Jump to content

sidis

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    6673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by sidis

  1. 20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Proper yard-bird, either baked, grilled, or smoked, is a beautiful thing.  Looks like you separated the skin and stuffed with butter herbs under, then turned up the heat to get that amazing crisp skin without drying out the meat?  Brine as well?

      Well done sir.  

     

    key to avoiding steaming/drying out the meat is to properly truss the bird tight.

    thyme, salt, pepper. 

    https://www.masterclass.com/articles/thomas-kellers-perfect-oven-roasted-chicken#recipe-chef-thomas-kellers-ovenroasted-chicken

  2. 33 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    Ok, I think I understand the source for the primary difference of views.  I believe what you are suggesting is that some possibility within W may exist simply as a "brute fact," and not due to any sort of selection.  Therefore, a selection of some type is not necessarily required.  Is this correct?  If so, then if one were to ask "why was this initial possibility within W exemplified and not some other," the answer would be something along the lines of "no reason; it just simply happened that way."  Let me know if this more or less aligns with what you are suggesting as a possible scenario as a response to my argument. 

    there you go.  the minute there is a reason or consequence, then one is practically boxed into a selection mechanism which leads to your self-fulfilling proof.

    33 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    Ok, I think I understand the source for the primary difference of views.  I believe what you are suggesting is that some possibility within W may exist simply as a "brute fact," and not due to any sort of selection.  Therefore, a selection of some type is not necessarily required.  Is this correct?  If so, then if one were to ask "why was this initial possibility within W exemplified and not some other," the answer would be something along the lines of "no reason; it just simply happened that way."  Let me know if this more or less aligns with what you are suggesting as a possible scenario as a response to my argument. 

    In any case, the idea of a brute contingent fact seems like utter nonsense to me.   

    why?  why any more so than a single entity capable of setting all the governing dynamics of existence?  all the quantum physics and cosmological guidelines?  all existence for its own entertainment.  i suspect it is because you (as do us all) experience all reality through the prism of all things being a cumulative causal chain of events that ultimately leads back to an origin.

    and if one departs from theism, it is certainly no more "nonsense" than the notions of the personal god embraced and espoused by virtually every religion out there  which are utterly indefensible.

  3. On 3/2/2019 at 11:52 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

    "choice functions," which are functions that follow some rule/algorithm in order to select particular elements from sets. 

    They are called choice functions even though there is no conscious intent behind them;

    i think you are losing me here.  and i think it underscores the giant chasm that exists between our perspectives.

     

    On 3/2/2019 at 11:52 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

    So with that math preamble in place, consider the following questions:

    1. With no choice function used, would it be possible to select an element from set A?
    2. If yes, what type of a thing would be capable of making a selection without the need of a selection function and what would you call this type of selection?
    3. How would something go about selecting an element of set B?

     

    it is not possible to select something without a choice function.  but this comes back to the primary objection i have with premise 2 and premise 3.  you are only allowing for a selection (regardless of selection with intent or selection of randomness) between those two premises.  there exists the possibility that no selection, regardless of intent or no intent was the driver of origin.  it is hard to contemplate but it cannot be eliminated even though it is difficult to exemplify beyond existence itself.  i suppose that is what the "thing" or "type of selection" coould be called - existence/reality.  i haven't given much thought to this but perhaps there is some scholarship on whether or not elements of chaos theory exemplify such a notion.

     

    On 3/2/2019 at 11:52 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

    The analogy I'm making here is that W is like set B.  It has infinite possibilities and the elements cannot be referenced from a possibility standpoint since they are all the same in that regard.  How does one element of such a set get selected?  My claim is that the only way for this to happen in the absence of some selection function is for there to be something that is capable of making some selection based on intent/preference/whim, or what we would otherwise refer to as a choice. 

     

    and that is totally plausible.  but i do not feel like you have proved it.  all that is necessary is for possibilty 1 to exist in W and R and that R has an infinite number of contingencies that branch off of P1 to comprise R.  whether P1 was chosen or just was, i do not feel like you have sufficiently eliminated the possibility of the latter through your proof because your proof semantically requires a selection or choice.

  4. mmm, perhaps that is a reasonable counterpoint.  the fact that under the table payments made to players don't carry a tax burden explains why alabama, georgia, and clemson have had such success recently.

  5. Just now, Incredulity said:

    Something happened recently that materially changes the tax burden for high wage income individuals in high tax states to reduce their federal tax burden.  Yeah, I am sure I read that somewhere. 

    all too aware. 

    however, trying to say having a high state tax burden relative to other states undermines the prospect of that state's long-term success for its professional sports team because one dude signed with a pennsylvania team instead of a california team is...silly.

    but maybe you're on to something.  perhaps the change in tax law will finally lead to the texans winning the super bowl.  celebrate!

  6. most nba titles: boston, los angeles, chicago.  well known tax-free havens.

    most nfl titles: boston, pittsburgh, dallas, and san francisco.  yeah.

    most mlb titles: new york, st. louis, oakland, boston, san francisco, los angeles.

    but bryce!

  7. man, if only teams from california (warriors, dodgers, rams) and taxachussets (patriots, red sox) could catch a damn break on the state tax burden front...then maybe they would occasionally be successful like bryce harper.

  8. Good times at the disch tonight.  Crowd filed in around 2nd or 3rd inning and made presence known. Lots of purple but satisfying watching them all sit quietly and pout. Lots of walks  

    Would love to get these guys tomorrow. 

  9. 28 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    The infinite regress explanatory problem only applies to things which require external reasons for their existence, i.e. contingent things that can possibly exist or possibly not exist.  Necessary entities do not require external reason for their existence as their necessary existence is contained within their nature, thus there is no infinite regress of external explanations because they need no external cause/explanation.  

    i guess i didn't see that the selector was a necessary being in your logical argument but i suppose it should have been assumed.

    28 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    Yes, this is more or less what I'm getting at.  My view is that the necessarily existent Player plays the game of games (the fundamental metaphysical rules) and that this Player can select subgames (i.e. the universe game in our case) within the game of games and is free to select players to play those games (conscious beings within a universe).   So the Player selects a game, but not necessarily the specific outcomes of the games.  There can be numerous players within a game who contribute to the game states.  

     

    yeah, of course that begs the question...to what end?

    28 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    I'm claiming the latter - that it was selected via choice or it was not.  My claim is that there are only two types of selection that can be made:  those made by choice and those made by some selection mechanism/process.  There is no tertium quid.  So let's say that selection by choice is option A and selection not by choice is option B.  Option A is possible and can be tied off to the discretion of a necessarily existent entity capable of such a choice.  However, option B only pushes the problem back to the mechanism itself and has the problem of infinite descent, and therefore is not a valid explanation.  In other words, ultimately a choice is required to break the symmetry of selecting this reality and not some other.  You may claim that such a symmetry breaking selection can be via randomness, but my answer back would be that some free/non-bound selection made by the discretion of some system or entity is synonymous with choice.  

     

    This is the crux of the matter for me.  What I'm getting at is that when we dig down to the base details of the theist and nontheist positions are not radically different from each other.  For the answer to the question of why this universe and not some other, a theist would appeal to the divine providence of God.  A nonthiest would appeal to the providence of the randomness of nature.  Both divine providence and the randomness of nature are viewed by some as fundamental to our reality, they both are often offered as brute facts, and they both are at the whim or discretion of the origin or basis of reality.  The only significant difference is that the theist claims that God has reasons and purposes for decisions (so even though they may not be known to us, every fact and decision has an explanation), while a nontheist claims that nature has no reasons nor purposes behind its random intent-free selections made via some manner as equally mystical and unknowable as divine choice.  A strong advantage of the theist position is that you get reason built in at the basis of reality, while you do not with the atheistic position.  The reasons and explanations for the random selections of nature are not merely unknowable - they are nonexistent. 

    well then i am back to the circularity.  you are distinguishing between selection and choice for purposes of your premises but then saying...meh, they are essentially the same thing and so the argument holds that a choice is made regardless because a selector has to exist...whether it is god or a necessary governing system of chaos.  the system of chaos had to come to be in some fashion so thus, it is effectively the same thing.

    i don't disagree that the theist and non-theist both acknowledge that there is likely some sort of origin.  they aren't "radically different" in that sense.  but the distilled difference you highlighted as to what the source and intent of the origin is a fairly big one. your advantage is one that comforts you but it is no more likely because of that.

  10. 1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    I see.  The way around fatalism as outlined here is that the selector could enable the ability of choice for agents operating within a given world.  So the selector could select some category of C with multiple possible states, and then a set of agents within that category make decisions which ultimately determine which state (or which exact C) it ends up being.  For example, you select the game of chess for your kids to play, but they determine which exact chess game gets played out.  

      

    For the sake of clarity going back to your last point on your previous posts, I would word premise 2 and 3 as follows: 

    • Premise 2:  R was either selected from W via choice or it was not. 
    • Premise 3:  All selections from equal or symmetrical options within a category that are not made via choice requires a selection process or mechanism. 

    On the objection, I'm not claiming that "something made a choice based on intent or based on randomness," but instead I'm claiming that the original selection which initiated our reality could not have been produced by a selection mechanism, because then we could just ask what selected this mechanism.  So in the end the theist will appeal to choice of a conscious selector and the nontheist will appeal to some sort of process/mechanism free "randomness."  However, if we evaluate this two claims in detail, I think that we will find is that they are in fact the same claim.  The selection of a particular from a symmetrical group of many by some entity with no mandated/binding guiding process, either due to some chosen preference or for no real reason whatsoever, is exactly what we think of as a choice.  It is very difficult to draw a distinction between choice and true randomness (i.e. selection for no reason or with no mechanism behind it).  Usually doing some requires appeals to intent, but can there really be a truly process/mechanism free selection without what we would in any other case categorize as intent?   The things that we perceive as acting without intent are exactly those things which have a binding mechanistic process.  If an entity or system was free to make a range of choices without being bound by a mechanistic process, then when given its selection we would view it as a choice made by the system.  On final review, I don't think there is much distinction on the stripped down ontological view between the theists and the nontheists other than the insistence of whether or not there was choice or intent behind the universe, but the appeal to randomness to avoid choice/intent by the nontheists has the same properties of a choice when analyzed in detail.           

    Regarding the infinite regress of the selector, I think that whatever the selector is (personal who acts with intent or impersonal with no intent), it must be necessarily exemplified to get out of the infinite regress.  What requires selection are the contingent realities.   

    So what ultimately, what you are saying is that the selector chooses P1 and then sets all the rules for C1 to the end of time and just let the experiment play out.  ultimately, here is a universe with certain physics, rules such as hydrogen is going to have these properties and this potential and wow, look at that, when you fuse them, it's a star!  And 14 billion years from now, humans will evolve on one of the trillions+ of rocks floating around the universe...  So ultimately, R is really just P1 with a bunch of contingencies.

    regardless, in your revised premise 2, are you saying r was either selected or not, or are you saying that it was selected via "choice" or not?

    if the former, then that is a large departure from your original premise 2.  if the latter, then you are back to my same criticism.  you are requiring the origin to be selected and then coming back and saying "well, it was selected either way so there was a choice."

    i have no idea if, in fact, the origin had no reason or mechanism behind it.  but you ask if it is possible and i say, sure.  why not?  just because our perception in life and in relatable analogies can always ultimately be extrapolated back to the genesis of the earth itself, that doesn't mean that existence itself requires the same causal chain.

    and i think the infinite regress remains a problem as the selection mechanism's selection of the R may actually just be a C2 of another R.

  11. 17 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    I don't believe that is the case with this argument.  Any metaphysical view based on true choice entails a rejection of fatalism.  The reason for this is that the summation of outcomes is dependent upon choices and choices are not metaphysically necessary.  For example, according to the argument our would was dependent upon a choice and could have not been exemplified; thus it does not exist by necessity according to this view.

    it isn't fatalistic as it relates to the selection mechanism, it is fatalistic as to the constituent parts of W (P1 through P∞) that is chosen based on Ronce the selector has chosen R and its constituent P's and C's, everything becomes inevitable.  Another set of P's and C's aren't possible once the selector has chosen R.

    15 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    There is also the possibility that there is no fallacy, but that you object to some of the definitions and premises.  That is a perfectly valid form of objection and I think the source of disagreement in this case.  You aren’t even certain of which fallacy you think it commits, so there is really no point in throwing some out there as a rebuttal.  Also, the way you phrased my argument is not an accurate summary.  It would be better to word it “reality was born either from something that made a choice or else it randomly happened, but randomness requires some process that guides it.” 

    What I think is the primary point of disagreement is that you and sidis believe that a random selection implies that there is no reason for the selection. In other words, a random action, selection, entity, etc, is one that occurs for no reason whatsoever.  It just simply happens.  Is this correct?  If so, can you give any counter examples of selections or things which occur for no reason and/or without mechanisms determing what occurs?

    no, i think it is just that you are setting a premise in 2 and 3 that the only two options for the origin is a selection mechanism period and forcing a random outcome to be the result of a choice.  so inherently, you are accomplishing nothing in the argument beyond saying that because something made a choice based on intent or based on randomness, they still chose and thus, an intent to do so was necessary.  that isn't particularly helpful as i read it.  your premises and your theorem are circular.  if you created room for a truly random origin that requires no selector, it would undermine the whole thing.

    you are just saying that because you aren't aware of an exemplar of why things happen without some preceding reason, that it must be necessary for their to be intent in the whole universe when the universe itself could possibly be an the exemplar you are looking for.

    also, why is the selector of R from W not subject to infinite regress?

  12. 1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    Premise 2 was intended as just a statement of excluded middle.  What I was trying to say is that if something is selected, then it was either selected randomly or it was not.  

    fair enough, i should have really lodged my objection to the combination of premise 2 and 3.

  13. 9 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    Here is a rough drafting:

    • Definition 1:  W is the realm of possibilities, including all possible worlds, states within the worlds, possible entities, etc. Each possibility within W is named P1, P2, P3..., each set of contingent combination of possibilities is named C1, C2, C3... 
    • Premise 1:  Bivalence of possibility.  I.e. Every combination of possibilities comprising a comprehensive reality is either possible or it is not possible; every possible combination of possibilities is thus fully possible to be exemplified. 
    • Theorem 1:   All Cs are in the same category of possibility of exemplification (each is fully possible to be exemplified), thus they are all equal and symmetrical in regards to the property of possibility of exemplification.    
    • Definition 2:  R is the contingent combination of possibilities comprising our comprehensive reality (i.e. the universe and whatever else it may be connected with, such as the multiverse).  
    • Theorem 2:  R is some C within W.  
    • Definition 3:  A choice is a selection among equally possible options with no selection mechanism or algorithm using predetermined criteria.   
    • Premise 2:  R was either selected randomly from W via some selection mechanism or was selected via choice. 
    • Premise 3:  All selection from equal or symmetrical options within a category requires either a choice or a selection mechanism which selects via some set of properties it uses to sort.   
    • Premise 4:  If R was selected via some non-intentional selecting mechanism, then that mechanism and its selective criteria properties also require selection from within W.   
    • Theorem 3:  Thus, the selection of R among W must ultimately be rooted back in a choice.
    • Theorem 4:  Thus, the origin or source of reality must be capable of choice. 

    I believe this captures the basic idea, but this is a first past draft so allow me to modify for clarity or correction if needed.  I haven't gone through the exercise symbolically, so I probably need to add a line between premise 4 and theorem 3 to make it fully valid.  In any case I think it is semantically valid with some good faith gap filling. 

    To give a rough analogy of the point I'm trying to make, a computer cannot really select or produce a truly random number.  It can give a pseudorandom number through some algorithm, but this algorithm in turn requires some external selection.  A computer can also produce a "true random number" by referencing some source outside its program.  However, there is no "outside" the primeval ontological soup to reference.  So the reality/world selection process must have ultimately required a choice.  

     

    premise 2...why can it not occur randomly instead of being chosen (regardless of intent or not)?  you are creating a premise that requires a choice and then saying the choice can be chosen randomly or it can be chosen with intent...but then saying that's irrelevant because regardless, a choice is made so something had to drive the decision whether it was made at random or with intent.  then you jump from there to origin has to be a result of a choice when a slight adjustment to premise 2 allowing for R to be to also be a random outcome without a choice undermines everything after definition 3.  ultimately, you're just saying that choosing something with intent or not is still a choice.  how is this helpful?

  14. 18 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    I am going to get down the brass tacks for my purposes and pose to you a metaphysical position.  From the numerous times I've had the discussion on the fundamental base and origin of reality, I think the primary litmus test question can be given as follows:  do you believe the origin/source of reality, whatever that may be, is capable of selecting options with intent from the sea of possibilities/realm of the potential?  In other words, is it capable of making choices and deliberate selections?  Theists would say yes, and nontheists would say no.  I suppose agnostics would say that they have no idea.   

    So the positive case that I would like to pose to you is that I don't believe it is possible for the origin/source of reality to make random selections without any purpose, intent, or choice.  The reason I think this is because the realm of potential worlds would be perfectly symmetrical from an actualization point of view (i.e. no possible world is more likely to exist than any other) and so anything that is incapable of making a choice would not be able to break this symmetry.   In order to break this symmetry, a choice must be made.  Consequently, the origin of all reality must be capable of choice. 

    state this in a formal logic structure.  i want to understand your definitions and axioms.  i am not sure i am following the jump to a break in the symmetry of all possible worlds (or series of events) being necessary for any particular world to actually exist...

    by the way, that is the most random response to my post to twicehorn i can possibly imagine so you truly did break the symmetry here.

×
×
  • Create New...