@DarrenWalker the world isn't black and white. It is possible for two people with differing opinions to both be right.
I'd like it if people realized that thinking your beliefs are the only accurate ones is an unavoidable result of actually believing—and that actually believing a thing doesn't force the thing to be actually true, so it's important to be able to stop believing a thing if it turns out to be untrue.
This isn't a theology forum, more often than not there shouldn't be deeply held beliefs at stake. Likewise this isn't a scientific community, more often than not there shouldn't be hypothesis testing.
If my view is that 1 + 1 = 2 (which it is), then naturally I think that's the only correct view!
Everyone has different circumstances and there is a whole lot of invisible variables. Arithmetic is great for counting apples but if you want to know where those apples will fall you need statistics.
You think that you're arguing 1+1
1+1
Which is always 2.
When you're actually arguing (1+1f) *( ck /(c+d))
(1+1f) *( ck /(c+d))
Which is only 2 sometimes. It may be approximately 2. It can also be 3 or 9 or 500. If you ignore the other variables (or in my example make assumptions about them) you won't get an accurate picture. In other words, you will be wrong. It is more important to figure out how often the variables are certain values and how those values affect the results than it is to know the constants.
@lonelybutmaybe: Things are either true or else they aren't. For instance, "1+1 doesn't equal 2 if 1 doesn't equal 1!" isn't a clever argument. You may believe that it is—but no amount of belief can make it so.
It's true that different people have different circumstances. For instance, the kid down the street may say "bedtime is at nine" while you say "bedtime is at eleven."
The trick here is that the sentences are incomplete—the full sentences are "Matt's bedtime is at nine tonight; Dan's bedtime is at eleven tonight." Both kids are right because neither is contradicting the other. Where two statements actually do contradict, it's impossible for both to be right: Dan's bedtime cannot be at both eleven and nine, on the same night (no matter what anyone may believe).
This, you may note, has nothing to do with either theology or arithmetic. It's just logic.
@DarrenWalker you do know I am programmer, right? Logic is literally my job. And math is just formal notation for logic.
I am not saying that 1+1=3, it doesn't. I am saying the problem is more complex than 1+1. There is more than 1 answer because the are more variables.
You seem to agree with me here? When you know all the variables you will always get the same answer. My point is you can NEVER know all the variables so you need statistics. You can't know the answer is 2 you can only know the answer is probably 2.
@lonelybutmaybe: Here's an interesting thought: perhaps—just possibly—not knowing all the variables doesn't prevent all the variables from existing.
Maybe—oh, just barely plausibly—1+1 does in fact always equal 2 even if you, personally, don't know whether what you're looking at is a pair of ones or not. It might, potentially, be the case that reality is what it is (and isn't what it isn't) even if our knowledge of reality is incomplete.
You never know. It could be.
@DarrenWalker the problem isn't whether or not 1+1 is 2. We both agree on that. I said that we agree on that. the problem is that we aren't trying to solve 1+1. The most important step of solving a problem is identifying it; fail to do that and you will have the right answer to the wrong problem. This is what I mean by a black and white worldview.
Put another way, say there is a bunch of people in line for a hotdog stand. For whatever reason, the hotdog stand becomes non-functional. Saying 1+1=2 is like saying the solution is for everyone to go to the nearby burger joint for a hamburger. For the first person in line this may be correct, they may just be looking for something to eat, burgers are food problem solved. For the second person however, this may not be the case. The second person may only have a craving for a hotdog, they aren't even really hungry, they just want a hotdog. Getting a hamburger will not solve his problem. To solve their problem they have to find hotdogs elsewhere. Another person may just be bored (even chalk may solve their problem), yet another person may want to taste the hotdogs from this particular vendor (they can come back later). Just because the vendor being in operation would solve all current problems of the people in line doesn't mean they all have the same problem.
You cannot derive the problem from the solution, you cannot propose an alternate solution without identifying the problem. I feel like many people in the forums assume that everyone is trying to solve the same problem. This is not the case. Even people with the same problems won't have the same solutions because their circumstances are different.
1+1 =2 is correct and easy. It is not the problem we are trying to solve. There are in fact many problems that need to be solved and the problems are themselves are far more difficult than pre-k math.
Reading your other posts and your profile: this site is an excellent use for your circumstances and solves your problem well. That's great and helps no one else. No two people on this site have the same circumstances and I'd argue that most people on this site have different problems too. Until everyone understands this these forums will remain toxic.
tl;dr: who cares what 1+1 is when we need to figure out what 3x +c is?
@lonelybutmaybe: If you recall, what you originally disagreed with was my statement that if a person believes A ("this is a poisonous berry," say), they will automatically believe that anyone who believes not-A ("this is a non-poisonous berry") is wrong.
"The world isn't black and white," you said, implying that A and not-A can both be true at once. "It is possible for two people with differing opinions to both be right," you said, as though a berry could be simultaneously poisonous and non-poisonous, or as though one plus one could somehow equal both two and three.
And to my desire for people to be better at letting go of ideas that don't match reality, you said this isn't a theology forum—as though people don't have strong ideas about what is and isn't true unless they're discussing deity!
I think it would be nice if people realized that actually believing a thing (that this particular number is a 1, for instance, or that 1+1 gives a certain result) unavoidably results in not believing anything contradictory (say, that it's not a 1, or that 1+1 gives a different result). And I also think it would be lovely if people recognized that actually believing a thing doesn't make it true (these particular numbers could, despite belief, still be 1.5s; or 1+1 might not equal 2 after all).
Reality is what it is and isn't what it isn't; so it's important to be able to stop believing a thing if it turns out to be untrue.
Do you still disagree with me?
@DarrenWalker yes I do still disagree. I don't know how you can just deny the exist of the color gray. the world you live in, one where berries can't be spoiled just doesn't exist. You seem to be denying the existence of spectrums and compromise.
If you recall, what you originally disagreed with was my statement that if a person believes A ("this is a poisonous berry," say), they will automatically believe that anyone who believes not-A ("this is a non-poisonous berry") is wrong.
I have not said this. I disagree with the idea that A= !B. The problems are different not opposite. The solutions are to different problems. Not to mention sometimes an opinion is just an opinion: it can't be objectively wrong (i.e nutella tastes better than peanut butter).
It seems again we have a fundamentally different worldview. I don't think there is productive discussion to be had if we can't find common ground.
@lonelybutmaybe: Who's denying the existence of any colors? In the real world, grey exists (and so, inevitably, it doesn't not exist). Reality doesn't compromise.
The idea that spoiled berries are somehow both poisonous and non-poisonous is a weird one. There's a difference between toxins and harmful microorganisms: rot doesn't give a blueberry saponin any more than it removes saponin from a holly berry.
And opinions are also solid facts: Nutella tastes better than peanut butter to someone with X set of taste buds.
The concept of the world you seem to have, where a thing can be both A and not-A, is a baffling one to me. I think you're right—someone who believes in truth and reality is going to have a very hard time finding common ground with someone who doesn't.
And who ever said that A is the same as not-B?
A summary:
"If you believe a thing is true," I said, "then of course you believe anyone who says otherwise is wrong."
To which you responded, "It is possible for two people with differing opinions to both be right."
I sighed and said, "Things are either true or else they aren't. ... Where two statements contradict, it's impossible for both to be right." In short, if 1+1=2 is correct, then 1+1=3 is incorrect.
And you came back with, "When you know all the variables you will always get the same answer. My point is you can NEVER know all the variables so you need statistics."
To which I suggested, "Perhaps not knowing all the variables doesn't prevent all the variables from existing. Maybe 1+1 does in fact always equal 2 even if you, personally, don't know whether what you're looking at is a pair of ones or not."
Your (baffling) reply was this: "The most important step of solving a problem is identifying it; fail to do that and you will have the right answer to the wrong problem. This is what I mean by a black and white worldview."
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we were talking about.
So I went back to the point: "If you recall, what you originally disagreed with was my statement that if a person believes A ('this is a poisonous berry,' say), they will automatically believe that anyone who believes not-A ('this is a non-poisonous berry') is wrong."
"I have not said this," you said.
But you did. Right up there. Remember when I said believing A of course means that you believe anyone who says not-A is wrong? And you disagreed?
@DarrenWalker George Boole. If a= true and b =false then a = not b. Basic logic. (If a is a light switch is on and b is a light switch is off then the light being on means the light is not off).
A poisionous berry is always toxic. A poison is a toxin you ingest (versus injection). More importantly saponin is not the only poison*. Another example is fish. If you allow a fish to spoil and then boil it you will kill the microorganisms on the fish. It will still be unsafe to eat, because the poisons the micro-organsims produced are still there. A spoiled berry is in fact poison.
Allow me to give a clearer response. If you don't know that you are looking at a pair of ones then your problem is you don't know what you're looking at. It doesn't matter that 1+ 1 =2 if you don't have that information. When solving a problem in the real world you need the root cause, not just a possible solution. 1+1=2 ; 3 -1=2; 5 - 3 =2. If you assume everyone who needs a 2 only needs another 1 then you will end up with 4's and 6's instead of 2's. You can only work with what you know. So, it is very important to know what you don't know. When you need solutions to things that you don't fully know need statistics. (That way you get a nice graph instead of a number that may help only one person.
Nutella tastes better than peanut butter to someone with X set of taste buds.
You modified the statement to make it true. A> B is not the same as A > (B &C). I said Nutella tastes better than peanut butter. Saying 'a > b' is bad, saying 'a > b when c' is acceptable. The problem is no one ever says a > b when c. In these forums you will hear things like "You should know that nutella tastes better than peanut butter to you and to me" or "Everyone should prefer nutella, peanut butter is objectively bad".
I think you're right—someone who believes in truth and reality is going to have a very hard time finding common ground with someone who doesn't.
In a sense you are right. There is no way to prove the existence of an objective reality. You seem absolutely and thoroughly convinced that you can. Unfortunately for you, you will never experience it even if it does. Your experience is filtered by your brain, in fact your brain is the source of all of your experiences, and your brain makes a lot of stuff up. Magenta isn't even a real color, your brain made it up. This goes for many other illusions (like television) where your brain gets information it doesn't like or can't handle and so just makes something up to make "reality" consistent. You don't live in an objective world. The objective world is a fiction made up by those who can't stand the idea of gray. The truth is that even in science, static truth doesn't exist, something as simple as whether you are standing still or moving, are 6 ft tall or 12 ft tall is dependent on how fast the person watching you is going.
The thing is you seem to agree that the information you have is incomplete. You seem to agree that situations are rarely as simple as 1+1 =2. You seem to agree that color exists. Why are you against accounting for hidden variables?
@lonelybutmaybe: George Boole, huh. So when you said "I disagree with the idea that A= !B," it was him you were disagreeing with. I wondered.
If you don't know that you are looking at a pair of ones then your problem is you don't know what you're looking at. It doesn't matter that 1+ 1 =2 if you don't have that information.
Ooh, I think it does. It makes a great deal of difference whether you're living in a universe where 1+1=2, or one in which 1+1=3. Alters everything, really. Right down to the number of socks you need to keep your feet warm.
Why are you against accounting for hidden variables?
I'm not—not at all. I'm only saying that just because the variables are hidden, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Why do you seem to think that the way the human brain interprets a set of color inputs, for example, means those color inputs (or the interpretations inside the brain) don't exist?
If reality isn't objective, I object to how often it turns out to be something I thought it wasn't. For instance, that last darn stair that I believed wasn't there, but that turned out to exist anyway, goshdarnit, and tripped me.
@DarrenWalker we live in a very fuzzy universe. Everything is fuzzy averages and probabilities. On the scale that we exist at those probabilities approach 100% but they aren't 100%. In other words 1+1 ≠ 2 1+1 ≈ 2. More importantly, there is no point in arguing over something that is agreed upon. If the problem was 1+1 I would agree that the answer is 2. The problem isn't 1+1 that is the whole disagreement. Saying it's 1+1 oversimplifies a complex reality.
1+1 ≠ 2
1+1 ≈ 2
If reality isn't objective, I object to how often it turns out to be something I thought it wasn't.
Just because your experience is subjective doesn't mean you're in control of it. It just means that there is isn't an environment that exists that is the same for everyone.
Why do you seem to think that the way the human brain interprets a set of color inputs, for example, means those color inputs (or the interpretations inside the brain) don't exist?
The color inputs (probably) exist. The interpretation exists, (in fact it is the only thing you can prove exists). However the color itself doesn't. There is no such thing as magenta light. The fact you think you can see it is a quirk in how brains process signals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magenta#In_optics_and_colour_science . Fun fact, people of the Himba tribe don't see the color blue. They only many words for green but no word for blue. Blue light does in fact exist but a person from the himba tribe, with perfectly working rods and cones, couldn't easily distinguish it from green. Likewise, they can see colors of green that you can't easy distinguish from generic green. Color is subjective.
So when you said "I disagree with the idea that A= !B," it was him you were disagreeing with. I wondered.
Here is the context
_ I disagree with the idea that A= !B. The problems are different not opposite. The solutions are to different problems._
My whole argument has been that you can't assign a truth value to a subjective premise. The arguments are too complex to give a right or wrong answer to. A ≠ !B because A ≠ true and A ≠ false.
If people worked like computers (input x always gives output y) I wouldn't need this website.
@lonelybutmaybe: So your whole argument is that you can't assign a truth value to a subjective premise? How interesting.
Suppose that, subjectively, I believe I'm the most important person on earth.
The thing is, this sentence is incomplete. It's just as incomplete as "Nutella tastes better than peanut butter." Tastes better to whom? Most important to whom? These are subjective premises—they're incomplete when their subjectivity isn't defined.
Completing the premise doesn't remove the subjectivity. I'm the most important person on earth to myself—purely subjective, dependent entirely on who I happen to be.
It does allow a truth value to be assigned.
It is true that I'm the most important person on earth to myself. If the completed statement were "I'm the most important person on earth to Jim Bob Keaton," the truth value would be negative: that's untrue.
Saying "Nutella tastes better than peanut butter to people with X set of taste buds" doesn't change the fact that some people like Nutella more, and some people prefer peanut butter. The preference remains subjective, dependent entirely on the set of taste buds you happen to have. It's just that now we can tell whether "Nutella tastes better than peanut butter" is true or not, just by looking at the taste buds of whoever's being subjectively referenced (and we know that if everyone's being referenced, it's untrue).
...there is isn't an environment that exists that is the same for everyone.
Is, or isn't? Make up your mind.
In any case, just because two painters produce different paintings doesn't mean the model is actually two different people. Your perception of reality, see, is a different thing than the reality you're perceiving. Both exist. But they're different things.
Take, for instance, magenta. Red and blue light exist. They hit your eyes. Your eyes report the input to your brain. Your brain interprets it. You perceive magenta. These are all things that really happen; these statements are true. But you shouldn't confuse the perception of magenta in your brain with the red and blue light in the world outside your skull. The two are different things. Both exist. But they're not the same thing.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that red and blue light (in that specific combination) don't exist if the eyes being struck by that light don't respond to it. No color, as such, exists outside the brain. That doesn't mean the colors don't exist as perceptions, and it certainly doesn't mean the light isn't really there.
Well, not if you knew all the variables, no. But you don't, do you? Even in a world where every person's behavior is the inevitable result of genetics shaped and molded by upbringing, experience, circumstance, etc., they couldn't be manipulated by someone who didn't know their formula. The variables would remain unknown—so you wouldn't know what input x to put in for output y.
Wouldn't change the fact that they worked like computers.
From google:
subjective :based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
You seem to believe that if something isn't objective it is false. This is not the case. Opinions are not facts but opinions are not automatically bad or wrong.
It is true that you believe yourself to be the most important person to yourself. It may not actually be true that you actually are the most important person to yourself. Then again, you would need to define importance. In fact you would need to define everything ambiguous in that statement. If you could finde everything ambigous and "complete the premise" if you will, you would no longer have a subjective statement. It would be objective. Like saying "All apples that are not artificially made come from trees and have the chemicals needed for the average human to perceive the taste of an apple". It's objective.
This is in fact exactly what I am arguing. There is no way to prove that the model has and objective existence. Rather, no such thing as an impartial observer exists. All observers have bias and therefore the objective reality cannot be measured. If it cannot be measured then can we say it exists and is the truth? Or should we accept that reality doesn't exist outside of subjective experience (you are your own observer for clarity). But this is philosophy and not really relevant to what i have been trying to convey.
Well, not if you knew all the variables, no. But you don't, do you?
We keep coming back to this. We don't disagree on this. What we disagree on is the ability to give firm solutions to problems without knowing all the variables. The variables are hidden even to ourselves. I actually do believe that humans are a bit like computers but far more complex than what we use today. Also, computers, especially when utilizing AI, use a lot of statistics, uncertainties, and probabilities.
Anyway at this point I am arguing to argue.
P.s, you know that was a typo.
[copied from the PM I sent before spotting this new thread]
I'm really enjoying our debate, so I'd like to carry on without bothering others.
In your latest post you said I seem to believe that if something isn't objective, it's false. I'm not sure how you got that idea. Now, if something isn't objectively TRUE, then of course it's objectively false. But simple subjectivity isn't enough to make a thing objectively false—all it does is make it non-objective.
It is objectively true that I wouldn't exist if I didn't exist: therefore, my existence is of prime importance... to me.
My importance is subjective, dependent entirely on who I'm important TO—but it does, objectively, exist. And depending on how the statement is completed, "I am the most important person on earth" is either true or untrue. Objectively. Despite the fact that the statement is a subjective one, based on and heavily influenced by my personal feelings about existence and importance.
So—I believe that a subjective statement can be either true or false, depending on reality.
You say that opinions aren't facts, and this is true. Doesn't mean they can be both true and untrue at the same time. "In my opinion," someone says, "Donald Trump is the best president the USA has ever had." Assuming she's not lying, it is objectively true that this is her opinion: the statement is objectively true. It is a fact that this is her opinion.
Now, does the opinion itself possess truth value? IS Donald Trump the best president the USA has ever had? To answer this question, we need to know what all the words in the sentence mean, and then look at reality to see if it matches.
Opinions (and all statements) are automatically wrong if they don't match reality. Is an incorrect statement a bad one? Not of itself, I don't think. There are whole collections of inaccurate statements that I, personally, really like! Fiction is great fun. The Stormlight Archive, however, is not an accurate history of events anywhere in reality.
Of course, you believe objective reality doesn't exist.
There is, you think, no one reality which everyone perceives slightly differently due to slight differences in their perceptual equipment. Rather, everyone has an individual, subjective reality all their own.
In that case, there's no need for statistics! What you perceive is what is really there (for you), in your own, subjective, fluctuating, uncontrollable reality. There really wasn't a step there when you didn't see it—there really was one when you tripped on it. Reality itself altered. And why shouldn't it? It's not as though reality is a solid thing. It's not objective. It can (and does) alter. Everything is subjective, including your own feet... and, presumably, the nature of reality itself.
I see no reason why a person with your stated views shouldn't actually believe that there both is and isn't a reality that's the same no matter who's looking at it and what they do or don't perceive. "Typo?" I wondered. "Well... it might not be."
Oh, also! Consider the situation of a bunch of guys with tape measures standing around staring at a desk. Each tape measure is slightly different, and so when each guy measures the desk he comes up with different numbers than the others.
Finally, one turns to another and says, "If all our measurements are different, how can we be sure this desk even HAS an objective length, height, or width? Maybe it changes depending on who's measuring. We should just give up: we'll never know the actual measurements of the desk."
The other sighs. "How about we try comparing our tape measures first?"
@DarrenWalker math does not equal berries. Science does not equal philosophy of science. You keep mixing them up. Units does not equal calibration, though both are important. You've displayed more holes in you knowledge than knowledge. @lonelybutmaybe here's a logic sequence for you: if you post something, DarrenWalker will respond. Hypothesis: if you stop posting something, DarrenWalker will stop responding. Based on his philosophy, DarrenWalker is always right. Based on logic, lonelybutmaybe is right. But even though, lonelybutmaybe agrees with DarrenWalker near the beginning of the thread, saying the same thing a little differently, DarrenWalker fails to recognize that and just keeps talking, mixing non-math analogies to prove his math analogies. What he fails to recognize is the scope of his statements. I am in the nuclear field, and there are certain standard chemistry analyses that we do. But they are not all inclusive. So if there is a result that we don't expect, that doesn't mean the chemistry is wrong. It just means we have to do more analyses. We have to broaden the scope. And I think that's what both of you are trying to say.
@cookiecrumb: Logic is broadly applicable. In mathematics, it tells you that 1+1=2. In the wild, it tells you that a poisonous berry cannot be nonpoisonous. In society, it tells you that someone who believes A is true will also believe that not-A is untrue.
Math certainly doesn't equal berries, nor are units the same thing as calibration. But logic can be applied in all cases. Logic is very useful that way.
You seem to have missed the fact that I'm saying objective reality exists and functions logically and (therefore) if all aspects of it were known perfect predictions could be made... while @lonelybutmaybe is arguing that objective reality doesn't exist, what things actually are depends on who's doing the looking, and that it's impossible for all aspects of reality to be known—not because there are too many variables for the human mind to grasp, but because there is no such thing as reality really, it's all subjective.
A bit of a major disagreement, that!
And as for your hypothesis: without a message to respond to, how can anyone respond? That's not a hypothesis you've got there, it's an inevitability.
Get a room already!
@MrFirefighter: This is the room! If you don't want to flirt, get out. (And if you do.... [Vulcan version of a suggestive eyebrow wiggle])
@DarrenWalker ~ "Vulcan version of a suggestive eyebrow wiggle" ~ Snort! Lol!!!
😂😂😂you guys are totally geeking out. Admit it... your arguing but really this was a much needed outlet.
I'm not even sure they ARE arguing at this point, I mean the last time I saw two people go at it like this it turned out to be mental foreplay (gotta love those sapios)