Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Solution to philosophy

  1. Jul 27, 2004 #1
    The topic probably makes you think I'm crazy, and perhaps I am mistaken. The issue in all philosophy is semantic in nature and english distorts our ability to think. I have a method to solve these issues:


    Please only add to this thread if you have examined the aforementioned website.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2004 #2
    Are you the author? It is an interesting approach to a valid problem. All in all, what I read was interesting. I did not read the entire article, and perhaps that is why I did not encounter practical solutions. May I make a couple of random comments even though I did not read the entire article?

    As per your contention, I have no idea what you mean by flaw, so I cannot complain or refute this. What do you mean by flaw?

    I disagree. They might disagree. As an example, politicans, among others, make a living by using words that others can identify with, albeit in a manner different from the their meaning to the speaker.

    Is this possible? I do not think so. Do you have practical advice, beyond this idealization?

    I do not understand your point here. I know nothing about quarks in any context that I use to refer to dog. A big source of problem here is the difference between denotation and connotation. When you say that the word dog is interpretable, I believe that perhaps you mean that it has a commonly recognized denotative meaning. However, the connotative meaning of dog is subjective and highly personal, and no amount of knowledge of quarks can enable two people to understand what the word dog means to each other simply by hearing the word. One person might associate dog with loveable, wonderful, man's best friend types, whereas the other might associate the word with filthy, terrifying beasts.

    In your list of undefined/misused words, if your expand your list to include words where there is sufficient latitude in connnotative distinction that there is a fair probability of miscommunication, then I suggest that every word in the language should be included in the list.

    Anyway, I basically like the article, at least what I read.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  4. Jul 28, 2004 #3

    I am the author.

    As for 'flaw in the language' I have changed that to 'flaw in the concept.' I propose that a concept that cannot be tranlated into terms of our universe's constituents is uninterpretable (and usage of such a concept could be considered 'flawed') and hence there is no meaning beyond what portions of the words can be tranlated into terms of these constituents.

    As for differing concepts of one word it is true this won't necessarily cause disagreement it will cause confusion if the extent of the difference is great enough. Using different meanings for one word is the same as using two seperate words and if those words are similar enough a problem won't arise immediately. If a disagreement does come up it is very often key to unify which concept is being used.

    I don't really see why any human must make up his or her own definition of existing words. Even so, the practicality arises in obtaining definitions when a disagreement arises and not getting caught up in any unfounded connotations the words have.

    I give solid example debates (not true debates but valid) in http://www.orbular.com/logic/semantic issues.htm
    http://www.orbular.com/logic/specific walkthroughs/example error.html

    I address denotation and connotation in semantic issues. As for the dog it is defined by science in terms of DNA and such all of which is indirectly definable in terms of matter. I'm not saying you must think of dogs in terms of the particles that comprise them. I'm just saying that if you have a word that doesn't express data about universe constituents (such as deserves) then the word can't be interpreted and has no meaning because universe constituents are all that exist.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  5. Jul 28, 2004 #4
    damn... we would have to learn alot of new words, and remember the exact value of the factors involved, given any situation... i'm afraid we'd have to stay in middle school for the rest of our lives...
  6. Jul 28, 2004 #5
    Well what you say would be a problem except I'm not saying memorization of words is vital. The key is to be able to work it out afterwards and continue the debate even past and through a disagreement in definition.

    A good example of working with any definition in a debate can be seen at:
    http://orbular.com/logic/specific walkthroughs/example error.html
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  7. Jul 30, 2004 #6
    The thing about reason is it's simply not the same as logic. It isn't and a lot of people confuse reason with logic. PLease read Frank Turner's articles on reason for clarification. As for the word issue, yes, words are simply too limited to describe the human experience. The superabundance of reality and the reflection that is equally superabundant which we may extract from an experience is one factor that makes us speechless before novel experiences such as disasters. The thing is, no matter how much words we know, our words will never fully encapsulate an experience in the same manner a photograph does. And even so, a photograph in itself is merely a caricature of reality, a snapshot that can always be taken out of the context of what is really happening when that photo was taken.
  8. Jul 30, 2004 #7
    1. As for Mr Turner's definitions they are irrelevant unless I am using them. As long as you know what I mean when I use each of those words then there is no issue.

    2. Untrue. I'm sure that most people don't off-hand know how to explain such 'magical' things as shrooms, but all human experience is just chemical and can be explained like such. As for the impracticality of this, that is irreleveant for I only say it is theoretically possible.

    3. I don't understand your point with "The thing is, no matter how much words we know, our words will never fully encapsulate an experience in the same manner a photograph does." I agree that the universe has infinite data (most likely). I see no correlation to communication.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2004
  9. Jul 30, 2004 #8
    That's really the problem aufurny...

    1. Your first point is well taken. But you yourself beg my question: is there any surefire way of making other people know exactly what you mean. And you haven't answered that issue and probably u are evading it by poisoning Mr. Turner's well.

    2. All human experience is just chemical? Hello. If humans were reducible to a box of chemicals, then how do u explain differences in identical twins? Because if indeed we can be reduced to a simple matter of chemical reactions and such, identical twins practically have the same genetic makeup yet they are capable of doing exactly the opposite things. Humans are much more than a box of chemicals.

    3. Really? There is no correlation to communication? What studies did you get it from? I don't see u making any real point here. Communication is vital to the issue of Philosophy. If you're saying communication is non-correlational to the issue then you yourself should not use it. Our being is drenched in a language we were born into and communcation (body language, verbal linguistics, literature,etc.) are the only modes of expressing our being and you say the data of the universe is non-correlational to communication? The very fact that you can say the word "data", you are already invoking communication. Unless you are able to inject to me and make me fully understand what u are saying, my point regarding the superabundance of reality one can gather from one's experiences stands true. Even you are speechless before Turner because u won't use his word for or even against him. You said in the first thread that "English distorts the way we think". Well how exactly does any person think anyway? And if you're not going to communicate your ideas in English (presumably the language you born in), how are you ever going to be able to express your being?
  10. Jul 30, 2004 #9
    I'm sorry for errors in grammar. My reply is a sort of heat of the moment thing. Oh. Yeah. I guess you are understood it was a heat of the moment thing since your experience of my reasoning is "just chemical and can only be explained as such" (this is your very own line of reasoning as taken from your 2nd point). And if you stand your ground that all human experiences are just chemical then you shouldn't feel furious or hasty to reply at all... after all, you are aware that all your experiences are just chemical. And hey, for the benefit of all philosophers in the forum, please tell us exactly how our experiences are chemical because unlike you, we don't immediately know and fully understand what people mean (and if we did, we probably wouldn't be having this argument in the first place, would we?)
  11. Jul 30, 2004 #10
    If people can be simply reduced to chemicals or rational cause and effect relationships, then the only way to make sense of their languages is in terms of Relational Frame Theory, the only theory to successfully bridge the cognitive and behavioral sciences. This is exactly what your theory does not do in the slightest. It is similar to General Semantics, which has failed to find any core applications among the sciences whatsoever.

    Being rational is simply not enough. I can invent any number of explanations for how languages work, but without the ability to make meaningful and useful sense of such an explanation it remains just another head trip.
  12. Jul 30, 2004 #11
    I do not think that it will ever be practical for people to believe that they understand what other people's words mean to those people in an exact sense. I do agree that there is a significant problem in people understanding the words of others from their own context, and not recognizing that the speaker's meaning of the speaker's words should be considered, but I do not think that this problem can be mitigated easily.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2004
  13. Jul 30, 2004 #12
    There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I was saying I didn't see how the photograph related to the point on communication. I think I understand now. I'd like to point out now that A language CAN be totally defined open to 1 interpretation only. This is done by programming languages. Even if this isn't done in English by default, precise definitions can be worked out during a debate. This is done in math, I don't see what the huge deal is.

    I didn't say all behaviour is attributable directly to DNA. There is also the element of NURTURE. The twins have different lives. I can have two identical computers but do different things to them to get them to act differently. There are already branches of science acknowledging humans are simply 'boxes of chemicals'.

    At a rational level I do acknowledge that we are all chemicals and I have no reason to get angry. I never said rationality can override our behaviour totally (much like I can't stop my heart directly). IN this case I'm not angry at all.

    Well, that's more a science question. A great book on the subject is 'Emotional intelligence'. It involves the amygdala and adrenaline etc. If you google it I'm sure you'll find much interesting information on it.
    Also I never said I can immediately understand everybody. In theory we all could understand each other human given enough time and information.

    I have looked into relational frame theory a bit (even though I couldn't find it in wikipedia...). I don't know where you heard that relational frame theory is "the only theory to successfully bridge the cognitive and behavioral sciences", but that seems to be a practical psychological statement which is technically inaccurate at the core level. If you could please inquire to the source of that information as to whether or not that means the physics of particles don't account for both (at some level) I will consider your point.

    I think that it would be quite possible to get a definition close-enough on the relevant point. I tried to demonstrate this clearly in the examples on the site. Many of the concepts become simpler when my semantic points are understood. For example, your average person has a really complex definition of 'alive'. When you understand my points you realize that there are many definitions of alive possible; one where fire is alive, one where trees aren't alive, etc. There is no right definition of alive. So it's only a question of using the same practical definition as the other person.

    As for all the biases we have toward the word alive, they aren't logical. Those biases don't need to be put into a definition because they are not logical.
  14. Jul 31, 2004 #13
    You don't see the huge deal? Man, from what world are you? You start a whole thread about philosophy and you don't see what a big deal your arguments are? Helloooo. Philosophy is about how a human person will ever be able to transcend the boundaries of the workaday world and you say how huge a deal is it anyway. It's a big deal because humans can never be told to act in the same manner any microprocessor with the proper instruction set can be told to do so.

    At least you got my point on the twins... so you retract your point regarding how we can be reduced to a box of chemical experiences because you show a tinge of belief regarding the role of NURTURING (vs nature). I have to go, I'll be back a little later...
  15. Jul 31, 2004 #14
    anfunryperson. Let me give you some advice. Ok. Listen.

    If you don't have the math to back your theories. Nobody will listen to you without thinking about throwing you in the mental ward in a hospital.(Don't ask how I know this. :rofl: )

    Geometry is the most widely accepted proof of something. I gleaned this info from books and threads about math. "If you can't see your theory/math. It's worthless." As the saying goes.

    So since you have no math, how can we see it. It's nothing as math. Therefore it's worthless,the doctor who said that would surely think that.

    Agruing won't change that.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2004
  16. Jul 31, 2004 #15
    Galilei, Galileo (1564 - 1642)
    [The universe] cannot be read until we have learnt the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word.
    Opere Il Saggiatore p. 171.
  17. Jul 31, 2004 #16
    Here's some software to learn math. It goes the entire curriculum from grade 1 to 12.

    The lessons are in quicktime media, and are read out loud by some lady. All instructions I've seen included animated demonstrations of the lesson.

    Learn to instruct us in your philosophy using the math + Geometry, like Galileo said to do.

    Here's the link to buy the software from the people who made it.

    The computer needs a pentium AMD type PC, or Apple type PC. No real power needed, it runs on my pentium 1, integrated graphics. :rofl: :yuck:
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2004
  18. Jul 31, 2004 #17
    Totally incorrect. I myself can read a computer program (to sort a deck of cards or whatever) and anybody else who knows that language can and will do it the same way.

    I think you are assuming that experience isn't just chemical changes. When a computer memorizes this is just electromagnetic differences on the harddrive or ram.

    We are always chemical boxes. Our nurture modifies how we act (I never said we were simple chemical boxes) as does our DNA.

    I know that this makes it harder. Frankly I have what I consider a proof (since this is not a mathematical (other than semantic) question). It's just a shame that so many people don't recognize to begin with that humans and our experiences are all chemical reactions attributable to the laws of physics(A given in the proof).

    On the other hand, there are many un-proven things that go very far. This is extremely practical in a debate, marital argument, etc.
  19. Jul 31, 2004 #18
    Not all proofs are mathy. I have basic logic, which is technically math, so if you want math use that.

    My point is:
    1) the entire universe is particles and constituents (GIVEN)
    2) all information must state attributes of these particles (or something carried by turing completeness) if it conveys anything. (obviously since constituents are defined as 'anything that exists or could alter something that exists')
    3) Therefore only things that state information that is directly/indirectly translatable into those terms is interpretable.
  20. Jul 31, 2004 #19
    Your first point would be. On a plane, which constitues the parts of geometry - points, lines, planes - the chemicals are buzzing around.

    Or chemicals buzz around on a plane. Ke ? I get that right ? Ke.

    2.) All info must state the geometrical + chemical : attributes, if it states anything. Ke ? You agree so far ? Ke.

    3.) Therefore, the chemicals + geometry must translate. Or, not be misunderstood.

    Now, in a plane. There is three non-colinear, planar(on a plane)points, that define the plane. Or a triangle if you reasond the points are planar and can be joined.

    In a triangle is the triangle inequality theorem.
    ? = angle of triangle (< Less) ? = angle of triangle + A = Angle of triangle.

    So then. Now seeing the answer is seeing the full attributes, and there being no mystery to the interaction.

    If the chemicals use the answer too, they are interpretable.

    Now. I'll say a few words to anfurnyperson.

    There is your philosophy. But the problem is mankind doesn't know the answers, the chemical interpretation, there are questions.

    The answers exist in addition to the questions we ask. Who knows them ? Who asked them, and then answered them, and is greater than the questions we ask because of the answers known making them greater than us ?

    These are religious questions, not meathods for mankind to presently answer.

    So. very nice philosophy. All 20 pages. But they lead to relious questions. And are not translatable to human ability at present.

    Use the above math too. Don't just get me to repeat it.

    Funny face. :uhh:
  21. Jul 31, 2004 #20
    I don't think that geometry is necessary.

    We live in a universe that may have 11 dimensions, curves with gravity, and is extremely chaotic on the smallest levels. For that reason a geometric proof seems impractical. I wouldn't call geometry the language of our universe, maybe string theory or (quantum mechanics + relativity).

    This seems more semantic to me. The basic idea is that we can only talk about things that exist (if we are to convey information) and everything is universe constituents. Tell me if you know anybody who can help please.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook