This discussion is a perfect lesson in how we can dispel the notion that words cannot have precise meaning, i.e. the inane position that language is meaningless. As we find out, using a word rationally means that the word is reduced to a SINGLE unambiguous meaning.
Is the Universe Poetic? Or do we need to define our terms precisely?
Monk E. Mind Yeah, words mean stuff. People want to fight against having a singular definition, because it exposes their flawed thinking.
SeeLight Craig W Ehh, personally I think just the opposite. Singular definitions straightjacket meaning and amputate nuance. Words don't mean stuff, stuff can be communicated using words. Definitions are a crutch for attorneys. In casual conversation the over-emphasis on literalism is actually an ideological tactic.
SeeLight Craig W OTOH, being concise within a given conversation is fine if it is for clarification.
Monk E. Mind Yeah, Popper lover..Popper lover..Popper lover...nanana!
"One should never get involved in verbal questions or questions of meaning, and never get interested in words. If challenged by the question of whether a word one uses really means this or perhaps that ,then one should say: "I dont know and im not interested in meanings......one should never quarrel about words , and never get involved in questions of terminology. One should always keep away from discussing concepts" -- Karl Popper"
Monk E. Mind "You might think it poetic, to give one word many meanings, and thereby spread shades of connotation all around. But even poets, if they are good poets, must learn to see the world precisely."
"But rationalists—and also poets—need narrow words to express precise thoughts; they need categories which include only some things, and exclude others. There's nothing wrong with focusing your mind, narrowing your categories, excluding possibilities, and sharpening your propositions." E. Yudowsky
"When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations."
- Orwell
Bill Gaede “Singular definitions straightjacket meaning”
.
That’s just the point! Crisp definitions. This is not poetry (ordinary speech) which is what idiot C-lite does.
.
“Words don't mean stuff…”
.
…when you don’t define them!
.
“In casual conversation the over-emphasis on literalism is actually an ideological tactic.”
.
…whereas in Physics literalism is MANDATORY! No poetry allowed!
.
e.g.,
.
a. ‘warped space’… a euphemism for a field equation
.
b. ‘point’ a euphemism for BOTH the object ‘dot’ AND the concept ‘location’
.
c. ‘line’ a euphemism for ‘itinerary’
.
d. ‘orbital’ a euphemism for ‘the electron bead can be at many places simultaneously’
.
e. ‘transfer energy’ a euphemism for ‘we don’t know what’s going on and can’t give a physical interpretation, so we use this catch-all phrase to parry all attempts at ridicule’
.
f. “carry a force’ a euphemism for ‘we can’t even imagine a particle pulling on another one in the religion of Quantum, so we explain it by placing a negative sign before momentum’
.
ALL of the religion of Math fizz is founded upon irrational terms and supernatural communication. Nothing survives of QM or GR! ALL the physical interpretations of Math fizz are bunk! Not one survives!
SeeLight Craig W "That’s just the point! Crisp definitions. This is not poetry (ordinary speech) which is what idiot C-lite does."
If I'm right (and I am) the universe is fundamentally poetic. What you call physics is derived from experiential 'seems like' capacities rather than 'simply is' units of matter.
"…whereas in Physics literalism is MANDATORY! No poetry allowed!"
I agree that Crisp definitions are essential for working with that spatially extended subset of the totality of Physics which everyone currently calls physics.
I have come to this understanding not out of preference or arbitrary assumption, but simple process of elimination. If substance or information could exist without experience, then there would be no experience. Experience however, as a universal primitive, has obvious motive for making substance-like and information-like discernments.
You are satisfied with a physics of exteriors and colliding bodies, while I see that it is necessary to reveal the precise interdependent nature of the juxtaposition between literal physics and figurative experience. You're a smart guy Bill, you can't find this that difficult to grasp.
As for a-f and the rest, I agree with you dude. I'm just learning what I can of physics now, but I have no problem with anything that you are saying. The whole of contemporary physics is a collection of empirically valid fairy tales, haunted by pseudo-substantial notions of 'charge' and 'field'.
Tim Brooks Science is the poetry of reality.
SeeLight Craig W Understood in the proper context, everything is reality.
SeeLight Craig W Real dreams, real delusions, real thoughts and words. All aspects of reality. All physically and concretely real (though not accessible publicly as spatially projected presentations)
Rick Chandler SeeLight Craig W Okay, Deepak Chopra
SeeLight Craig W To be more precise, private interior experiences are *more* than real and *less* than real. The midrange does belong, (as BG would probably agree) to public exterior bodies.
SeeLight Craig W No, I'm too crazy for Deepak. He followed me on Twitter twice but I guess he got scared,
Rick Chandler SeeLight Craig W I believe it.
Monk E. Mind You out Gurued the Guru!
Monk E. Mind Deepockets couldn't find the meaning in the silence between your words.
Bill Gaede: Idiot C-lite: “If I'm right (and I am) the universe is fundamentally poetic.”
Idiot Tim: “Uh duh, Science is the poetry of reality.”
.
Well, first of all, dear patients, you have to define ‘reality’ so that the shrink may evaluate your state of mind, diagnose your mental malaise, and determine what remedy needs to be applied. It could be meds. And then again it could be trepanation, head-shrinking, head-in-vise techniques…
.
reality: ___
.
Please fill in the blanks!
.
Oh, and in religion you are always right, Idiot C. Religion is the ‘saayens’ of truths. For instance, quantum mechanics (QM), general relativity (GR) and string theory (ST) have already been proven about 73%. I suppose that you can officially quote that as 73% Proof. Kinda like the double-schnapps I’m gulping! In Science, we just explain.
.
.
.
“If substance or information could exist without experience, then there would be no experience.”
.
What an idiot! What a stupid moron!
.
Well, the reason they have you in the Padded Wall Ward over there at the asylum, dear C, is that we’ve proven – thoroughly verified – that the Moon was there before humans began to experience. Of course, I understand that in the little dark world you have in that empty attic of yours you are convinced that God molded the Moon after you were born. It’s natural for you to think that way. (By ‘think’ I’m not being literal. Just a figure of speech!) Just read your Bible, first chapter, and you will learn that that’s not exactly true. God made man AFTER he made the Moon for else astronauts would have nothing to land on.
.
Yet more fundamental, God converted silicon into carbon to make Adam (the first mortal). We are CHON, not SiHON… at least… no longer. So, poor God would not be able to make a measly sand castle w/o first converting space into inanimate matter. He had to make the beach before He made the bitch!
.
.
.
“Experience… a universal primitive”
.
You’re the only primitive here, dear idiot! It’s by talking in nonsensical abstractions – words that don’t mean anything – that you chase your tail around. Typical of Down’s patients!
.
.
.
“You are satisfied with a physics of exteriors and colliding bodies”
.
Wrong! I am satisfied with wine, women and song! The only colliding bodies I’m satisfied with are the ones that crash against me under the covers! It’s not a Q of satisfaction (opinion). Physics is about ‘what is’ irrespective of experience. There are no observers in Science.
.
Here’s the ad, bean brain! Memorize it!
.
SCIENTISTS WANTED. NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY!
.
I’m certain that this dimwit Hawking never experienced a black hole… other than perhaps his Cambridge boyfriend’s.
.
.
.
“it is necessary to reveal the precise interdependent nature of the juxtaposition”
.
Erm… why don’t you talk properly, idiot C?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXjwbzViN9M&feature=player_detailpage#t=420s
0 comments:
Post a Comment