How to discover truth
One has to train one’s intuition to have a good taste for truth. One can’t trust one’s self. I may forget relevant information. I may not understand the information presented. I could have a structural limitation hindering my search. One has to prove one’s self to the truth. Truth is attached to existence. Math and logic can show which actions have the highest probability of achieving a particular state of affairs. Science possesses a structured view of the world. These concepts are the beginnings of a good intuition of the natural world. Yet, truth and existence are perhaps biconditional. In a sense, the work of discovering truth is completed once one exists. There seems to be a search for something more than bare truth.
People, in general, can’t be assumed to know (or sometimes tell) the truth. Certain people can be trusted, though they must prove themselves to the truth as well. Experts can be trusted, but one almost needs to be an expert oneself to know if the other is an expert or not. Most people stick to their own specialty because of the lack of resources, such as time, money, sufficient amount of foundational knowledge. It would seem every generation of civilization has individuals with varying degrees of knowledge of particular subjects. The civilization doesn’t optimize for learning and knowledge exchange. Some knowledge seems inevitable because of the nature of the world, while other less biting knowledge are acquired by coincidence.
Mathematics becomes more and more important the higher up in the scope of understanding one goes. One also needs logic, which are innate to any system that seems to work. Math is easier to comprehend, it’s the application of numbers. This perhaps allows for numerical truths to be grounded on firmer grounds than other types of truths. Practically everything in our civilization has intentional numerical properties. Every object has dimensions, an amount produced, a value, etc. Maths allows us to perceive a uniformity in nature.
Logic is compact representatives of truths. Truth is always whole and parts, so logic is both deconstructable and constructable. Logic doesn’t create the truths of the world, the truths are generated results of terms mixing. If "A and B become C" is a fact of the world, then that fact becomes a logical truth in the world that can be broken down or used to build other truths. Formal logic also has a history of humans discovering many logical systems. So logic finds itself a part of many systems while itself also being a system.
Technology helps with discovering truth. It has better sensing, analysis, and calculation abilities than the typical animal. It also shows the variety of configurations matter can take. Computer programs allow for the externalization of sights and sounds that can be generated in the animal mind and external world. Programming languages are formalizations of mechanical logic. Mechanical logic, like those found in computers and other electric devices, require proofs to be conceived as languages, which are the devices themselves or an expressed system. The loose logic found in a natural language requires adherence to the syntactical rules, but any claim can be presented without proof (it’s just many people interrogate whatever they perceive as false).
Creativity is a part of the discovery of truth. Though it appears as a choosing between the many configurations the world can take. When others aren’t able to predict the configuration another chooses, they may consider the act as creative. Creativity can be denying the obvious for surprise effects. In a sense, creativity goes against logic, since the individual doesn't pick criteria based on functionality but rather based on aesthetics. Yet, it may be an unformalized logic of design based on individual ability and preferences. Natural language is useful in places like these where there is no set logical representation or mathematical formula, none beyond perhaps the reasoning from creativity.
Thursday, December 2, 2021
Monday, November 22, 2021
PWIP 42
Thoughts on Logic
Every proposition contains terms. The terms are defined using propositions. Perhaps one could consider the collection of all the terms with definitions the epistemic dictionary. There are actual dictionaries for languages and other subjects. Individuals contain in themselves certain symbols that they can give a kind of definition for. The terms are organized according to their epistemic closeness. This generates a knowledge network or web. Chains of propositions appear to form superstructures, like narratives and sciences.
Negation causes many problems in the search for truth through logic. All linguistic propositions can be negated through some kind of rejection response (though meaningful rejections come from informed justifications). Dissent can occur when terms conflict with each other. An object’s opposite may mix with it to produce a new object, or its negation leads them both to the null set or falsehood.
Epistemology is a subset of ontology. Everything that is discovered or is discoverable is innate to ontology. Ontology seems to be in control of all things since it is existence and existing is being what one is. Epistemology contains some parts of ontology. What does it mean for there to be ontological objects outside of epistemology? Some objects are perhaps unknowable. The dictionary could be the subset of epistemology that deals with knowable objects.
On the difference between “and” and “or” in logic and natural language
Can I clarify these concepts in my own mind? The term “and” means a term A is generated while a term B is generated. The term “or” means a term A can be generated, a term B can be generated. In logic (informal logic--since I’m no logician) “and” and “or” are binary functions that can span multiple terms. The term “and” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when all terms under its purview are true. The term “or” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when at least a few, but not all, of the terms under the function’s purview are true. In logic, changing the interpretation of the truth functions concerning the term “or” can result in the inclusive “or” or the exclusive “or”. The inclusive "or" appears to include the "and" function, whereas the exclusive "or" does not.
“And” seems to imply a time period. If the case is one can choose A and B, does the “and” change when one somehow takes A and B at different times; maybe A and B are taken at the same time, or A is taken then B is taken? The natural language (English language at least) doesn’t distinguish between the time beyond some condition on the “and,” such as simultaneity or ordering. A kind of “and” seems to exist between all terms. Relationships seem to be cases of “and.” It could be the logical “and” is implicit whenever multiplicity is involved.
Every proposition contains terms. The terms are defined using propositions. Perhaps one could consider the collection of all the terms with definitions the epistemic dictionary. There are actual dictionaries for languages and other subjects. Individuals contain in themselves certain symbols that they can give a kind of definition for. The terms are organized according to their epistemic closeness. This generates a knowledge network or web. Chains of propositions appear to form superstructures, like narratives and sciences.
Negation causes many problems in the search for truth through logic. All linguistic propositions can be negated through some kind of rejection response (though meaningful rejections come from informed justifications). Dissent can occur when terms conflict with each other. An object’s opposite may mix with it to produce a new object, or its negation leads them both to the null set or falsehood.
Epistemology is a subset of ontology. Everything that is discovered or is discoverable is innate to ontology. Ontology seems to be in control of all things since it is existence and existing is being what one is. Epistemology contains some parts of ontology. What does it mean for there to be ontological objects outside of epistemology? Some objects are perhaps unknowable. The dictionary could be the subset of epistemology that deals with knowable objects.
On the difference between “and” and “or” in logic and natural language
Can I clarify these concepts in my own mind? The term “and” means a term A is generated while a term B is generated. The term “or” means a term A can be generated, a term B can be generated. In logic (informal logic--since I’m no logician) “and” and “or” are binary functions that can span multiple terms. The term “and” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when all terms under its purview are true. The term “or” as used in natural language is used for the truth function of the binary function that is true when at least a few, but not all, of the terms under the function’s purview are true. In logic, changing the interpretation of the truth functions concerning the term “or” can result in the inclusive “or” or the exclusive “or”. The inclusive "or" appears to include the "and" function, whereas the exclusive "or" does not.
“And” seems to imply a time period. If the case is one can choose A and B, does the “and” change when one somehow takes A and B at different times; maybe A and B are taken at the same time, or A is taken then B is taken? The natural language (English language at least) doesn’t distinguish between the time beyond some condition on the “and,” such as simultaneity or ordering. A kind of “and” seems to exist between all terms. Relationships seem to be cases of “and.” It could be the logical “and” is implicit whenever multiplicity is involved.
Thursday, February 4, 2021
On News
There’s certain qualities news has that could be considered. News can be true or false and good or bad. News, for the most part, is a message about events. The message is delivered through a medium. Messages can be delivered through notes, gossip, television, loudspeakers, telephones, online media. News appears to have a significance to the present. Past events with no current significance would be deemed moments in history rather than news. Though one can’t know the future in the same way one knows the past, there can be news concerning the future in the form of plans. The most trustworthy information is perhaps one’s own experience. Albeit without a well-informed worldview one may not have a sufficient understanding of events. It seems difficult for one to construct a message that can adequately express events without the necessary understanding. Once constructed the message doesn’t appear difficult to replicate, a repetition of the message would suffice. When trying to parse true news from false, one must consider the fact that homo sapiens can error intentionally or unintentionally. There are various levels of news based on understanding, and various domains that use news.
Communities appear to spread news based on some importance threshold. There’s perhaps more ability to confirm the truthfulness of community news due to the locality, though perhaps one may not have the authority to request answers for certain questions. Religion is another institution that uses news. Those whom some god/s has deemed worthy deliver the messages of said god/s. This news can be difficult to confirm because of the weak connection between the source, content, and receiver. The state uses news to deliver commands and the current state of affairs. Identifying the lies of the state may be dependent on one’s intelligence. Major events are harder to cover up than minor events, but one may be too remote from either to obtain the appropriate facts. Science uses the news. Events are expressed in very specific ways to make understanding uniform (or more uniform than merely speaking the same language). Receivers are asked to repeat events to confirm the truth of the conclusion of the messages. Other domains that use the news don’t typically have this ask, in many cases such an ask is impossible.
Communities appear to spread news based on some importance threshold. There’s perhaps more ability to confirm the truthfulness of community news due to the locality, though perhaps one may not have the authority to request answers for certain questions. Religion is another institution that uses news. Those whom some god/s has deemed worthy deliver the messages of said god/s. This news can be difficult to confirm because of the weak connection between the source, content, and receiver. The state uses news to deliver commands and the current state of affairs. Identifying the lies of the state may be dependent on one’s intelligence. Major events are harder to cover up than minor events, but one may be too remote from either to obtain the appropriate facts. Science uses the news. Events are expressed in very specific ways to make understanding uniform (or more uniform than merely speaking the same language). Receivers are asked to repeat events to confirm the truth of the conclusion of the messages. Other domains that use the news don’t typically have this ask, in many cases such an ask is impossible.
Wednesday, January 6, 2021
PWIP 41
Ethics Economics
Objects have different values across domains which are weighted by importance, or something like that. They are objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, and subjective domains. There’s a range of actions an agent can choose from that are within ethics, which is from perfect to good enough. Out of all possible objects appropriate ones are chosen and compared. The generation of ethics is dependent on what resources it has to work with.
Hopefully, I’ve pointed at some concepts I believe are part of ethics. The objective domain contains these things but attempts to deal with utilitarian maths in a practical way. Objects have various values and knowing which has the highest objective value at any given time depends on the relationship between values. One would need to put a value on all aspects of one’s life. Some values aren’t concerned with ethics, while others are, they all have an impact on ethics nonetheless. They appear in one another and interfere with each other. The objective value contained by an object relates to its high impact on helping others. It takes some intelligence to know what set of objects is virtuous at any given moment.
The second meaningful domain appears to be functionality. It has the next highest weight because it is some kind of function, e.g. pain, that brings about the need for ethics. We see existence first as that which can’t not work. It works even in nonexistence. We fall into pragmatism here, for anything without use appears contrary to all causes. However, use floats around everywhere like existence and is also problematic because of this. Ontology uses All to bolster itself, and epistemology seeks to know All for the sake of knowing. Mere existence brings use, but ethics doesn’t need the All.
The universal domain starts to bring in notions of abundance/scarcity, supply/demand, and nature/technology. Anything with high universal value would be most abundant in the environment, and therefore economically cheap. However, these objects can be reconfigured or alternatively used to generate more value. Objects that are less universal are like aesthetics, they can tend towards conflict. Technology helps to deal with the problem of scarcity by creating exact duplicates. Technology itself is not universal, however, as the intelligence to make machines and factories isn’t abundant among all objects. Whereas nature has no demands only supplies, technology has many demands.
Various objects have use by different groups of ethical agents. The common use and view of economics is by a collective. The leaders, laws, and beliefs (some of which are within ethics, some not) influence the movement of value. Leadership as a role has a value. Beliefs as reasons for actions also have their own value. When there is conflict between a significant mass of individuals, there is a division in the collective. If all individuals conflicted with every other individual, then there would be no collective. As we see individuals give (willingly or not) allegiance to other individuals, a collective can be generated with enough connected networks of allegiances.
The individual is the abstract notion of being one. As such it appears to be situated at the center of freedom/choice. Being stripped of distinct parts it appears to take many forms. The individual also fills whatever container it appears in. The individualistic domain has a contentious relationship with the collective. Many collective beliefs are objects of an individual, but not an individual qua individual, but an individual qua person. If the collective isn’t mostly virtuous agents, then the individual need not sacrifice for it, or at least there’s no blame from ethics either way. One virtuous individual is of more value than many vice agents, but no virtuous agent would sit still with such a predicament. The virtuous individual’s obligation is to ethics rather than the self.
The physical domain of objects has been of high value throughout history. Many physical struggles must be overcomed before one can seek more psychological value. The past needs physical representations so it isn’t disputed by the present. It is the physical manifestation of the self, other, and object that makes the world impactful and a pressing matter. Communication to the other must occur over the physical medium. And we see the physical appear in the pragmatic. Advances in technology and science have brought about more nonphysical objects. Whereas these were mostly stories and ideas in the past, now there is digital information and its various forms.
The personal domain appears to value those objects which are considered part of one's identity. The notions of consumer and producer are seen here. That which one produces or consumes one assumes control over. One has one’s own supply of objects which are no longer considered as mere parts of the world. Thus what has personal value may be valuable in this sense only to one individual, or many individuals who share, or it may be valued by one because it is valued by another who is valued. The personal adds history and narrative to the individual.
The psychological domain is in a sense the most important. There probably wouldn’t be a need to instantiate ethics without positive/negative feelings and pleasure/pain. Without intelligence, there would be no way to the functional much less the objective, though that is psychology used in a particular way. Psychology is generated by the brain, the physical structure. As such there are physical correlations to psychological events. There’s not enough knowledge about the brain to place all exact causes on specific effects. The physical contains the psychological, and the psychological consumes the physical since there appears to be detection of the world. Psychology doesn’t appear wholly owned by the person, as it is something for the most part built by nature.
Those objects which apply pleasure to the senses have high aesthetic value. Beauty comes in many forms which have been pointed out to be problematic. Ontology welcomes All, there is no need for the struggle between beauty and ugliness. In epistemology, there are distinctions made between existence and nonexistence, as well as truth and falsity. Beauty/ugliness can be applied in epistemology, but the outcomes aren’t as simple as truth is beauty and falsity is ugly.
Vice needs a vehicle to operate. There are certain objects used to harm others. There are objects which cause harm but aren’t used by agents. Agents may claim certain items good that are not. The intent to harm rises subjective value, but there can be harm without intent or awareness of vice. This value may perhaps best be understood as blame. Yet though we may blame a certain bad event on nature, nature doesn’t act intelligently. The subjective is related to the hard problem of consciousness, in that we seem able to choose between rationality and irrationality, logic and illogical, and virtue and vice.
Objects have different values across domains which are weighted by importance, or something like that. They are objective, functional, universal, collectivistic, individualistic, physical, personal, psychological, aesthetic, and subjective domains. There’s a range of actions an agent can choose from that are within ethics, which is from perfect to good enough. Out of all possible objects appropriate ones are chosen and compared. The generation of ethics is dependent on what resources it has to work with.
Hopefully, I’ve pointed at some concepts I believe are part of ethics. The objective domain contains these things but attempts to deal with utilitarian maths in a practical way. Objects have various values and knowing which has the highest objective value at any given time depends on the relationship between values. One would need to put a value on all aspects of one’s life. Some values aren’t concerned with ethics, while others are, they all have an impact on ethics nonetheless. They appear in one another and interfere with each other. The objective value contained by an object relates to its high impact on helping others. It takes some intelligence to know what set of objects is virtuous at any given moment.
The second meaningful domain appears to be functionality. It has the next highest weight because it is some kind of function, e.g. pain, that brings about the need for ethics. We see existence first as that which can’t not work. It works even in nonexistence. We fall into pragmatism here, for anything without use appears contrary to all causes. However, use floats around everywhere like existence and is also problematic because of this. Ontology uses All to bolster itself, and epistemology seeks to know All for the sake of knowing. Mere existence brings use, but ethics doesn’t need the All.
The universal domain starts to bring in notions of abundance/scarcity, supply/demand, and nature/technology. Anything with high universal value would be most abundant in the environment, and therefore economically cheap. However, these objects can be reconfigured or alternatively used to generate more value. Objects that are less universal are like aesthetics, they can tend towards conflict. Technology helps to deal with the problem of scarcity by creating exact duplicates. Technology itself is not universal, however, as the intelligence to make machines and factories isn’t abundant among all objects. Whereas nature has no demands only supplies, technology has many demands.
Various objects have use by different groups of ethical agents. The common use and view of economics is by a collective. The leaders, laws, and beliefs (some of which are within ethics, some not) influence the movement of value. Leadership as a role has a value. Beliefs as reasons for actions also have their own value. When there is conflict between a significant mass of individuals, there is a division in the collective. If all individuals conflicted with every other individual, then there would be no collective. As we see individuals give (willingly or not) allegiance to other individuals, a collective can be generated with enough connected networks of allegiances.
The individual is the abstract notion of being one. As such it appears to be situated at the center of freedom/choice. Being stripped of distinct parts it appears to take many forms. The individual also fills whatever container it appears in. The individualistic domain has a contentious relationship with the collective. Many collective beliefs are objects of an individual, but not an individual qua individual, but an individual qua person. If the collective isn’t mostly virtuous agents, then the individual need not sacrifice for it, or at least there’s no blame from ethics either way. One virtuous individual is of more value than many vice agents, but no virtuous agent would sit still with such a predicament. The virtuous individual’s obligation is to ethics rather than the self.
The physical domain of objects has been of high value throughout history. Many physical struggles must be overcomed before one can seek more psychological value. The past needs physical representations so it isn’t disputed by the present. It is the physical manifestation of the self, other, and object that makes the world impactful and a pressing matter. Communication to the other must occur over the physical medium. And we see the physical appear in the pragmatic. Advances in technology and science have brought about more nonphysical objects. Whereas these were mostly stories and ideas in the past, now there is digital information and its various forms.
The personal domain appears to value those objects which are considered part of one's identity. The notions of consumer and producer are seen here. That which one produces or consumes one assumes control over. One has one’s own supply of objects which are no longer considered as mere parts of the world. Thus what has personal value may be valuable in this sense only to one individual, or many individuals who share, or it may be valued by one because it is valued by another who is valued. The personal adds history and narrative to the individual.
The psychological domain is in a sense the most important. There probably wouldn’t be a need to instantiate ethics without positive/negative feelings and pleasure/pain. Without intelligence, there would be no way to the functional much less the objective, though that is psychology used in a particular way. Psychology is generated by the brain, the physical structure. As such there are physical correlations to psychological events. There’s not enough knowledge about the brain to place all exact causes on specific effects. The physical contains the psychological, and the psychological consumes the physical since there appears to be detection of the world. Psychology doesn’t appear wholly owned by the person, as it is something for the most part built by nature.
Those objects which apply pleasure to the senses have high aesthetic value. Beauty comes in many forms which have been pointed out to be problematic. Ontology welcomes All, there is no need for the struggle between beauty and ugliness. In epistemology, there are distinctions made between existence and nonexistence, as well as truth and falsity. Beauty/ugliness can be applied in epistemology, but the outcomes aren’t as simple as truth is beauty and falsity is ugly.
Vice needs a vehicle to operate. There are certain objects used to harm others. There are objects which cause harm but aren’t used by agents. Agents may claim certain items good that are not. The intent to harm rises subjective value, but there can be harm without intent or awareness of vice. This value may perhaps best be understood as blame. Yet though we may blame a certain bad event on nature, nature doesn’t act intelligently. The subjective is related to the hard problem of consciousness, in that we seem able to choose between rationality and irrationality, logic and illogical, and virtue and vice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)