Like, you’d need to be “outside” the box to verify these things, correct?
So we can imagine potential connections (I can imagine a tree falling, and making sound, as it were) but unless there is some type of real reference— say the the realities intersect, or there’s a higher dimension, or we see light/feel gravity or what have you— they don’t exist from “inside”, no?
Even imagining things connects or references them to some extent… that’s what I meant about unknown unknowns (if I didn’t edit that bit out)… even if that does go to extremes.
Does this reasoning make sense? I know defining existence is pretty abstract, to say the least. :)
You seem enthusiastic about many things, but as you have probably noticed, this is not the right website for this type of debate. Please notice the negative numbers at some of your posts and comments, those are votes against having this type of content.
What I wanted to do in the previous comment was mostly to nitpick on the logic “everything relates to something, therefore everything relates to everything” from the mathematical perspective. Technical correctness of ideas is considered important here.
To get a better idea of what this website is about, you might want to read Rationality: From AI to Zombies (online, download EPUB, MOBI, PDF), A Map that Reflects the Territory (Amazon), or The Engines of Cognition (Amazon).
Sorry for throwing a lot of text to you, but I cannot think of a simple way how to succintly explain the kind of debate that is appreciated at this website versus… uhm… writing many different ideas with question marks. So I am just pointing a finger and saying “something like that”.
LOL! Gesturing in a vague direction is fine. And I get it. My kind of rationality is for sure in the minority here, I knew it wouldn’t be getting updoots. Wasn’t sure that was required or whatnot, but I see that it is. Which is fine. Content moderation separates the wheat from the chaff and the public interwebs from personal blogs or whatnot.
I’m a nitpicker too, sometimes, so it would be neat to suss out further why the not new idea that “everything in some way connects to everything else” is “false” or technically incorrect, as it were, but I probably didn’t express what I meant well (really, it’s not a new idea, maybe as old as questions about trees falling in forests— and about as provable I guess).
Heh, I didn’t even really know I was debating, I reckon. Just kind of thinking, I was thinking. Thus the questioning ideas or whatnot… but it’s in the title, kinda, right? Or at least less wrong? Ha! Regardless, thanks for the gesture(s), and no worries!
I love it! Kind of like Gödel numbers!
I think we’re sorta saying the same thing, right?
Like, you’d need to be “outside” the box to verify these things, correct?
So we can imagine potential connections (I can imagine a tree falling, and making sound, as it were) but unless there is some type of real reference— say the the realities intersect, or there’s a higher dimension, or we see light/feel gravity or what have you— they don’t exist from “inside”, no?
Even imagining things connects or references them to some extent… that’s what I meant about unknown unknowns (if I didn’t edit that bit out)… even if that does go to extremes.
Does this reasoning make sense? I know defining existence is pretty abstract, to say the least. :)
You seem enthusiastic about many things, but as you have probably noticed, this is not the right website for this type of debate. Please notice the negative numbers at some of your posts and comments, those are votes against having this type of content.
What I wanted to do in the previous comment was mostly to nitpick on the logic “everything relates to something, therefore everything relates to everything” from the mathematical perspective. Technical correctness of ideas is considered important here.
To get a better idea of what this website is about, you might want to read Rationality: From AI to Zombies (online, download EPUB, MOBI, PDF), A Map that Reflects the Territory (Amazon), or The Engines of Cognition (Amazon).
Sorry for throwing a lot of text to you, but I cannot think of a simple way how to succintly explain the kind of debate that is appreciated at this website versus… uhm… writing many different ideas with question marks. So I am just pointing a finger and saying “something like that”.
LOL! Gesturing in a vague direction is fine. And I get it. My kind of rationality is for sure in the minority here, I knew it wouldn’t be getting updoots. Wasn’t sure that was required or whatnot, but I see that it is. Which is fine. Content moderation separates the wheat from the chaff and the public interwebs from personal blogs or whatnot.
I’m a nitpicker too, sometimes, so it would be neat to suss out further why the not new idea that “everything in some way connects to everything else” is “false” or technically incorrect, as it were, but I probably didn’t express what I meant well (really, it’s not a new idea, maybe as old as questions about trees falling in forests— and about as provable I guess).
Heh, I didn’t even really know I was debating, I reckon. Just kind of thinking, I was thinking. Thus the questioning ideas or whatnot… but it’s in the title, kinda, right? Or at least less wrong? Ha! Regardless, thanks for the gesture(s), and no worries!