User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2018-01-11 at 10:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon What is to say that the phenomenon that causes the rainbow could not be interpreted into a colour in the exact same way that your brain does? The same way that some assortment of 1s and 0s on a flash drive could be interpreted into a picture. The colour "blue" could very well be physically manifest in the wavelength of light being emitted from there. It doesn't exist any more or less in your brain than it does in the wavelength of light.
Something could interpret the information as a rainbow the same way my brain does; but the point is that until something does, there is no rainbow, just the information. What's to stop something from interpreting that information into a picture of a cat, or a novel? To quote something you yourself said earlier in the thread, the arrangement of 1s and 0s that could become a picture of a cat, is not "objectively" a picture of a cat. It has to be interpreted in an extremely specific context to become a picture of a cat. That informational content doesn't exist in any meaningful way, it's just one way of interpreting the physical content of the harddrive. If you open that picture of a cat as a text file, it's not going to be a picture of a cat any more.
As I said, nothing is coloured until light enters an eye and a brain turns that light into colour (or something equivalent to an eye and brain). Yes, things exist that reflect or absorb different wavelengths of light. Again, those things are not blue unless light enters an eye and a brain turns that information into whatever you experience as "blue".
Don't you agree with that? -
2018-01-11 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Something could interpret the information as a rainbow the same way my brain does; but the point is that until something does, there is no rainbow, just the information. What's to stop something from interpreting that information into a picture of a cat, or a novel? To quote something you yourself said earlier in the thread, the arrangement of 1s and 0s that could become a picture of a cat, is not "objectively" a picture of a cat. It has to be interpreted in an extremely specific context to become a picture of a cat. That informational content doesn't exist in any meaningful way, it's just one way of interpreting the physical content of the harddrive. If you open that picture of a cat as a text file, it's not going to be a picture of a cat any more.
As I said, nothing is coloured until light enters an eye and a brain turns that light into colour (or something equivalent to an eye and brain). Yes, things exist that reflect or absorb different wavelengths of light. Again, those things are not blue unless light enters an eye and a brain turns that information into whatever you experience as "blue".
Don't you agree with that?
youre fucking dumb -
2018-01-11 at 10:56 PM UTC
-
2018-01-11 at 11 PM UTCno i just think you should cut the psuedointellectual meaningless bullshit thats been your gimmick for like 10 years
you just sound like a brain dead stoner more than anything -
2018-01-11 at 11:12 PM UTCwhy do you care how I sound or what I do? You don't. You don't give a single shit. You just wanted to call me fucking dumb because you're kind of an asshole with an overinflated ego who kind of hates himself.
-
2018-01-12 at 12:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fromus Krokus "What if infinity to the right was another path to the left ?
What if the line of numbers was a circle of infinite length radius ?
Let's define a whole infinite number N that has infinitely many 9's.
Interesting, I didn't know it was possible for a whole number to be an infinite at the same time. I was under the impression that if a number is on the number line, it is necessarily finite unless it is irrational. Could you explain how that works?We can write it :
N = …99999
N + 1 =
…99990 + 9 +1 =
…99990 + 10 =
…99900 + 90 + 10 =
…99900 + 100 =
…99000 + 900 + 100 =
…99000 + 1000 =
[…]
…000 + …000 = …000 = 0
So N + 1 = 0
N = …99999 = -1"
I'm not sure I follow these steps of the proof. As I understand it, the n+1 leads each subsequent unit to become a zero (as adding 1 to any number that's compose only of nines) and then you carry the one, and repeat. Would this not just infinitely repeat? Why does the next step turn into a zero? -
2018-01-12 at 12:33 AM UTCinfinity does not have a defined type of a number, its not specifically real, imaginary, etc, it's an operation to use on numbers. when the operation of infinity is used on the real number line its an infinity real number, if infinity is used on the irrational number line, it is an infinite irrational number
if the end state is ...999999 and you add something to it, each unit becomes a 0. so then if you add 1 to infinity it equals 0, so for 1 + n = 0, n has to equal -1
so end state: ...999999
beginning state: ...000000
to transition from end to beginning you only need +1
not sure if i totally agree but thats what the guy means -
2018-01-12 at 12:37 AM UTCtl;dr if you take the largest number possible, and add 1 to it, you go back to 0, making it cyclical
it could be seen as like 0 -> infinity -> minus infinity -> 0 -> infinity -> minus infinity -> 0 -
2018-01-12 at 12:42 AM UTCwhat i dont see is what would happen if the infinite number is ...333333 or ...666666. its still infinite but using different digits and then this operation doesn't work. also the assumption of N = -1 doesn't work if you use a different infinite number than 9
-
2018-01-12 at 12:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fromus Krokus infinity does not have a defined type of a number, its not specifically real, imaginary, etc, it's an operation to use on numbers. when the operation of infinity is used on the real number line its an infinity real number, if infinity is used on the irrational number line, it is an infinite irrational number
if the end state is …999999 and you add something to it, each unit becomes a 0. so then if you add 1 to infinity it equals 0, so for 1 + n = 0, n has to equal -1
so end state: …999999
beginning state: …000000
to transition from end to beginning you only need +1
not sure if i totally agree but thats what the guy means
What do you mean that Infinity is an operation? -
2018-01-12 at 12:45 AM UTCas in you can make anything infinite
infinity(9)
infinity(pi)
infinity(oranges)
infinity(cringe)
there aren't really properties of infinity that would contradict any type of mathematical object afaik im not a mathematician, not even infinite nothingness -
2018-01-12 at 12:47 AM UTC"Infinity is not an integer, because it is larger (in absoulte value) than any other integer. For the same reason, it is neither rational, real, complex, quaterion, quadratic, algebric, transcendent, p-adic. In facts, infinity is in none of the standard number fields."
"Infinity is some other type of number. In situations permitting non-finite numbers, there are typically many transfinite numbers – many “infinities”. These situations include:
Cardinal numbers – equivalence classes of sets;
Ordinal numbers – equivalence classes of ordered sets; and
Surreal numbers – the largest possible ordered Field of numbers." -
2018-01-12 at 12:49 AM UTCCould you show me the source of that quote? I thought I finite was just an abstract term that was useful in a relational context.
-
2018-01-12 at 12:49 AM UTC
-
2018-01-12 at 1:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I don't really believe in p-zombies for that very reason: IMO if you can accept the materialist idea that all of that exists is the physical world
Sure, if you accept the materialist premise then you're going to accept the materialist conclusion. But the idea of p-zombies is designed to challenge that premise, so simply affirming the premise doesn't really deal with the problem you've been presented. If p-zombies are conceptually flawed, how? Why is it logically inconsistent to propose a thing without consciousness which is physically identical to humans?and sense-experiences can be mapped onto physical phenomena (which is reasonable IMO; there is basically no evidence for anything except that), then I don't see how you can ever say a p-zombie exists unless they lack the physical properties or features that correspond to "consciousness".
Well let's be clear on the "mapping" point. It's possible to posit a mapping relation between physical phenomena and consciousness (e.g. altering the physical material which gives rise to consciousness also alters consciousness) without affirming that material and consciousness are the same thing. We can say p-zombies can't exist physically since anything with the physical properties of humans will also give rise to mental properties of humans without being physicalist. All we need to do is affirm p-zombies are conceptually valid to be locked into a ontological divide between physical and mental.Or let me put it another way: How does such a substance distinguish itself from nonbeing? I don't think there is any phenomenon that needs to be described by the idea of such a substance of thought, that exists outside of the physical realm (we should give it a name: "Conceptium"?). It seems to be a superfluous idea, unless it's just a placeholder for whatever physical description could be attached to it, but has not yet been found.
The phenomenon it describes is your subjective experience, Descartes' cogito. That experience exists is literally undoubtable. The more difficult question is what distinguishes it from physical phenomena, and the answer is subjectivity.
Physical phenomena occur out there, independent of us, and involve an interaction of material substance. If that interaction involves the material that supervenes on consciousness then it generates an experiential dual. -
2018-01-12 at 1:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL It doesn't matter what the source is; that is immaterial, and even slightly egotistical. What matters is what is being said.
The issue with this attitude is that you're going to be called on to defend the content of the plagiarized content which you're not going to be able to do if you don't understand it. And you don't understand it.
Originally posted by Fromus Krokus "What if infinity to the right was another path to the left ?
What if the line of numbers was a circle of infinite length radius ?
Let's define a whole infinite number N that has infinitely many 9's.
We can write it :
N = …99999
N + 1 =
…99990 + 9 +1 =
…99990 + 10 =
…99900 + 90 + 10 =
…99900 + 100 =
…99000 + 900 + 100 =
…99000 + 1000 =
[…]
…000 + …000 = …000 = 0
So N + 1 = 0
N = …99999 = -1"
i dunno it seems kind of just like a number trick. i cant really debate on this tho
basically if you add to an infinite number it self destructs back to zero so did it really go anywhere in the first place on the number line?
Are you joking? The notational representation of a number is not a number and "...000 = 0" is not a theorem. -
2018-01-12 at 1:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fromus Krokus "Infinity is not an integer, because it is larger (in absoulte value) than any other integer. For the same reason, it is neither rational, real, complex, quaterion, quadratic, algebric, transcendent, p-adic. In facts, infinity is in none of the standard number fields."
"Infinity is some other type of number. In situations permitting non-finite numbers, there are typically many transfinite numbers – many “infinities”. These situations include:
Cardinal numbers – equivalence classes of sets;
Ordinal numbers – equivalence classes of ordered sets; and
Surreal numbers – the largest possible ordered Field of numbers."
The standard line you give undergrads is "think of infinity as a direction" and you can do all the mathematics you should really care about with that. It's not an operation, and it's not a value type, it's a direction functions over values can go in. -
2018-01-12 at 1:32 AM UTC
-
2018-01-12 at 1:41 AM UTC
-
2018-01-12 at 1:42 AM UTCI'll address Lanny's post in the morning. Just putting this here so I remember to.
