/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/
|
|
|
/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/ |
 | Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft) | |
| Posted By: Yossarian | Date: 4/12/04 4:41 p.m. |
| In Response To: Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft) (Forrest of B.org) : Maybe you can help me rephrase this then... : The assumption of the negative came about from observations about behavior
"When one is given to ponder a premise or statement that challenges his standing mental representation of actual reality, and otherwise cannot be immediately proven or is not immediately apparent, it follows logically that the individual not regard the premise as fact, and lend it no credit until it can be proven empirically or experienced firsthand. The individual in question, must, however, recognize that once proven, a premise or statement is vulnerable to revision and cancellation, and that his perspective on the validity of the premise is his alone, and cannot necessarily be extended as a univeral truth to other persons. This is not to say that all propositions be considered 'false' until proven 'true'; 'false' implies a final judgement towards the validity of the proposition whereas it has not occured. Rather, it is more prudent to consider a proposition as 'not true', or, more accurately, 'possible'." Or some such thing. The secret is to never make a definite statement. Instead of saying "yes" or "no" I typically answer with a question. In conversation, my trademark is "it's entirely possible"...it's my 5th amendment. : But if you tell me "something is..." and that is something outside
Not necessarily. In this casse I must now assume that what you are telling me is "not true" or "entirely possible" until shown otherwise. Assuming that there are things out there that you don't know about implies a reality that exists independent of you, a "master reality" if you will. Is this the case? This is why I say if you know everything you know, then you know everything, because you can't know something you don't know. Once you see it, or are taught it, or are exposed to it, then you know it, and therefore, you know it. I think that even you must concede that knowing and experiencing are two different things. You know that the technology is present to allow manned missions to the moon, but will you ever *experience* it first hand? Herein lies the difference between knowledge and experience; empathy is a product of experience, but we're not talking about empathy, so moving on... : I subscribe to many physicists' point of view that since math seems to so
Or is math just another method of explanation, or another method of statement? Granted, there are many, many things that are explained mathematically that would be impractical or impossible to do with words. However, I do not think this changes the fact that mathematical hypotheses are no different than logical hypotheses put forward in words. Mathematics is pure only when it is seemingly true, and something that appears as though it should be logical mathematically is not always the case, mathematically. Like all human tools, mathematics were invented, and not stumbled upon. Through evolution we are conveniently hard-wired to deal with mathematics, such as we are with language. I will say the organization or the percieved cosmic order to which we apply mathematics is discovered, but mathematics was invented in order to facilitate the discovery. : You seem to feel that math is an invention of human minds that conveniently
Yup. : Except that you can never know everything... not only because of the set
Turn that around: can one truly know anything? Reality, actual, cognitive, sensitive, can be nothing more than the amalgamation of assumptions and perceptions that we establish at a very young age and build upon as we grow psychologically. There also exists the practical problem of what knowledge actually is. If I have a fact stored in my brain but cannot recall it, do I truly "know" it? Is knowledge everything we have heard or simply what we can repeat? Or is it only what we have applied? Is knowing things that are no longer true knowledge? Is knowing something, or believing a lie as fact true knowledge? To the believer it is. So, until that's resolved, I have to agree, with "everything" being "anything imaginable and beyond", then you are "correct" in assuming that not everything can be known. : Nihilist. How sweet, you noticed. : Well this comes down to something else I intend to add to a later version:
But it is up to you to determine what is best for the whole? Personally, I wouldn't take such repsonsibility, especially if it isn't necessary. What gives us the right to meddle with the masses by determining for them what is "better"? This is how those in institutions of power justify the dissemination of their moral doctrine. I don't mind it when people make the "best guess" towards what is or is not moral to them, I think it's just great, but when people are convinced that they are right, and that their morality is superior, well, that's when it gets dangerous. The scary thing is that there are such people out there, who would sacrifice a lot to get you to believe what they do, it's their moral obligation to get you to do so. This is why I am wary of anyone claiming that what is good for Person A is good for persons B thorugh Z. : Again, hence the time clause. If going a lot of good now will cause more bad
The real problem here being that there is no scientific or mathematical :P way of measuring "net good" or "moral". The future holds as an exception to the rule of assuming the "not true" when it comes to making assumptions. Those who dictate public policy *hope* the net effect will be positive. The conclusion: These are not logical people, they all think they're "right", they all think they are "moral". It in itself serves as a microcosm for all human interaction. : I agree. Do nothing unless you have reason to think it will have a net good
Sometimes you have to break some eggs to get an omelette. The Russians burned Moscow to the ground to keep it out of Napoleon's hands. This all comes down to the ends justifying the means. Do they ever? Do they never? If an action will cause a damage of -999 on the morality scale but an improvement of 1000 on the same, is the 1 net improvement justified? What if that net 1 takes years to accomplish and thousands of lives and billions of dollars? Shit, I'm just glad I'm, not the one making all the big decisions. : I agree completely, hence why I have both variety and balance. Think of it
I smell math. I think God would be mad if he knew you were trying to fit His universe into a bell curve. I'd be careful, it sounds like those invisible elves in your pockets are dangerously close to your "senstive areas" and, well, we all know that elves have a great capacity for mischief. ;) | |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| Replies: |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12. |