?

No. You can have an interest without having a philosophy about it. The two are unrelated.

Do you remember when I mentioned a philosophy of self defense earlier, and for some reason you thought that meant watching interviews on the TV with people in the sport boxing industry? If you think about where you went off the rails on that one, I think you'll see your error here.

You are trying to claim that all constructive thought is "philosophy".

I am not. Like the boxing interview thing above, you are making up a silly interpretation because it is easier to attack. Do you know what that is called?

You have been talking here about reasoning and logic, but if your reasoning & logic is as you've demonstrated above, then there is something seriously wrong with it.

Let's justify your boxing interview interpretation and see how your own logic and reasoning are doing before throwing stones.

I don't mean to harp on the boxing thing, but man...that was out there, like Pluto, baby. If I can figure out how your head works to have connected those dots, it might be beneficial?

 

[IanS]

No. You can have an interest without having a philosophy about it. The two are unrelated.

Do you remember when I mentioned a philosophy of self defense earlier, and for some reason you thought that meant watching interviews on the TV with people in the sport boxing industry? If you think about where you went off the rails on that one, I think you'll see your error here.

OK, well I'm not going to bother with any other stuff from your posts, because you are clearly wasting everyone's time. But just re the above as an example - I never said any such thing ... You just made that up!

You are talking arrogantly about my errors, whilst it's actually you deliberately misquoting everyone.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But if you define everything you want as not philosophy, then philosophy doesn't exist!

Dishonest false equivalence. If "philosophy" could be defined meaningfully it would be a useful word. As it stands it does not. Defining philosophy into existence is not the same thing as abandoning the term as useful because it means nothing.

That's a distinction without a difference.

It's getting increasingly hard to find anything "philosophical" which rises above that.

You are trying to claim that all constructive thought is "philosophy".

Yes. He (and others) will now look us straight in the eye and outright lie by claiming they are not doing that, then will in the next breath and with no shame go right back to doing exactly that.