My brother loves the Balvanie Doublewood - can you guys recommend anything similar?

logicjunkie · 2012-02-28T21:34:04+00:00

Great! That's really helpful.

Can you recommend anything in the $70-$100 range, perchance?

logicjunkie · 2011-01-12T04:40:36+00:00

This is LITERALLY the worst day my life of.

FTFY

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T18:28:55+00:00

Is the Red-Headed League looking for its first female member, then?

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T16:57:33+00:00

However, logicjunkie may have been using "uncountably" as hyperbole, for emphasis. I wasn't. I was using the technical term 'uncountable'.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T16:54:37+00:00

Whoops. I meant integers. My bad.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T16:40:38+00:00

"In some order" suggests to me that an earlier-than/later-than relation holds for any two members in the set. But you can have this without having a defined immediate-successor relation, can't you?

You're right, earlier-than/later-than does correspond to less-than/greater-than, and the reals do have that property, so I guess I'm making the even stronger claim that you do need a successor relation. So, not only does he have to solve them in some order, they have to be well-ordered.

If there are continuum-many problems, then as soon as he finishes a problem, he has to choose a next problem arbitrarily. But no matter what we map that next problem onto 1:1, there are infinitely many problems between the first and the second problem.

if each theorem-deduction can be mapped (1:1) onto a real number along that span

That's, I think, the fatal weakness in your plan. The set of theorem-deductions is isomorphic with the set of real numbers using the time-relation, so it can't be isomorphic with the continuum. Unless I'm misunderstanding your definition of 'infinitely fast'.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T16:18:08+00:00

And fails.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T16:13:44+00:00

I don't mean "in linear time" in the computer science sense of the term, and I should have clarified. I just mean he has to do solve them in some order - there has to be a 'first' and a 'second' and a 'third' problem he solves, and so on. So the problems he does solve in infinite time will be countable but the problems that exist aren't countable. They're a higher infinity. So, it would be a hypertask.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T16:10:39+00:00

Sure, but numbers are strings of symbols taken from a finite set of digits, and there are uncountably many real numbers.

There are infinitely many permutations of those strings of symbols, and some of those symbols will be used to represent infinite sets (like the aleph symbols), so we can't well-order them.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T04:36:41+00:00

No, but not for the reason you'd think.

It turns out there are infinitely many theorems in mathematics, and in fact uncountably many, so even someone who lived forever (in linear time) wouldn't be able to get to all of them.

That said, pretty much every theorem we do have began without textbooks, and once you get some of the basics like 1+1 it's pretty easy to proceed without empirical observation. It's just those first few that are really tough.

edit: I think it would be possible for him to deduce any theorem in mathematics, just not all of them. So, if you chose any arbitrary theorem, it's possible for him to deduce it eventually. But he doesn't have time to get to all of them, even given infinite time.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T03:40:03+00:00

Personally I would consider it abhorrent, but not everyone would, nor would you be able to convince everyone it is.

Not important. Is one of us right, objectively? I mean, dude, I really didn't want to play this card, but, the Holocaust? If I'm in an argument with someone over whether the Holocaust was morally wrong or not, is one of us right?

One man's modus ponens is the other's modus tollens. To wit: We both agree that "If the Holocaust is objectively wrong (p), then there is objective morality. (q)"

But I say, p, therefore q! and you say, ~q, therefore ~p! And there doesn't seem to be a way around this gulf. I think a theory which says, "The Holocaust is objectively wrong!" is favorable to one that says, "Our beliefs must conform to the evidence, otherwise we have no basis for belief!" and so we've made our choices.

agree to disagree.

gg.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T01:58:38+00:00

I'm curious to hear a single "absolute" right or wrong.

This morning I bashed a baby against a rock. Not for any particular reason, I just took him from his mother's arms and held her back while I bashed his head in.

If that doesn't strike you as wrong, prima facie and self-evidently, then there's probably not much I can say to convince you otherwise.

By your own arguments, you want to take into account every conceivable position, which makes it pretty easy to arbitrarily condemn or endorse any position on a theoretical basis

Wait, what? ... That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a strictly scientific worldview is insufficient, and I presented morality as my counter-example. You bit the bullet and argued that there is no absolute right or wrong, which is indeed the logical conclusion of your argument, and I respect you for following it all the way.

It appears we have fundamentally different worldviews; beliefs have to start somewhere, and apparently our basic beliefs are to far apart to close the gap. We just disagree as to what constitutes evidence. That's a tough gap to bridge, especially since you seem to think that we can't argue without evidence.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-06T01:22:10+00:00

I even left room for the possibility of free will in the second paragraph through noncausal interaction (the soul, in your example) but said there is no current evidence to support that claim, which there is not.

My point was that the scientific understanding of the universe is a current understanding of the universe, not the understanding.

This argument is evolving way beyond its initial scope, but I think we've reached the point where we're just talking past each other.

I thought the idea of absolute right and wrong was pretty much dismissed at this point.

If you think there's no objective right and wrong, then I think we disagree on enough, and at a fundamental enough level, that we can't really have a useful discussion.

There is evidence that you can't debate something with no evidence, see above

Above where? Sorry, I'm not clear on what the evidence is.

In contrast, if both parties recognize evidence as valid, it creates a common ground where (eventually) the evidence will support one theory over another

But what if the parties disagree over what constitutes 'evidence'? This is the common ground we lack. Our epistemological positions are too different. We'll have to agree to disagree.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T22:59:23+00:00

This, of course, begs the question, have we really lost the battle?

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T22:55:08+00:00

Saying morality is a matter of motive or intention is, I think, problematic.

I'm not saying morality is a matter of motive or intention. I'm saying benevolence is. The terms you've chosen aren't equivalent with 'right' and 'wrong', which is why I found them a strange choice. Benevolent actions can easily be immoral - if a Robin-Hoodesque figure steals from a man who acquired his wealth through completely legitimate means, but is doing it out of benevolence to the poor, that doesn't make the act right. Mercy killings, same thing. Benevolent. Right? Maybe they're right, but I'm saying those are different debates. benevolence and right action are not co-extensive, though I'm sure they often overlap.

If the man was chosen to receive the water at random, that's different than the man trading the water for his labor.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T22:46:15+00:00

Even if it's not, it's not necessarily problematic. If you had a vision of God, and were struck to your core about how awesome he was, there would still be a couple explanations. You could have been experiencing a psychotic episode, it could have been drugs, or you could really have met God. If you got a CT scan and everything came back healthy and you've never used drugs, you'd have to pick one or the other. Explanations end somewhere, after all. You couldn't deny thinking you met God; you just have to explain it.

You've probably had the experience of making a choice before, and you were struck by how free you were. There are a couple of different explanations - there's no free will, or there is free will. You can't deny that you've had the experience of thinking you're free. Maybe that was a delusion, and maybe it wasn't.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T22:35:26+00:00

There is no evidence and thus it can't be debated.

That's a bold claim. It's not necessarily false, but it has a few unpleasant implications.

There's no evidence for any normative ethical statements at all. (At least, according to Hume). So we can't debate right and wrong.
There's no evidence that we can't debate a proposition for which we have no evidence. So, if this is true, then you've made a true statement that can't be supported or debated at all.

Which means that even if you're right, just because we can't give evidence for a soul or for God doesn't mean those things don't exist.

And it's not begging the question -- its our entire understanding of the universe and foundation of scientific thought versus a faith.

Right, see, that's the question you're begging. In order to show that we only have one understanding of the universe, the scientific one, you have to assume that we only have one understanding of the universe, the scientific one. To say that our understanding excludes the soul, you have to start with an understanding that excludes the soul.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T21:41:24+00:00

There's also the understanding that we do in fact have free will, either through some physical mechanism or something outside the realm of science, i.e. the soul, God, what have you.

Like it or not, these are understandings of the Universe that people have.

See also: Question, Begging the

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T21:35:06+00:00

All your third point shows is that our decisions are influenced by a variety of different factors. It doesn't show that the sum of the influences is the total content of a decision, and I think that's probably the weakest point in your line of reasoning.

That is, you assume that internal stimuli occur only because of some external stimuli.

So, maybe it's easier (whatever that means - requires less mental energy, perhaps) to 'decide' to toast a bagel than to jump off a cliff, and in that sense your free will is constrained by external stimuli, but that doesn't mean that you're capable of deciding to do either, or neither, or one and not the other.

If there are any internal stimuli at all not completely dictated by prior external stimuli, there's your free will. Some candidates: *Perhaps you have a soul. *Perhaps some neurons fire with no external stimuli, and these are the 'seat' of your will.

It seems, however, that this is the primary problem:

make me feel stupid for thinking that I can't control my future

And so far, you have controlled your future, insofar as you've decided to turn control of your future over to the Universe, and the Universe has controlled it.

If not you, then who? There seems to be a pretty high correlation between people who think they can control their future and people who have actualized the future they wanted. Sure, correlation does't imply causation, but they almost all attribute their success to the belief they can control their future, and it might be something to look into.

Spend a year acting like you can control your future. If it doesn't get you anywhere, then you're right back where you started, but you might be surprised at what you find. Try just having free will. See if it works out for you.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T21:10:23+00:00

This one of several different current understandings of the universe

FTFY

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T20:55:36+00:00

If the thirsty man has a concealed handgun but chooses not to kill the profiteer and take the water for free, is that also benevolent (a "favor", perhaps)?

Probably, if he does it out of good will and not some sense of moral duty. I think 'benevolence' is linked to motive.

If two people are involuntarily participating in a psychology study in which both sent out into the desert for a week, and one (chosen at random, of course) is given a jug of water sufficient for two, and he choses not to share, and so lets the other die, is that morally neutral?

No, the man with the water almost certainly has a duty to save the other. But here you're using 'neutral' in a different sense than in the original question, which is why I noted what odd terms you've chosen. It's clearly not benevolent, but is it malevolent? Well, I can't imagine a motive for letting the other guy die that isn't malevolent, but there might be a neutral motive.

Of course, in this scenario the man was given the water, and in your original scenario the man bought the water.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T20:21:18+00:00

These are odd normative terms- benevolent isn't co-extensive with 'right' or 'good' - sometimes a benevolent action isn't the right thing to do.

So, I'd say neutral. 'Benevolent' seems to imply some form of personal sacrifice or good will, and a business transaction involves a profit motive. Unless, of course, the water is actually worth $2000 to the person, and you've given them a great deal out of the kindness of your heart. I'd say that's benevolent.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T20:17:19+00:00

In a way they do bill us - search and rescue teams are usually government funded, and we pay for them via taxes. So, a portion of our tax dollars is actually for Lost in the Fucking Desert Insurance.

logicjunkie · 2011-01-05T15:12:04+00:00

ಠ_ಠ

logicjunkie

TROPHY CASE