Interesting read. It reminds me of yudowsky's objection to arguments of feasibility, where feasibility is contingent upon ignorance of the principles governing the system.
I've long felt that "in principle" was an intellectual sleight of hand that allowed the construction of arguments that were meant to seem definitive but we're actually more akin to hand waving.
I think it's legitimate as a technique for exploring "what if" scenarios but should never undergird any actual conclusion.
I thought your example of the electron made the point well. If it does not obey the rules by which we define an electron then whatever it is it's not an electron as we know it.
Many words (and expressions) are fuzzy and may "mean" different things to different people, depending also on context. When using s key word In discussion it may be helpful for the parties to first agree what they mean by it for purposes of that discussion so as to minimize the chance of talking past each other.
The problem I have with people suggesting "let's just agree on definitions" is that much of the time, the words are loaded beyond their intensional definition. For instance, "let's just agree God means your highest value," Peterson may say to the atheist, and then the atheist would be a "believer / theist" in that context. They would then say, "Well, I don't think that's how God is used," etc., and the same with "free will" / "truth" / "consciousness" debates. The reason there is such squabbling over definitions is because the definition is precisely what's at stake, not the consequences of some preliminary version for the sake of discussion in the moment. Disagreement often targets the connotative layer. Thus, shaving that layer off via stipulation leaves the true dispute untouched.
If I had one differing opinion, it's problematic to argue (from my POV) that a question such as the wave function and eye color is itself problematic, versus asking whether or not it is true. Saying something is or isn't true may be meaningful for reasons which are not phenomological.
Idk, "cancer vaccine big stinky failure" drives the point home, for people in the US or Canada maybe there's some fancy terminology about RNA which is left out of the universe, and it's published anyways. Either case, sort of a big stinky failure and not that interesting.
FWIW....The Down and Upside of thinking in terms of fundemental objects and theories of everything, everything small and everything which might necessarily have true narratives that we can barely conceive possible, all lives with the distinction like so.
Objects, get boring for intellectual curiosities. TOE, look like total bullshit. A self playing a role, must accept that concepts in language are themselves way more important than we give them credit for, for they perhaps balance what is tenable and what isn't. What's the story? What's the outer layers of an idea? In principle, an idea which works in principle which doesn't entail TOE or object properties it isn't necessitated, wasn't strictly asked for, at that time.
And so that's that. Everyone is a Nihlist or Pragmatist when in principle, they have no clue what they're fucking talking about.
The Rock is clearly attempting to employ a post hoc selection method. We can cut through his "in principles" by his final statement.
Essentially we are left with a set of unpredictable outcomes because though the set of states is knowable, and set is capable of choice (Axiom of choice), this requires the outcome set to also be infinite because the choices are infinite.
Well...we expand the set possible choices. Pigs can't fly, but we can (well they can if we bring them with us). We would have to define constraints on the choices, but at least the chooser can choose. This is what trips up the debate, because then what is "choice?" Can you derive choice from a neuron? Can you derive choice from a brain? Can you derive choice from anything? "What" is "choice?"
There are well known lemmas in modal logic, the DeMorgan equivalence under duality where possible is not necessarily not (, (and necessary is not possibly not.) This runs deep when you get into higher orders of nesting (necessarily possible etc) and accessibility structure.
Going from one galaxy to another in one microsecond is perfectly consistent with the standard model … if you are a photon. Light does not move in time, according to the postulates of special relativity.
But I like the way you are digging into the assumptions implicit in even the simplest speculations. Your recent interview with Barenholtz seemed to trigger some deeper questions about how science cannot be so easily detached from the ambiguities of language. I find a Nagarjuna’s approach using a four-part logic (The Catuskoti) a fruitful exercise in visualizing something analogous to two distinct approaches to conceptual superposition.
I have previously also recommended Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological approach to consciousness investigation, which ‘brackets’ the ontological implications in favor of necessarily first subjectively observing the structure of intention. I will gently nudge that perspective one more time, and suggest his student Heidegger deliberately lost the golden thread to instead pursue a theological agenda.
Hi Curt. There is an assumption in the statement that something is possible if it is not contradictory. The assumption is that contradiction (paradox) rules out truth.
Also quoting: “An actual” infinity is one that is actually infinite! We don’t have a simple way of conveying it other than by invoking images of a deity outside this universe.”
There is a simple geometric proof to convey the mechanism responsible for the infinities of extension and infinite regression. However, it sets an absolute limit on rationalism that falls short of the infinite.
Interesting read. It reminds me of yudowsky's objection to arguments of feasibility, where feasibility is contingent upon ignorance of the principles governing the system.
I've long felt that "in principle" was an intellectual sleight of hand that allowed the construction of arguments that were meant to seem definitive but we're actually more akin to hand waving.
I think it's legitimate as a technique for exploring "what if" scenarios but should never undergird any actual conclusion.
I thought your example of the electron made the point well. If it does not obey the rules by which we define an electron then whatever it is it's not an electron as we know it.
Many words (and expressions) are fuzzy and may "mean" different things to different people, depending also on context. When using s key word In discussion it may be helpful for the parties to first agree what they mean by it for purposes of that discussion so as to minimize the chance of talking past each other.
The problem I have with people suggesting "let's just agree on definitions" is that much of the time, the words are loaded beyond their intensional definition. For instance, "let's just agree God means your highest value," Peterson may say to the atheist, and then the atheist would be a "believer / theist" in that context. They would then say, "Well, I don't think that's how God is used," etc., and the same with "free will" / "truth" / "consciousness" debates. The reason there is such squabbling over definitions is because the definition is precisely what's at stake, not the consequences of some preliminary version for the sake of discussion in the moment. Disagreement often targets the connotative layer. Thus, shaving that layer off via stipulation leaves the true dispute untouched.
If I had one differing opinion, it's problematic to argue (from my POV) that a question such as the wave function and eye color is itself problematic, versus asking whether or not it is true. Saying something is or isn't true may be meaningful for reasons which are not phenomological.
Idk, "cancer vaccine big stinky failure" drives the point home, for people in the US or Canada maybe there's some fancy terminology about RNA which is left out of the universe, and it's published anyways. Either case, sort of a big stinky failure and not that interesting.
FWIW....The Down and Upside of thinking in terms of fundemental objects and theories of everything, everything small and everything which might necessarily have true narratives that we can barely conceive possible, all lives with the distinction like so.
Objects, get boring for intellectual curiosities. TOE, look like total bullshit. A self playing a role, must accept that concepts in language are themselves way more important than we give them credit for, for they perhaps balance what is tenable and what isn't. What's the story? What's the outer layers of an idea? In principle, an idea which works in principle which doesn't entail TOE or object properties it isn't necessitated, wasn't strictly asked for, at that time.
And so that's that. Everyone is a Nihlist or Pragmatist when in principle, they have no clue what they're fucking talking about.
The Rock is clearly attempting to employ a post hoc selection method. We can cut through his "in principles" by his final statement.
Essentially we are left with a set of unpredictable outcomes because though the set of states is knowable, and set is capable of choice (Axiom of choice), this requires the outcome set to also be infinite because the choices are infinite.
Well...we expand the set possible choices. Pigs can't fly, but we can (well they can if we bring them with us). We would have to define constraints on the choices, but at least the chooser can choose. This is what trips up the debate, because then what is "choice?" Can you derive choice from a neuron? Can you derive choice from a brain? Can you derive choice from anything? "What" is "choice?"
There are well known lemmas in modal logic, the DeMorgan equivalence under duality where possible is not necessarily not (, (and necessary is not possibly not.) This runs deep when you get into higher orders of nesting (necessarily possible etc) and accessibility structure.
Going from one galaxy to another in one microsecond is perfectly consistent with the standard model … if you are a photon. Light does not move in time, according to the postulates of special relativity.
But I like the way you are digging into the assumptions implicit in even the simplest speculations. Your recent interview with Barenholtz seemed to trigger some deeper questions about how science cannot be so easily detached from the ambiguities of language. I find a Nagarjuna’s approach using a four-part logic (The Catuskoti) a fruitful exercise in visualizing something analogous to two distinct approaches to conceptual superposition.
I have previously also recommended Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological approach to consciousness investigation, which ‘brackets’ the ontological implications in favor of necessarily first subjectively observing the structure of intention. I will gently nudge that perspective one more time, and suggest his student Heidegger deliberately lost the golden thread to instead pursue a theological agenda.
Thank you. I didn't phrase that part properly .
Hi Curt. There is an assumption in the statement that something is possible if it is not contradictory. The assumption is that contradiction (paradox) rules out truth.
Also quoting: “An actual” infinity is one that is actually infinite! We don’t have a simple way of conveying it other than by invoking images of a deity outside this universe.”
There is a simple geometric proof to convey the mechanism responsible for the infinities of extension and infinite regression. However, it sets an absolute limit on rationalism that falls short of the infinite.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2025.135099