Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Philosophy & Science / Re: Is there really a Determinism/Indeterminism Dichotomy?
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 18, 2018, 07:36:40 pm »
Loved the paper - Meillassoux really gets to the heart of the problem. Randomness as Hyper Chaos is not some mish-mash of pre-Creation chaos with all substance being indeterminate. That suggests a Probablity Law that impinges on stability.

Since Hyper Chaos doesn't adhere even to Probability Laws, Everything can arise in seeming Orderly fashion and continue to work that way for trillions of years...or even Forever...

Right, his point, seemed to me, to be that we have no real way of knowing if Laws will stand in the next moment only because they happened to have stood in the previous one.

Here are two more links:
(The site is in Russian, but if you complete the captcha and hit the button, it will download.)

Meillasoux really digs into the heart of the problem, that the True Materialism would have to become rational by the extinguishing of Natural Laws.

I need to dig deeper into these links (can't get the Russian site to work for me) but I am still unsure about where he positions the Logical Universals necessary for the rational in this. Of course any reductionist account has to find a way to square this problem of how to account for the authority of logic, probably why I'm more on the Platonist's side here...
Literature / Re: Fantasy recs for children, ages 8-12
« Last post by MSJ on November 18, 2018, 01:16:40 am »
Please keep recs coming, would love to hear more.

My daughter has, on many a occasion, seen me reading a hard back of one of the books or seen me on here and asked about the books. I give her a PG preview of what they are about. She gets excited and wants to read them. Lol, I have to tell her she just isn't ready for them. She says, "Why Daddy?". That explanation is a little bit harder.
Literature / Re: Fantasy recs for children, ages 8-12
« Last post by MSJ on November 17, 2018, 11:03:00 pm »
Quote from:  SmilerLoki
There is also "The Chronicles of Narnia" by Clive Staples Lewis, a classic. It's totally safe for an 8-year-old.

Her grandmother actually purchased this for Xmas for her. That's another she has been asking for. Thanks for the recs SL.

I cant wait til she is in her late teens and I can go to the bookshelf, or kindle and bless her with TDTCB. Be great to answer all her questions.
Literature / Re: Fantasy recs for children, ages 8-12
« Last post by SmilerLoki on November 17, 2018, 10:27:05 pm »
I would recommend to look at Diana Wynne Jones' works, starting with the Chrestomanci series (but she has written a lot, and all of it is for children, I think). I'm pretty sure "Fablehaven" by Brandon Mull is going to be very much to your daughter's liking (and probably also to yours), but it involves some serious matters and tough choices (not in the first book, that one's safe). Then, when she gets a tad older, "The Ruby Red" trilogy by Kerstin Gier is very nice, simple to understand even considering it involves time travel, and beautifully written. It has a bit of kissing, though, so at least some appreciation of romance is required.

There is also "The Chronicles of Narnia" by Clive Staples Lewis, a classic. It's totally safe for an 8-year-old.

On a related note, I was reading Silmarillion at age 7, and it was fairly awesome, with complex pronunciation only helping to establish my reading comprehension.
Literature / Fantasy recs for children, ages 8-12
« Last post by MSJ on November 17, 2018, 09:57:24 pm »
My daughter has a love for reading. Which, in this day and age, is something that seems to be rare. She reads roughly a book a month. As I mentioned in the Quorum, she is in the middle of the HP novels. She loves them. Her favorite movie is LotR. But, I dont feel she is ready for it, as some of the words are very hard to pronunciate.

I never got into fantasy until after the 1st season of GoT. So, my knowledge of fantasy for children is very limited. She loves it though. I was wondering if you good folks could give me any age appropriate recs.

She loves all that draws us to fantasy. The escape, the magic, the interesting characters and so on. She likes scary things, yet nothing too out there (I dont want her scared for life). So, that being said, use common sense and give me some recs that would fit my description. Thanks!
Philosophy & Science / Re: Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer?
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 17, 2018, 09:54:56 pm »
Is it just me or Information not really defined here?

For example I can't tell you from reading the article whether Information is a physical substance or some kind of Platonic mathematical "stuff"...
General Misc. / Re: Is anyone else blown away by this or is it just me?
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 17, 2018, 08:51:37 pm »
Exactly - there is no table - and not speaking in some meta-physical/philosophical/whatever-ical sense, it's not there. It's a slightly denser "collection" of atoms/molecules "different" from other collections and our minds cooked up an interpretation of it so we can interact with it.

This is why I am apt to put forth the idea that our mental representations, and so our ideas, are actually more real than anything we can term subjective reality.

Consider the following example: you buy a new house and it is empty of furniture.  You get in a box, take the contents out, regarding the packaging as "garbage."  Only now you realize that whatever this thing is, you need a place to assemble it, possibly because it will be a messy process.  Now, the box that was "garbage" is now, "table."  Upon being done with said assembly, the "box," once "garbage" now "table" returns again to "garbage."  All while still being the same physical object.

The point of this poor allusion being, of course, to illustrate your point that things only exist how we conceptualize them to.  That is, the conception is what is real, to us.  We cannot interact with that which we cannot conceive of.

Hmmm but don't we know it's "garbage" on a longer time scale according to our intentions?

So our mental representation of the box doesn't change, just our use of it. I think this is different than the reductionist question, which is whether the table is an object in itself...which I kinda think it is?

On the level of the material the table clearly has some distinction, I mean one can make the argument the table and its surroundings are just atoms but to even get to atoms one has to accept the reality of the macro-level instruments physicists use.

At the level of mental representation the table is in an object within our thoughts. There's what philosophers call Intentionality - our thought about the table. This aboutness allows us to make use of the table, and aboutness about macro-level instruments in turn gives us the picture of atoms.

It seems something very interesting is going on here, at least to me, because the question to then ask is how can the matter in the brain be About a table? How is one arrangement of atoms intrinsically About another arrangement of atoms?
Philosophy & Science / Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer?
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 17, 2018, 07:53:12 pm »
Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer?

Just like a quantum computer, physical processes involve the exchange and processing of information. Lloyd explains that when two electrons interact, their velocities and spins interact just like the patterns of firing neurons do in the brains of two businessmen talking on the phone. The amount of information lost during a process is related to how complex the encoding of information is. Lloyd compares this to long division: the results of the intermediate steps in long division are useless, or “junk” information (Lloyd, 2007). Physicists want to know the relevant information as well as this discarded information.

Think about your laptop; what is the limit to the amount of information it can process? There are two limitations; the first being that most of the energy is locked up in the mass of the computer itself, and the second being that a computer uses many electrical signals to just register one bit. Perhaps the information of the universe is limited in the same way. Just like any natural process, how fast a computer can process information must be limited by its energy and the number of degrees of freedom it possesses.

Ed Fredkin first proposed that the universe could be a computer in the 1960’s, as well as Konrad Zuse who came up with the idea independently. In their view, the universe could be a type of computer called a cellular automaton, which describes a dynamic system that is broken apart into black and white grids, in which cells gather information from the surrounding cells on whether or not to change color (Lloyd, 2007). This is similar to the way a line or moving colony of ants might share information between each other about their surroundings, signaling to each other whether or not to follow a food trail.
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Case Against Quantum Computing
« Last post by TaoHorror on November 17, 2018, 02:21:30 pm »
I agree.
Philosophy & Science / Re: The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
« Last post by sciborg2 on November 17, 2018, 01:26:42 am »
I don't get it. How can you know what is known without knowing? Maybe I'm getting a bit tired here...

That's an interesting idea and would certainly fuck up our attempts at ever understanding it.

I mean we do know the results of the experiment, but we see the extensibility of the results through application. I don't think it's much different than the way we progress from animal lab research to human trials to marketed drugs.

We find success in a smaller context then look to see how extensible it is.

As for laws, that's a thorny concept anyway but I don't know if the metaphysics really matters in practice. Scientists still gonna Science. :-)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10