Your comment had to do with "measurable properties."

My contention is with the "measurable" part. Usually that word implies a form of materialism (ie, measurable means that it has some length, weight, or interacts with the physical word in some manner). Is this what you meant?

I do not agree with your assertion. The difference is the role of agency. If the telekinetic man is simply moving things around at random, then you're right that the people will never be able to discern anything useful about the activity. However, if the telekinetic man were to perform specific actions, such as rearranging letters on a Scrabble board to form messages, then one can at least infer something about the telekinetic man, even though that man may not be fully understood.

The concept is that agency is distinguishable for non-agency.

From having to claim anything about anything. In any philosophical argument, it's always harder to affirm an idea than to argue against it (actually, this is true with most debates). So the one playing defense is at a disadvantage.

Notice Eddi's position:

I don't believe that Eddi is actually so dumb. I'm quite sure he's capable of understanding the difference between "universe" and "physical universe." I have already cited examples of physical and non-physical objects and he has yet to try to claim that ideas are physical objects. So I know he's aware of them.

But rather than actually "play along" (even for the sake of argument) he instead posits what I view to be an intentionally asinine response in which he purposefully negates the definition that is being established. When I point this out, this is the response:

And now the game is that he's going to throw out the two pieces as if they are one.

So I know the game is rigged against me. And I don't have the time or the patience to play it with no purpose. I've always been content to have conversations with people who want to engage the conversation for the sake of conversation. I've not always been content to play games that simply waste time.

I know that I cannot give a fully formalized abstraction of the universe as I understand it from first principles. I know better than to try. But I also know that nobody else can, either. There are certain assumptions about the world which we have pieced together from our own experiences (combined with whatever natural inclinations we have been given from birth) that form the basis of our ability (and desire) to understand different things.

I cannot *GIVE* him a mental category for color. He can *GAIN* it, but as an educator I hold the belief that knowledge is *RECEIVED*.

Edit: There are some students for whom 5x + 3x = 8x^2 seems to be the right thing to do. I can tell them that it's wrong. I can use multiple examples to help them to understand the error. I can plug in numbers to show them that the two sides aren't equal. I can use analogies and diagrams to help them to make sense of it. I can even go back and reconstruct basic ideas for them. But some students got in the habit of pushing symbols around without meaning, and they will continue to do so. Maybe they will eventually break their habit, but maybe not. But there's only so much I can do.

If you do not accept the idea that classifications can be meaningful without having a general scheme of determining whether any particular object is in or out of the class, then you will never get over the conception of miracle that I have set forth. I have repeatedly stated that I do not need to define rigid boundaries on the category in order for the category to make sense. You disagree. What more can I do?

You are quite well spoken in general, so I'm sure you understand why this is.


I'm not sure how you can have a classification without a general scheme of determining whether any particular object fits it or not, at least in the philosophical sense. This may not cross over into the real world, since we may not have a means of determining properties, but in the philosophical sense we can.

Where has tame_deuces disagreed with that?! It's a truism, so I highly doubt he rejects it.

The problem is just this: your 'miracles' category doesn't have any boundaries at all! (If I insist that EVERYTHING is a miracle, how can you show I am wrong?)

The problem is that you're blind enough not to see that the rest of your points heavily rely on you silently assuming stuff about what the phrase "physical universe" means. You had a circular collection of points and one way for you to see this is for you to actually go ahead and EXPLAIN THE WORDS YOU USE.

And surely you can pussy out and hide behind phrases like "the game is rigged" or try giving supposed analogies of "physical universe" to 0.99.. = 1 (where people weren't hiding behind anything btw - they gave clear definitions and proofs from the very fundamentals - for anyone willing to READ, WHICH I AM) and avoid answering the very simple question or you could MAN UP AND FACE YOURSELF.

How many times have you pushed the discussion into me defining more and more terms for you? And yet here you're giving up at the very first definition. Not the 5th, not the 10th - the very first.

I can't. The definition was never intended to prove or disprove anything.

The reason it seems "circular" is because I hold a different set of primitives than you. It's like "What is 'is'?".

You clearly do not understand the analogy. The analogy is that the failure of people to understand those things is not because the information isn't there, but because they have other intellectual blocks (or perhaps even deficiencies) that prevent them from understanding the idea in the same way that others understand the idea.

I've stated before, and I'll state it again. When a precise definition can be stated, I am willing to pursue stating it. But in some situations, a precise definition is not possible ("What is math?") in which case I'll readily admit that I can't give one, and life goes on.

The reason it seems circular is because you're not explaining the words you're using. I can fully accept that I don't understand what you wrote which is why it seems that way - and that's exactly why I'm asking for an explanation of what it is that you wrote.

Pity is on the child that comes to you and asks you what a "physical universe" is.

Isn't that what I just said with "What is 'is'?"?

Pity is on the child that has the intellect to ask about the "physical universe" in a meaningful way, but cannot parse "physical" from "universe" in a meaningful way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager

Ok, I'm done here. I don't have superpowers that can get other people to use their brain when they don't want to.

I cannot figure out what you are asking for. Maybe I'll play, explain it to me. I'd like to see you and Aaron W continue the convo, so maybe if I can help getting over a hump you guys can continue.

Aarron insists that Eddi will not understand his definition of Physical Universe if he gives it.

The way that I have been reading it is that Aaron is claiming a specific definition cannot be made just like it cannot be make for "what is math". But I don't understand why this is not acceptable. Nor do I understand why this is even a question

Further, I think the crux of it is Aaron wants to discuss the true essence of things (that which actually is), and Eddi appears to wants to discuss the perceived essence (that which we know through evidence and reason) of things. As I discussed a few pages ago with my post about Miracle-e and Miracle-a. These sets overlap, but are not distinct.

Ok, it started here:

Because it stems back to the first page on posts #12 and #13 where Aaron uses the word natural universe, and since that we have had 150 posts discussing why he cannot/will not define or attempt to define it.



I already pointed out we are in a kind of Loki's wager fallacy here, but I think this example demonstrates what Aaron is saying further:

I'm not sure if we need that level of granularity, since the terms in the discussion, since God is clearly supernatural, and an event in the physical universe is either directly caused by a supernatural agent or it is not, I'm not sure where the granularity is here. It either is, or is not.

I think that Eddi will agree with this, if we are hypothetically in the exact same universe as ours, where a supernatural agent does exists:

Not quite. I'm saying that I *CAN'T* give it. I can give examples of objects in the physical universe, and objects that are NOT in the physical universe. A reasonable person will have the ability to agree that physical objects are physical (rocks and trees) and non-physical objects are non-physical (ideas), but I cannot give a definition even if I wanted to that will be sufficient for declaring the boundary between the two categories in a useful way. (Edit: This does not help us declare *ALL* objects as either physical or non-physical, but I'm claiming such a scheme is not necessary.)

For example, if "physical universe" is defined by objects that have length or mass, then something like "magnetic field" is not part of the physical universe. But if I define the universe to be "anything that has a measurable effect" then "ideas" become a part of the physical universe (since an idea can lead one to perform an action that is measurable, thereby the idea becomes physical).

This is why it is so important for this type of conversation to describe objects by their essence (what they are) and not by their effect (what they do) or by generic epistemological methodology (what you must do to know what essence it is).

The same line of reasoning comes down when talking about "What is math?" If someone writes the number 3, have they done math? If they write 1+1=2? Is that math? What if they're just copying symbols out of a book without having any conception as to the meaning of the symbols? If that counts as math, then a very patient 5 year old can prove Fermat's Last Theorem by just copying symbol after symbol.

"THERE is just the world, with its many aspects: mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic, optical, mental---aspects that we may hope to unify somehow, but how no one knows. We can speak of "the physical world,'' if we like, but for emphasis, without implying that there is some other world---rather the way we speak of the "real truth,'' without meaning that there is some other kind of truth....There is no longer a "mind-body problem,'' because there is no useful notion of "body,'' of the "material'' or "physical'' world. The terms simply indicate what is more or less understood and assimilable in some manner to core physics, whatever that turns out to be....For individual psychology, the emergence hypothesis of contemporary neuroscience becomes a truism: there is no coherent alternative, with the abandonment of materialism in any significant sense of the concept...
~ Noam Chomsky, "Linguistics and Brain Science" in The Essential Chomsky (emphasis mine)

I think this sums up Eddi's position ITT, but of course he can clarify if he in fact differs.

Physical Universe
advance planning
advance reservations
armed gunman
basic fundamentals
Déjà vu all over again
commute back and forth
never at any time
poisonous venom
regular routine
small speck
surrounded on all sides
unexpected surprise
former graduate
postpone until later
soft to the touch
sum total
tuna fish
unexpected surprise
current incumbent
foreign imports
minestrone soup
past history

Based on your read of Chomsky, would he define an idea to be a part of the "physical world"? (Note that an idea is different from a thought.)

Edit: Actually, he's saying something much less. Declaring that there is a "physical world" even in my conceptualization does not imply that there is necessarily something outside of it. But I demonstrate that there *ARE* things outside of it by example.

Why do you need to ask for my reading? Again: "There is the world...We can speak of 'the physical world,'' if we like, but for emphasis, without implying that there is some other world." The (physical) world is all that is.

So nothing is "outside" the (physical) world. The (physical) world is what is. The (physical) world is what is. The (physical) world is what is. Goodness. And as I said earlier, you should always assume this is the intended meaning of such terms.

Your conclusion clearly does not follow from the statement.

Edit: Let me help by removing a bunch of extraneous clauses:

I agree that this is true. But this is not what you are claiming:

"There is just the world, with its many aspects."

Ok. Now do you think that Chomsky intends his concept of 'world' to exclude some things which are actually the case? Why would he intend such a silly thing? Obviously the '(physical) world' is to be taken as: all that is the case.