Occam’s Razor

[bagtaggar]

Love?

 

[Batman Jr.]

Read it. The man is a complete fool. If his arguments have a bearing on what you believe, you're also a complete fool.

Wow, that was so brilliantly put that I now have no choice but to acquiesce to your rarefied penchant for abrasive, but nonetheless meaningless, locution. Is that you, Christopher Hitchens? But seriously, you'll have to do better than that tripe to make your point.

Who said anything about awareness or materialism? Interaction is the concept being discussed.

No, "existence" is what is being discussed; you previously stated that "interaction" is the prerequisite for "existence." I provided an example whereby an inability to observe an entity didn't preclude that entity's "existence"; in a desperate attempt to save your corrupt ideas, you added another qualifier to the state of "being," namely that things don't "exist" in a relative manner to certain things. Unless you believe idealism is the only way and that it is incontrovertible that observation creates reality, this position is untenable. By the definition of materialism, things act on and produce observation, not the other way around. In light of that, your musings on "relative existences" are in blatant contradiction with a materialistic philosophical outlook. Given that materialism may represent what reality actually is and has not been ruled out of the field of competing theories of ontology, your idealistic analyses carry little weight. It also still stands that you create a straw man in your arguments in that you replace "existence" with "implications," words which obviously represent entirely different concepts.

You can't even seem to understand basic English, and you expect us to accept that you can make pronouncements about philosophy?

I thought your overly simplistic ideas were quite easy to follow; I don't know how you got that impression of my comprehension.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

It can't be measured with our current technology, but as it's another emotion, thus made of brain impulses, it's definitely measurable.

 

[Batman Jr.]

It can't be measured with our current technology, but as it's another emotion, thus made of brain impulses, it's definitely measurable.

Conceptually, we distinguish between the expression of love and the feeling of love. Neural correlates will obviously be found for the expression of love, but since the concept of the feeling of love is not required to explain the objective behavior of love, it cannot fit into a legitimate scientific theory of the mind. Therefore, it cannot be measured. It cannot be said to be real or fictitious and, if real, cannot be elaborated upon in terms of its phenomenological qualities.

 

[bagtaggar]

Love: part tangible, chemical emotion, part abstract notion.

Measuring love is like measuring an idea. It's just the wrong impulse to have.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Maybe it is, but it still doesn't fit the criteria. I asked for something that is not measurable. Love is measurable, if only by personal observation.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

This is a very interesting back and forth we have going here. It's hard to pick a side here...

I'm not sure if there are sides here. Maybe the sides don't exist. Har har har. Sorta. Har.

If I've been following correctly: Let's say I made the box. I put a coin it. The box is real. You can measure it, weigh it, whatever. But no matter what I put in it (if anything), it will weigh, measure, etc. exactly the same. There is no means know either now or in way possible way to detect what is in the box. Then I give the box to youse guys to ponder the existence of the "coin in the box". From what I see:

Francois Tremblay: The coin in the box does not exist because you cannot measure it.

Melendwyr: The coin in the box may exist, but only relative to “in the box”. To an observer out of the box, the coin does not exist.

Batman Jr.: The coin in the box may exist.


Isn’t this the basically the same as Schrödinger's cat?

Francois Tremblay: Schrödinger “interpretation” (it doesn’t exist until we ‘know’ it)

Melendwyr: Everett many-worlds interpretation (it ‘exists’ and ‘does not exist’ simultaneously dependent upon the observer)

Batman Jr.: Copenhagen interpretation (Umm..sort kinda. I’m grasping for a match here. It exists, and observation of it does not change its existence, but observation does change the observer.)

Actually Melendwyr and Batman Jr. seem to be saying the same thing in different ways, which is that a thing either exists or does not, but there is a difference to the observer whether the thing is observed or not. Connecting Melendwyr to Everett is perhaps a bit off because he did not say that the thing exists in simultaneous states or did not exist at all but only exists in its own right but not ‘relative’ to the observer. Which to me is the same thing Batman Jr. is saying. And by expressing it as a ‘relative’ existence, it supports what Francois Tremblay says about it not ‘existing’ if you can’t measure it.
If the ‘existence’ if something is not, and cannot in any way, be relative to your experience, then there is no point in saying that it ‘exists’. The difference would only be consequential in theoretical scenarios because anything (that exists or does not) that is not, and cannot in any way, be relative to the experience of an observer has no effect on the observer.

There may be a “coin in the box”. Or maybe not. The best we can say is that there could be a coin in the box, but it absolutely doesn’t matter.

To apply it to a question like “Does God exist”? And God is defined as an unknowable entity that has no affect on anything. We can ‘apply’ Occam’s Razor and say God does not exist because we don’t need God to explain anything. Indeed, God does not explain anything. But in the case of the magic box, we have something unexplained, indeed unexplainable. What is in the box? Now we have a question. Is a coin in the box? Is nothing in the box? Is God in the box? Is a pink unicorn in the box? In this case, we can’t apply the razor. We now have a question, with multiple hypotheses that cannot be proven. In this case, we must conclude that “we don’t know”. Of course that doesn’t ‘prove’ that pink unicorns or God exist. It would introduce that possibilities that pink unicorns or God exist, but first we would have to find the magic box

 

[Francois Tremblay]

"You can measure it, weigh it, whatever."

"Francois Tremblay: The coin in the box does not exist because you cannot measure it."

What the fucl< ? Apparently you don't see that you majorly contradict yourself within a few paragraphs - or you think I'm so stupid that I would contradict myself majorly by being able to weight something and then stating that it cannot be measured.

Either way, your glib dismissal doesn't look very rigorous.

If you mean that I wouldn't know there was an object in the box, well, I would think simply opening it would provide the answer - or knowing the original weight of the box. But either way this has no bearing on the fact that I CAN indeed measure the object, and that therefore it exists, regardless of whether I know it's a coin or not.


"It would introduce that possibilities that pink unicorns or God exist, but first we would have to find the magic box"

Even if a "magic" box existed which would be unopenable or unmeasurable in any way (which is impossible), it would not prove that a meaningless concept could magically be made meaningful. Whatever you present us cannot contain a "god" any more than it can contain a "zorglub". Gibberish is not a claim.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

What the fucl<

I don't think you are stupid. I'm not trying to be glib. I'm not being very rigorous either.

I'm just trying to understand the differnt points that are being made and get them toghter into some sort of semblance.

I would contradict myself majorly by being able to weight something and then stating that it cannot be measured.

The idea is that you can weigh the box, but not the contents of he box (the coin).

If you mean that I wouldn't know there was an object in the box, well, I would think simply opening it would provide the answer - or knowing the original weight of the box. But either way this has no bearing on the fact that I CAN indeed measure the object, and that therefore it exists, regardless of whether I know it's a coin or not.

The premise is that you cannot open the box. Also that you do not know the original weight of the box (or that the box weighs the same no matter what is put in it). The idea is that you have no way of measuring the contents of the box. You have no access to the 'coin in the box' and cannot measure, in any way, its properties.

Even if a "magic" box existed which would be unopenable or unmeasurable in any way (which is impossible), it would not prove that a meaningless concept could magically be made meaningful.

I think I said that that was what you were saying. Sorta. That is, something that is 'unmeasurable', is not "meaningful". To any observer. It could exist, but it wouldn't matter. So why not just say it doesn't exist. I thought that was your whole point. And a relevant one.

Whatever you present us cannot contain a "god" any more than it can contain a "zorglub".

I don't agree that a that a whatchmawizit, or a magic box, cannot be said to NOT contain god, or a zorglub, or anything else. My point was that theorerically it can. But I used your point to say that it does not, and could not in any way matter.

That's the point I was making. Any unknown could be god, a coin, zorglub, nothing. It could be any of these possibles (important point is that it 'could', which means that you can't say that it 'does not exists' when it 'could'), but there is relevance (which you bruoght up--it it is not relevant--not measurable, then 'it is meaningless' (which, in a theoretical sense, is a bit different from 'it does not exist). If something can be said to exist but is not measurable, it can really only have a theoretical existance. But could be still said to exist. It just that its existance is, as you said, 'meaningless'. Or at least meaningless to the observer. Which, to the observer, could be said to not 'exist'.

I'm restating what I already posted. I'm agreeing with you, so I'm not sure of the point of the hostility.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Ermmm...and I was talking about the magic box of the thought experiment that Batman Jr. proposed earlier in this thread. The box can't be opened, and the contents can't be measured in any way, etc. That's what I meant by "the box". I see the thread has gone a bit derailed since that issue was brought up, so I appologize if I didn't make that clear.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

The reason for my surprise is that you contradict yourself directly when you state that the box-coin system can be measured, and then that the coin cannot be measured. Obviously the coin can be measured as part of the box-coin system. The fact that I don't know there is a coin in there is irrelevant. Your analogy fails the "non-measurable yet exists" test. It is measurable, and I just don't know it.

And the fact that I cannot know there is a coin in there does not mean that *I* would assume there is no coin. You're saying that *I* would claim there is no coin because "it cannot be measured". But it is being measured, I just don't know it. In that case I would simply refrain from making any assumptions about what is in the box, reserving judgment for a time when at least some empirical evidence is given, on the basis that evidence is needed for any proposition. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, the proposition "there is no coin in the box" is just as false as "there is a coin in the box".

Of course, I don't need to mention that your analogy is also completely unrealistic, and therefore cannot support any proposition.

 

[Melendwyr]

No, "existence" is what is being discussed; you previously stated that "interaction" is the prerequisite for "existence." I provided an example whereby an inability to observe an entity didn't preclude that entity's "existence"

All observation is interaction, but not all interaction is observation.

Two words, Batman Jr.: learn English.

 

[Melendwyr]

Actually Melendwyr and Batman Jr. seem to be saying the same thing in different ways, which is that a thing either exists or does not, but there is a difference to the observer whether the thing is observed or not.

No. I'm saying that a thing can be said to exist only relative to something else. Things in a hypothetical "other universe" might exist relative to each other, but they wouldn't exist relative to us, and vice versa.

There is no way to distinguish between (to create a hypothetical example) a process that utterly destroys matter and energy, and a process that changes matter and energy so that it can never again interact with anything else in our universe. The two conditions are absolutely the same in their consequences and implications.

 

[Batman Jr.]

All observation is interaction, but not all interaction is observation.

Two words, Batman Jr.: learn English.

If interaction is not in our observation, then it is not interaction in relation to us. Therefore, in accordance with your logic, interaction which is not accompanied by our observation is "nonexistent," and all real interaction must have an observational component. This is idealism.

Here are a few words for you, Melendwyr: Learn logic and stop being such a supercilious creep.

 

[drkitten]

No. I'm saying that a thing can be said to exist only relative to something else.

Well, against you are amassed all the physicists, philosophers, logicians, lexicographers, and linguists that the human race has produced since the invention of writing.

But you just keep on truckin', honey. After all, they laughed at Einstein, Newton, and the half-wits that were forced to take jobs as court jesters back in the Middle Ages because they couldn't do real work.

 

[Melendwyr]

Well, against you are amassed all the physicists, philosophers, logicians, lexicographers, and linguists that the human race has produced since the invention of writing.

Y'know, all you'd have to do is present a simple explanation (or an example) of how existence can be meaningfully defined as an absolute, and how we might differentiate between a thing that does not exist and a thing that does not interact. With that relatively simple task completed, you'd have destroyed my argument utterly.

Why do I have the feeling insults are the only other thing we'll get from you?

 

[Melendwyr]

If interaction is not in our observation, then it is not interaction in relation to us.

If I creep up behind you unawares and hit you over the head with a rock, did you observe me? If not, how did I interact with you?

 

[RichardR]

Love?

Are you saying love can't be measured? Can't be observed in any way, even indirectly?

 

[drkitten]

Y'know, all you'd have to do is present a simple explanation (or an example) of how existence can be meaningfully defined as an absolute, and how we might differentiate between a thing that does not exist and a thing that does not interact. With that relatively simple task completed, you'd have destroyed my argument utterly.

Already done. Is your claim that we can interact with the colour of an Archeopteryx's feathers, or is your claim that the Archeopteryx's feathers were colourless?

My claim -- and example -- is "neither." The colour of the feathers existed (and continues to exist in the timeless present that all 'facts' exist in), but cannot be interacted with.

As to how existence can be meaningfully defined as an absolute, I refer you to any decent dictionary. I recommend the OED for completeness.

 

[Melendwyr]

Already done. Is your claim that we can interact with the colour of an Archeopteryx's feathers, or is your claim that the Archeopteryx's feathers were colourless?

The feathers interacted with things that we interact with. Their color, while unlikely to be determined by current science, is not beyond the scope of science.

My claim -- and example -- is "neither." The colour of the feathers existed (and continues to exist in the timeless present that all 'facts' exist in), but cannot be interacted with.

I'd address your comments, but since they were made in the past, I cannot possibly interact with them, and therefore I cannot know what they were or deduce anything about them.