Law of excluded middle

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by brimstoneSalad »

mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 am @brimstoneSalad

I guess that's the risk of arguing with admin/moderator.
Nope, that applies to any user.

I upped the ante and posted a credible link of a physics professor explaining why MWI is preferred by Occam's razor since you either did not understand or did not accept my explanations. It was basically just an academic echoing my explanation (although better phrased than mine). This isn't a controversial view, I don't know why you have a problem with it.

You rudely dismissed it, and continued to argue your point without responding in turn with something to back it up.

A back and forth of traded assertions with escalating insults isn't productive. Something has to break, and that thing in this case is referring to an outside source to support my claims. You need to do the same with yours.

I will await your either apologizing and conceding the point, OR posting a link. Your escalating assertions and insults do not fulfill your duty to back up your claims on this one.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amI provided evidence why this claim:
And let’s be clear: MWI is a simpler theory than (say) the Copenhagen interpretation (CI). For you can start with three postulates, and add a fourth about wave-function collapse, and you get CI. Or you can start with just three, and say nothing of wave-function collapse, and you get MWI.
with which you agreed on several occasions, does not hold.
No, you didn't, because you do not understand MWI or CI. Post a link of a credentialed physicist saying the same thing, then we can carry on.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amHere's the proof.
No it isn't. You're just begging the question and completely misunderstanding the point, repeating your assertion in other words. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Post a link to a professor or working physicist saying that, then we'll discuss it.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amSee that I don't even argue QM and MWI right now - replace QM, "Collapse" and MWI with theories T_0, T_1 and T_2 respectively with properties as above, and it still holds. So maybe consider not deleting this one.
You're welcome to start a thread talking about T_0, T_1 and T_2 without mentioning quantum mechanics or referring to these posts. That would be a new conversation.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amIf you want, I may also demonstrate why the union of any chain of functions is a function, or is it too much at once?
You're welcome to start a thread to talk about functions if you want without talking about QM or referring to this conversation. Again, that would be a new conversation.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amWhatever you're going to do, I don't think I will stay here too long.
That's your prerogative, but you've overtly violated the rules of discourse here by not backing up your claims when I DID back up mine.

You need to start posting links to help resolve the time wasting stalemate of endless assertions and insults, or otherwise drop the conversation.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amDeleting posts in the heat of the discussion is just a blow below the belt, regardless whether the disputant is right or not.
This forum has rules about backing up your claims. If I had not posted a link you would have been welcome to carry on with assertions. I upped the ante, and you're expected to do the same. The rule is in place to prevent endless time wasting exchanges like this was turning into. The person who substantiates his or her claims with outside sources must have the last word if the other is unable or unwilling to do so.

Sorry, but I don't think anybody else will have great difficulty in understanding that.
It's a reasonable rule, and you stand in violation of it.

I didn't ask for a convention on banning you, because I know we all want different perspectives on the forum and you're obviously an intelligent contributor. If you want to take your toys and go home in a fit because you don't like this rule, that's your choice.

I hope you stay, but I'm not going to make a rule exception just for you.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amIf I'm wrong, let me make fool of myself
You're making a fool of yourself right now by complaining about this very reasonable rule and pretending like this is some kind of exploitation of moderator power, when the obvious rule violation was entirely on your head.
All you have to do is back up your claims in kind with a link to something at least as credible as what I posted.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amResponding ex cathedra without a right of defense is just too much, and it looks bad too.
You're not banned, and you could still apologize and just find a link to something credible to substantiate what you're saying about QM. Or as I said, you can start a new thread and not mention QM if you want to talk about your argument in the abstract with respect to T_0,T_1,T_2 (although I doubt anybody will be interested in discussing it).
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amDon't want to sound salty, but I am a little bit disappointed, since I came here in reaction to similar treatment (guess you remember and even can relate to it, don't you?).
You sound very salty. You broke the rules, and now you're complaining about the rules and accusing me of abusing moderator powers, etc.
I don't want to waste my time on an endless volley of assertions, and nobody should be expected to.

You aren't banned, and you're welcome to apologize for breaking the rules, back up, and follow the rules this time.
Or you can post your arguments in a new thread in the abstract (T_0,T_1,T_2, or anything you want about functions) without talking about QM or referring to this thread.
mkm wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:36 amLast time I checked you had a strong opinion on fragility of people's egos, if they censor discussions. Funny how things turn out.
I do, which is why the rules here are very minimal. Somehow you have still found a way to break them and waste others' time.
I'm removing your repeated assertions, because this conversation is over and the person who posts with evidence gets the last word here. Anybody who wants to read the same argument again in other words can scroll up and see your previous posts, none of which are being removed.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by mkm »

Prescriptum: I extended my post via edition couple hours later, hope it doesn't cause chaos.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 3:42 pm Nope, that applies to any user.
Not any user has scissors to cut someone's comments.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 3:42 pm I upped the ante and posted a credible link of a physics professor explaining why MWI is preferred by Occam's razor since you either did not understand or did not accept my explanations. It was basically just an academic echoing my explanation (although better phrased than mine). This isn't a controversial view, I don't know why you have a problem with it.

You rudely dismissed it, and continued to argue your point without responding in turn with something to back it up.
Because it's nothing more than appeal to authority, in addition to selection bias, since you agreed on the point that most physicists don't think that MWI is the way to go, or don't care.

What was rude in my dismissal? I just deemed the testimony irrelevant.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 3:42 pm A back and forth of traded assertions with escalating insults isn't productive. Something has to break, and that thing in this case is referring to an outside source to support my claims. You need to do the same with yours.
Then don't throw insults. There were polls made, here's a link to one:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

And I still don't think it matters much.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 3:42 pm I will await your either apologizing and conceding the point, OR posting a link. Your escalating assertions and insults do not fulfill your duty to back up your claims on this one.
Instead of appealing to authority you could break down my argument and tell me why I'm wrong. For example why my model theory argument was misguided or why my definition of current conscious was not a function. Yelling "THIS IS NOT A FUNCTION" achieves nothing.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 3:42 pm You're welcome to start a thread talking about T_0, T_1 and T_2 without mentioning quantum mechanics or referring to these posts. That would be a new conversation.

You're welcome to start a thread to talk about functions if you want without talking about QM or referring to this conversation. Again, that would be a new conversation.
I'm not really interested in discussing basic exercises in model theory or set theory, if I'm not allowed to apply them in the only context that forced me to come up with them in the first place. If you took time to take a good look at my argument you could see that I've done similar thing to your approach to NTT, I just analyzed its structure and concluded it doesn't hold. Of all people I suspected you could appreciate that.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 3:42 pm No it isn't. You're just begging the question and completely misunderstanding the point, repeating your assertion in other words. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Post a link to a professor or working physicist saying that, then we'll discuss it.
(...)
This forum has rules about backing up your claims. If I had not posted a link you would have been welcome to carry on with assertions. I upped the ante, and you're expected to do the same. The rule is in place to prevent endless time wasting exchanges like this was turning into. The person who substantiates his or her claims with outside sources must have the last word if the other is unable or unwilling to do so.

All you have to do is back up your claims in kind with a link to something at least as credible as what I posted.
Ok, let's see. Will Anton Zeilinger do?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fd86/9 ... 4cf3df.pdf
This short, sketchy comparison of three different interpretations which, again, lead to the same experimental predictions, tells us different things.
(...)
For example, the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation associates with each individual particle both a well-defined momentum and a well-defined position at all times. As another example, Everett's interpretation speaks of the equal existence of all possible results of a measuring process. Both examples deal with assumptions which are flatly rejected by other interpretations that were mentioned. Thirdly and most importantly, each of the interpretations leaves at least one element unexplained. Namely, each of the interpretations fails when it comes to a complete description of the individual event.
It agrees exactly with what I said against your comment on "taking math and the known nature of waves at face value". There are assumptions made about the wave function, that produce incompatible, yet empirically not contradicting outcomes via mathematical formalism. For example in Bohm's interpretation it is assumed that wave function carries some additional potential, which via math gives well defined trajectories; in Everett's interpretation (MWI) it is assumed that all branches of the wave function exists at all times, so all measurement outcomes exist undiscriminated. I don't make this up, it's in the link.

So, if we have it settled that there are physicists that don't think that MWI comes with no additional assumptions, now what? Will you up the ante even more and bring the opinion of the pope? :) Does it magically make my arguments not misguided for you? Maybe I do understand something after all, just try not to appeal to authority (ot at least ad verecundiam), because the level at which we discuss it doesn't call for it.

Another funny thing is that Zeilinger raises the same problem with conscious:
Consequently, it is asserted that the observer, too, exists in each branch in a different state and
is therefore also split. The concrete "I", my awareness, is hic et nunc in a well defined state
and thus is to be found in a certain branch of the universe in which only one, namely a
particular one of the possible results of the specific individual measuring process is realized.
The many worlds interpretation thus is fundamentally unable to predict in which one of the
branches I will experience finding myself. The claim that the observer coexists in many
different states is intrinsically untestable.
I made the same remark that we can't say anything meaningful about "ourselves" in other universes because they are inaccessible. Even if I'm wrong, it seems that at least I'm in a good company.

PS: I read the whole thing after looking through it briefly. At the end Zeilinger concludes
Yet it is also highly recommended to follow the guidance of the Copenhagen interpretation, that is, not to make any unnecessary assumptions
not supported by a thorough analysis of what it really means to make an experiment.
Some food for thought ;)
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by Red »

Now, I have little understanding as to what is going on here, and of the subject matter, but I just wanna point a thing or two out to Mr.@mkm.

@mkm when @brimstoneSalad asks you to cite a scientists' view on this matter, in this case a physicist, it is not an appeal to authority fallacy. It's only a fallacy if the authority is misplaced. If they are someone reputable, it's safe and often beneficial to cite what they say, which usually applies to historians and scientists, but can apply to other things.

For instance, if you wanted to know what would be a proper diet, and you only had the choice of two people, would you choose the dietitian, who spent an extended period of time studying the subject matter, or a celebrity who forms their opinion based on pseudoscience?

The term 'appeal to authority' is somewhat misleading; it's an appeal to unqualified authority.

To give a different type of example, would you take dieting advice from a dietitian who has a Bachelor's Degree in the relevant subject, or someone who has a Master's Degree? Sure, they're likely to give similar advice, but the one with the Master's Degree will have more authority to speak on the matter. That isn't to say that the one with the Bachelor's Degree will give inferior advice, but it likely won't be as succinct.

As someone with very little knowledge on the universe and how it and everything contained within it works, it is an intelligent decision to listen to what the experts have to say on the matter. It's ignorant and arrogant to dismiss something like this as an 'appeal to authority,' especially considering that you @mkm probably don't know what you don't know, and, after seeing many posts from @brimstoneSalad, it's probably a good idea to trust what they say.

Just some food for thought ;)
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by mkm »

@Red

I have addressed it already. There is no consensus when it comes to interpretation of QM, and we may cite physicists' favourite interpretations all days long, and considering that most of physicists don't care or like Copenhagen interpretation the most anyway, I could "win" it. According to the majority of physicists, MWI is not the way to go, and brimstoneSalad acknowledged it. Partially that's why I don't understand these demands for citations. I don't think that's the way to have this discussion anyway, but OK, if you love credentials so much, we may even start reading scientific papers on the topic and see what happens. Of course if any of these posts survive :)
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by brimstoneSalad »

@mkm Was that so hard? That's all you needed to do not to be in violation of forum rules.

I'm pretty busy so it may take me a while to respond, but so long as you understand what was at issue (you violating forum rules), that's fine for now.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

brimstoneSalad wrote:I would say anything we can pretty clearly examine the tautology of can have an ideal.
I don’t understand what that means, even with the example. Would you be willing to explain it differently? Sorry and thanks.

P.S. if you have time, would you critique my argument for objective morality in the debunking nihilism thread?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Sorry, that was a slip, I meant teleology, that is function/purpose. Tautology means something that's just true due to the way it's stated, like "dogs are dogs". Although Platonic forms are often tautological (an ideal dog is the best at being a dog).

I mean that if you can look at something's function, you can figure out its ideal based on that.

We can't talk meaningfully about the ideal dog (aside from nonsense statements), but if we define an ecological niche we might be able to talk about the ideal form to fill it. Or we could talk about the ideal companion (something else a dog may be) which wouldn't necessarily be a dog.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 26, 2018 6:44 pm P.S. if you have time, would you critique my argument for objective morality in the debunking nihilism thread?
I'm not sure if I'll have time, might forget later though. Can you link me to the specific post?
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

@brimstoneSalad, I called it the wrong name, but here it is; viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4012&start=30
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by brimstoneSalad »

@Cirion Spellbinder That's a page link, I can't figure out which posts you're talking about.
If you click the little page/file looking icon in the top left of a post, it'll take you to the post link.

Looks like this:
viewtopic.php?p=39168#p39168

With the p= part
Post Reply