What did Wittgenstein mean by saying that

[jakelafortParticipant]

Robert i agree with much of what you’ve written. Not all of it.

The conclusion that we are unimportant? check.

You wrote i am in the god camp of omniscient possibility. That is the best way to insult me! But i think it is a non sequitur. At least i cant see how a clockwork universe depends on our appreciation of its intricacies. it either is or is not deterministic.

I frame the issue differently in contemplating how different forms of life such as monkeys, parrots and paramecium perceive things. For me it is simply an issue of consciousness. And i damn fucking sure do not think it is a phenomenon that arises ab intito in humans. It is very likely something of a spectrum. It is an evolved attribute of life with gradations.

Whether there may be some degree of freedom to the way lifeforms act…i can not say..maybe. It is a scientific question.

As to whether the universe is knowable i have been of the opinion for quite some time that it is not. The genesis of super intelligence may have something to say about that. Don’t think humans will unpeel the onion.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

At least i can’t see how a clockwork universe depends on our appreciation of its intricacies…

That reminds me of the now almost retired Anthropic principle 

[_Robert_Participant]

At least i cant see how a clockwork universe depends on our appreciation of its intricacies. it either is or is not deterministic.

If the clockwork is driven in part by truly random sources, it is not a very good clock at all. The capabilities of an entity reading the clock are irrelevant. I can record the past performance of the clock and characterize it with probabilities, but I can not determine any state in the future for certain. It is causal looking backwards, yes but is certainly not a deterministic system in that restarting the clock (or universe) at t=0, it will all play out the same exact way. This is what determinism implies.  If true randomness exists (and that is under serious contention) a living system could harness random variables into their processes to further defy determinism. So yeah we may experience casual/bounded determinism daily, but there could be much more to it.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Was just thinkin bout anthropic principle and Reg goes ahead and mentions it. It must mean something. It can’t be a coincidence.

I’d say if randomness is at play the clockwork metaphor does not work. It is a metaphor for determinism. Great way to test determinism…play that shit back DJ. It is a question as much for science as it is for philosophy. We really don’t know..we are all shooting sparks.

[DavisModerator]

Pure laziness Jake.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

but is certainly not a deterministic system in that restarting the clock (or universe) at t=0, it will all play out the same exact way. This is what determinism implies.

I think you’re confusing determinism with predeterminism. Given the randomness of the subatomic, and its ability to intrude on the Newtonian/Einsteinian (deterministic) level, there’s no guarantee that even in a deterministic world (from the N/E standpoint), things necessarily would happen in exactly the same way.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

What happens if you boogie in zero-gravity?

I like that musical choice. Still hoping to honor Unseen’s question, albeit in my eccentric way, I geeked out math/science-wise to analyze (hey oops that rhymes) to self-edumacate me-self on the riffy part that I like, that looooong bendy note on the guitar. Funny thing, the song seems closest to the key of E but it’s actually a quarter tone out of pitch from the standard A = 440Hz scales, meaning one has to fudge with one’s frequencies to play along “in tune”. (I don’t mind if Robert corrects me here.)

Anyways, it seems that the long, procrastinating bend bends from the about B-flat to about the 5th (B). I really like that note, but will save y’all from further, psycho-acoustic analysis. (Another aside: Various musical scales and their emotional effects are amazingly intertwined with mathematically predictable frequencies and harmonies. Never mind.)

So closer to on-topic, I think it’s a pretty big deal that even science requires us to constantly re-evaluate and re-document what we know, because we can’t possibly know at first all the possible circumstances and outcomes wrt a particular study of a phenomenon, so we are limited to describing particular reproducible circumstances and outcomes, which (btw) happens to still be extremely useful/effective in our mortal quests to understand “reality”, whatever that is. (Like, what is it, really, and will it seem different later when we further extend the borders of reproducible circumstances?) Shout out to Simon for pointing out the “more than one cause” perspective, in contrast to reductionist idealism wrt scientifically documenting the fewest possible document-able causes and effects–which btw are ultimately the most reproducible by humans across disciplines, cultures, geography, and even the purported non-humans residing in other planetary systems.)

Now, in honor of the latest “scientific attempt” of a flat-earther to prove once and for all for himself whether Earth is flat or “a ball” (from Discovery):

Discover How a Homemade Astronaut Takes Flight with Mad Mike

And from WaPo:

‘Mad’ Mike Hughes, who wanted to prove the flat-Earth theory, dies in homemade-rocket disaster

(Unseen I hope you’re not disappointed with this diversion… it’s just that sometimes I feel like everything in reality and human experience is “connected”. Especially today, for some reason. But I’m still pretty sure I’m not being superstitious.)

My older daughter just now responded “Darwin was right”.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: extra-late typo fixes and betterized grammer & style

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

but is certainly not a deterministic system in that restarting the clock (or universe) at t=0, it will all play out the same exact way. This is what determinism implies.

I think you’re confusing determinism with predeterminism. Given the randomness of the subatomic, and its ability to intrude on the Newtonian/Einsteinian (deterministic) level, there’s no guarantee that even in a deterministic world (from the N/E standpoint), things necessarily would happen in exactly the same way.

Yeah, when QM chimed-in on the subject a watered-down the meaning of determinism just further proves my point. The definition of a deterministic system that we learned in engineering school is the clockwork analogy that Jake talked about.

The question that interests me the most is the relationship between seemingly random events/causes and biological systems. We already know how it is a mechanism for evolution. But just shooting from the hip I do wonder if random events and the associated uncertainty allow for a little break in straight line causality in brain functions. So many facets of materials and biologics occur in frequencies that adhere to the bell curve. If a small bit of noise gets injected into an hard deterministic electrical system…the output is sometimes characterized by a bell curve.

[UnseenParticipant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

What happens if you boogie in zero-gravity?

I like that musical choice. Still hoping to honor Unseen’s question, albeit in my eccentric way, I geeked out math/science-wise to analyze (hey oops that rhymes) to self-edumacate me-self on the riffy part I like, in that looooon bendy note on the guitar. Funny thing, the song seems closest to the key of E but it’s actually a quarter tone out of pitch from the standard A = 440Hz scales, meaning one has to fudge with one’s frequencies to play along. (I don’t mind if Robert corrects me here.) Anyways, it seems that long, procrastinating bend bends from the about B-flat to about the 5th (B). I really like that part, but will save y’all from further, psycho-acoustic analysis. (Another aside: Various musical scales and their emotional effects are amazingly intertwined with mathematically predictable frequencies. Never mind.) So closer to on-topic, I think it’s a pretty big deal that even science requires us to constantly re-evaluate and re-document what we know, because we can’t possibly know at first all the possible circumstances and outcomes wrt a particular study of a phenomenon, so we are limited to describing particular reproducible circumstances and outcomes, which (btw) happens to still be extremely useful/effective in our mortal quests to understand “reality”, whatever that is. (Like, what is it, really, and will it seem different later when we further extend the borders of reproducible circumstances?) Shout out Simon for pointing out the “more than one cause” perspective, in contrast to the idealism wrt reducing scientific studies to documenting the fewest possible documentable causes and effects-which btw are ultimately the most reproducible by humans across disciplines, cultures, geography, and presumably by non-humans residing in other planetary systems.) And now, in honor of the latest “scientific attempt” of a flat-earther to prove once and for all for himself whether Earth is flat or “a ball” (from https://www.discovery.com/exploration/discover-how-a-homemade-astronaut-takes-flight-with-mad-mike): Discover How a Homemade Astronaut Takes Flight with Mad Mike And from WaPo: ‘Mad’ Mike Hughes, who wanted to prove the flat-Earth theory, dies in homemade-rocket disaster (Unseen I hope you’re not disappointed with this diversion… it’s just that sometimes I feel like everything in reality and human experience is “connected”. Especially today, for some reason. But I’m still sure I’m not being superstitious.) My older daughter just now responded “Darwin was right”.

Yes, there seems to be a deterministic connection between idiocy and a statistical tendency toward early death. However, in this case his death was, I believe, caused by a parachute problem. Of course, maybe the idiot, in addition to believing the Earth is flat, also believed that there’s no right way to pack a parachute.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I discovered the song “Boogie in Zero Gravity” while driving around the desert in GTA5 🙂

Check out the Earth Harp as an instrument and if you like something different.

[_Robert_Participant]

Poor Mad Mike. gave his life for pseudo science.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Check out the Earth Harp as an instrument and if you like something different.

Thanks, but still, that bend at 51 seconds grabbed me by my homunculus. I’m still feeling it.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

@robert – I think Mad Mike should at least be nominated for a Darwin award.

[_Robert_Participant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

@robert – I think Mad Mike should at least be nominated for a Darwin award.

I saw an interview with rocket man and he was a likeable, humorous guy. I would bet he and many flat earthers just take that stance to receive attention. Yes, the whole thing was just so stupid, he deserves a nomination.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I would have been happy to share a few beers with him. We need more people like him in the world.  He was a “self taught” engineer who who probably would not have hired. Here is his earlier rocket jump with an interview. He also held the Guinness world record for “longest limousine ramp jump” back in 2002. The Science Channel sent out its “thoughts & prayers”!! More.

[Author]

Posts