[Philosophy Tuesday] Challenge your mind - Submit your Answer(s)

[splishsplash]

Here are 2 fun questions.

If you want to have a brain workout then answer 1 or both. (Please don't use AI for this, it's incredibly boring, and the point of this isn't to prove anything. It's an experiment to see what people come up with. There's no right or wrong answers.)

Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?

Question B): If reality itself is infinitely self-referential—such that any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality—how could conscious entities within this reality ever confirm the accuracy or objectivity of their observations? Would this imply an inherent, insurmountable limitation on knowledge itself, or could an entirely new form of epistemology be developed to accommodate infinite self-reference?

 

[ContentExpert]

My IQ jumped a few points just by reading these questions.

 

[roydan]

I'm too dumb for this.

 

[Builder Dave]

Oh, fun! Why did you have to break my brain while I'm already really tired? Let me give it a shot anyway.

Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?

I'd say that if it wasn't possible, quantum computing wouldn't be a thing. As quantum computing is theoretically possible and supposedly rigorous, at least some universes where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold should allow for a self-consistent system of knowledge. However, I wouldn't have a clue how. Additionally, I suppose it depends on how and why the principle of non-contradiction doesn't hold and different versions of such universes would most probably behave quite differently.

Question B): If reality itself is infinitely self-referential—such that any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality—how could conscious entities within this reality ever confirm the accuracy or objectivity of their observations? Would this imply an inherent, insurmountable limitation on knowledge itself, or could an entirely new form of epistemology be developed to accommodate infinite self-reference?

I guess self-referential systems can still be rigorous and thus testable. It would depend on the exact self-referential mechanisms. Maybe in some versions knowledge would be easier to access as belief could shape reality accordingly i.e. if you believe you are right, the universe complies. I believe in many knowledge would be possible.

TL;DR: It depends?

 

[SilverClouds]

Here are 2 fun questions.

If you want to have a brain workout then answer 1 or both. (Please don't use AI for this, it's incredibly boring, and the point of this isn't to prove anything. It's an experiment to see what people come up with. There's no right or wrong answers.)

Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?

Question B): If reality itself is infinitely self-referential—such that any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality—how could conscious entities within this reality ever confirm the accuracy or objectivity of their observations? Would this imply an inherent, insurmountable limitation on knowledge itself, or could an entirely new form of epistemology be developed to accommodate infinite self-reference?

You better give us titles of physics books you've read, we need supplementary reading for that, lol.

 

[splishsplash]

You better give us titles of physics books you've read, we need supplementary reading for that, lol.

It's just a thought experiment. You don't need to use any existing theories or math. It's just to see what kind of thoughts/connections people come up with.

Like the first one is just asking, if classical logic was different, ie, 1 = 1 could be both true and false at the same time, then would it be possible to create a consistent system of knowledge. A way of knowing things. Ie, any type of knowledge humanity has.

The second is asking if anything you do within reality, causes reality to change, infinitely, then is it possible for beings within that reality to create consistent models that describe things within that reality, or ways to measure things in that reality that are consistent, or would knowledge itself be limited in this reality because of this potential limitation, or could we create a new form of epistemology(the study of how knowledge became, rather than the knowledge itself)

 

[TheMarquis]

Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?

IF there could be another Universe, where the "Universal empathy" rules are applied (working all together for the collective good, respecting, valuing and in the same time TOTALLY UNDERSTANDING each personal's experience, all in one conscience, for the good of all), that could be possible.

Example of a possible World like that: Both John and Joanne, without even talking each other, will naturally choose the best variant of A, but each of them will chose it in the favour of the all, including both of them.

If not, based on the rules of our World, there will be a total mess, because there will be no true or false, but a total dynamic from A to A, where both As will be different but true in the same time.

I'm thinking if this could apply to the gravitation, for example. Everything will be a total mess.

Question B): If reality itself is infinitely self-referential—such that any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality—how could conscious entities within this reality ever confirm the accuracy or objectivity of their observations? Would this imply an inherent, insurmountable limitation on knowledge itself, or could an entirely new form of epistemology be developed to accommodate infinite self-reference?

That's even more complex, and I'm afraid I cannot respond to it, because each time I type a phrase, a new idea came in mind. The CPU is 100% working, but full of bugs =))

But, I will try anyway with this example:
There, as I can('t) think right now, could not be possible for a Truth to be Truth, without some already established references (based on the subjectivity of our ancestors).

For example, I know that's a Mountain (Everest, or any other mountain), because I know it from the past references (the accepted subjectivity) + my actual human abilities (I can view it, walk on it, feel how the temperature is downgrading with every hundred meters, etc -- based on my subjectivity), what a mountain is; how beautiful it is, how dangerous could be and so on. But, without those past references, it could be just like in a dream, or a Fata Morgana mirage (I may perceive it as a mountain, but it could be just a tall building).

Now...if something else will be discovered in the next hours, something huge but in the same time non related with anything else in the past, I'm wondering how could I say that it's True or False. Hmmm...

PS: Sorry for the bad English.

 

[vurucu]

These are mind f*ck questions

 

[splishsplash]

IF there could be another Universe, where the "Universal empathy" rules are applied (working all together for the collective good, respecting, valuing and in the same time TOTALLY UNDERSTANDING each personal's experience, all in one conscience, for the good of all), that could be possible.

Example of a possible World like that: Both John and Joanne, without even talking each other, will naturally choose the best variant of A, but each of them will chose it in the favour of the all, including both of them.

If not, based on the rules of our World, there will be a total mess, because there will be no true or false, but a total dynamic from A to A, where both As will be different but true in the same time.

I'm thinking if this could apply to the gravitation, for example. Everything will be a total mess.

That's a fascinating reply and something that was completely out of my train of thought!

That's a REALLY abstract thought!! You've gone so far out the box, the box is no longer a box, but a tesseract ;-)

I like it, thanks for sharing.

That's even more complex, and I'm afraid I cannot respond to it, because each time I type a phrase, a new idea came in mind. The CPU is 100% working, but full of bugs =))

But, I will try anyway with this example:
There, as I can('t) think right now, could not be possible for a Truth to be Truth, without some already established references (based on the subjectivity of our ancestors).

For example, I know that's a Mountain (Everest, or any other mountain), because I know it from the past references (the accepted subjectivity) + my actual human abilities (I can view it, walk on it, feel how the temperature is downgrading with every hundred meters, etc -- based on my subjectivity), what a mountain is; how beautiful it is, how dangerous could be and so on. But, without those past references, it could be just like in a dream, or a Fata Morgana mirage (I may perceive it as a mountain, but it could be just a tall building).

Now...if something else will be discovered in the next hours, something huge but in the same time non related with anything else in the past, I'm wondering how could I say that it's True or False. Hmmm...

PS: Sorry for the bad English.

Yep, the second one is more challenging.

I got the first by asking gpt4.5 to give me a question only someone with a 170+ IQ could answer. The second I asked for a question only someone with a 200+ IQ could answer. It's a great way to get it to give you really thought-provoking deep questions.

I'm loving gpt 4.5. It feels to me like it's an original thinker. I don't know how that's possible, and it's hard to even ponder because we have NO clue what the technology behind it is. We don't know if they've even moved on from transformer models.

For example, I know that's a Mountain (Everest, or any other mountain), because I know it from the past references (the accepted subjectivity) + my actual human abilities (I can view it, walk on it, feel how the temperature is downgrading with every hundred meters, etc -- based on my subjectivity), what a mountain is; how beautiful it is, how dangerous could be and so on. But, without those past references, it could be just like in a dream, or a Fata Morgana mirage (I may perceive it as a mountain, but it could be just a tall building).

Now...if something else will be discovered in the next hours, something huge but in the same time non related with anything else in the past, I'm wondering how could I say that it's True or False. Hmmm...

This is the mind-fuckiness of this one. (As vurucu poetically, but appropriately put)

We have to note the wording. It says

"any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality"

To me, this isn't saying that observing or interacting with it will change it.

gpt4.5 specifically gave us the words "describe" or "understand".

So, if you are simply observing the mountain in this reality, it shouldn't change.

But if you attempt to measure the mountain, it will change.

Perhaps this implies some underlying intelligence that knows when it's being observed vs measured? That isn't said by gpt4.5, but you'd have to ask how the reality would know. It's a great question to go deep on though

I'm too dumb for this.

I feel like this is the EQ 200+ question ;-)

Do I click like? If so, am I telling you I like that you think you're too dumb for this.

Do I hit laugh? Am I laughing at you?

Do I ignore? Will you think I'm judging you.

You gave one tougher than the original questions!!

 

[SilverClouds]

It's just a thought experiment. You don't need to use any existing theories or math. It's just to see what kind of thoughts/connections people come up with.

Like the first one is just asking, if classical logic was different, ie, 1 = 1 could be both true and false at the same time, then would it be possible to create a consistent system of knowledge. A way of knowing things. Ie, any type of knowledge humanity has.

The second is asking if anything you do within reality, causes reality to change, infinitely, then is it possible for beings within that reality to create consistent models that describe things within that reality, or ways to measure things in that reality that are consistent, or would knowledge itself be limited in this reality because of this potential limitation, or could we create a new form of epistemology(the study of how knowledge became, rather than the knowledge itself)

Yeah, but it is true... Not theorethically even. Things are true and false at the same time depending on the situation. One reason why I sometimes like conflicting posts in a discussion like a madman. Nothing is black and white, multiple takes on a same issue are true.

2nd one is 100% a book I read on physics years ago, grabbed that from technical library and went to the cafe and drank coffee with blue curacao. It was like... Even watching the experiment changes its outcome?

Honestly, occultism solves this problem. Not pushing anything on anyone. But the kind of issues you describe appear only if you're very physically/materially oriented. In the spiritual realms it's normal that multiple things are true and false at the same time, even observing something already influences it (there are even depictions of your sight literally touching the object you're observing lol), that you can cause change without doing anything in physical world, that you can take on different forms and information from multiple sources. I think it's basically about reaching limitations of (obviously very valuable in its realm of expertise) science, going a little bit into quantum mechanics and then straight into occultism / mysticism / spiritual. Like, in occultism these things are a non-issue, they are the norm. You even purposefuly sometimes will switch worldviews for example to cause a specific reaction in yourself to achieve your goals. In this case different worldviews aren't seen as good or bad, true or false, you just switch them according to the situation. As far as knowledge goes, you just expand... You can take knowledge from multiple sources, images, music, straight from the spiritual realms. Not everything is in a book.

 

[Appturbo]

I just realized that, that I can't speak English.

 

[TheMarquis]

That's a fascinating reply and something that was completely out of my train of thought!

That's a REALLY abstract thought!! You've gone so far out the box, the box is no longer a box, but a tesseract ;-)

I like it, thanks for sharing.



Yep, the second one is more challenging.

I got the first by asking gpt4.5 to give me a question only someone with a 170+ IQ could answer. The second I asked for a question only someone with a 200+ IQ could answer. It's a great way to get it to give you really thought-provoking deep questions.

I'm loving gpt 4.5. It feels to me like it's an original thinker. I don't know how that's possible, and it's hard to even ponder because we have NO clue what the technology behind it is. We don't know if they've even moved on from transformer models.





This is the mind-fuckiness of this one. (As vurucu poetically, but appropriately put)

We have to note the wording. It says

"any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality"

To me, this isn't saying that observing or interacting with it will change it.

gpt4.5 specifically gave us the words "describe" or "understand".

So, if you are simply observing the mountain in this reality, it shouldn't change.

But if you attempt to measure the mountain, it will change.

Perhaps this implies some underlying intelligence that knows when it's being observed vs measured? That isn't said by gpt4.5, but you'd have to ask how the reality would know. It's a great question to go deep on though




I feel like this is the EQ 200+ question ;-)

Do I click like? If so, am I telling you I like that you think you're too dumb for this.

Do I hit laugh? Am I laughing at you?

Do I ignore? Will you think I'm judging you.

You gave one tougher than the original questions!!

Thank you, G!

I don't know how that's possible, and it's hard to even ponder because we have NO clue what the technology behind it is. We don't know if they've even moved on from transformer models.

As @Builder Dave mentioned, quantum computing. This is something very vast to be described in these days. Maybe in the future. But I can bet, there or through it, we will find an answer, or at least an idea, about how to improve the tech in the way we desire.

 

[xReminisce]

Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?

Assuming I'm understanding it correctly with my negative IQ
That hypothetical universe would exist, and in fact, I would go so far to say, it's ours.
A can be both A and not be A at the same time.
It's all about perception. What is really real and is what you think is real, really real.
Let me give an example
Morals
What is right?
Is stealing really ok?
You can convince yourself its right because "survival of the fittest", but at the same time, you been for the lack of better word brainwashed to believe stealing is NOT ok.
We, ourselves set the rules on what we believe or perceive. However, at the same time, we also let others influence us to believe or perceive things how they want it to be.
This itself can deep down cause A to be both A and not be A at the same time.
This itself, or this state of mind is self conflicted

Well.. I think that's what you were asking anyways lol

Question B): If reality itself is infinitely self-referential—such that any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality—how could conscious entities within this reality ever confirm the accuracy or objectivity of their observations? Would this imply an inherent, insurmountable limitation on knowledge itself, or could an entirely new form of epistemology be developed to accommodate infinite self-reference?

I have no idea what some if not most of those words means
@ContentExpert, i found new words you can teach us

 

[dvc]

Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?

My answer for this might be dumb, but in that universe you described, I don't think we need a meaningful and self-consiste t system of knowledge.

Question B): If reality itself is infinitely self-referential—such that any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality—how could conscious entities within this reality ever confirm the accuracy or objectivity of their observations? Would this imply an inherent, insurmountable limitation on knowledge itself, or could an entirely new form of epistemology be developed to accommodate infinite self-reference?

Does this apply to the above hypothetical universe?

If no, then it's a very good and complex question, I would challenge the fact that attempting to understand reality, will, all the time, change reality itself. But yeah a good question to which I've got no logical answers. Would love to hear your thoughts about it.

 

[splishsplash]

Assuming I'm understanding it correctly with my negative IQ
That hypothetical universe would exist, and in fact, I would go so far to say, it's ours.
A can be both A and not be A at the same time.
It's all about perception. What is really real and is what you think is real, really real.
Let me give an example
Morals
What is right?
Is stealing really ok?
You can convince yourself its right because "survival of the fittest", but at the same time, you been for the lack of better word brainwashed to believe stealing is NOT ok.
We, ourselves set the rules on what we believe or perceive. However, at the same time, we also let others influence us to believe or perceive things how they want it to be.
This itself can deep down cause A to be both A and not be A at the same time.
This itself, or this state of mind is self conflicted

Well.. I think that's what you were asking anyways lol

I have no idea what some if not most of those words means
@ContentExpert, i found new words you can teach us

Those are great observations, but they would be within the context of philosophical relativism. Still a good response though as it's recognising philosophical relativism compared with philosophical objectivism, or moral relativism vs moral objectivism. Most people naturally argue moral objectivism, which is a more rigid form of thought.

The principle of non-contradiction is only for classical logic, so this literally would be a universe where

1 = 1

and 1 != 1

It's a REALLY wacky universe

It's definitely not ours. In ours, the principle of non-contradiction holds true.

If X is true, X cannot be false at the same time in classical logic.

My answer for this might be dumb, but in that universe you described, I don't think we need a meaningful and self-consiste t system of knowledge.



Does this apply to the above hypothetical universe?

If no, then it's a very good and complex question, I would challenge the fact that attempting to understand reality, will, all the time, change reality itself. But yeah a good question to which I've got no logical answers. Would love to hear your thoughts about it.

There's no dumb answer. It's just a thought experiment to see what novel thoughts it leads us to.

There isn't really a right or wrong answer.

Just thoughts that lead to questions, which lead to more thoughts.

Why don't you think we would need the meaningful self-consistent system of knowledge? Go into. Don't worry about language, terminology or being right. Just thought-dump it.

The second is a different universe!

You could combine them, but then we're REALLY into brain-fry territory. I hadn't thought of combining them actually. You see how thoughts interact and lead to new thoughts.

My answers were

A) You use the word "consistent". Since logically in this new universe something can be both true and not true, we would still be able to formulate a consistent theory of knowledge, since there still exists the 2 simultaneous states where something is both true and not true.

This would be like a square being both a square and a cube at the same time depending on whether it's observed in 2 or 3 dimensions

B) If we could repeatedly measure the same thing over and over without any confounding variables in the measurement, we could create a mathematical model of the change, which would represent purely the differential caused by the experiment its self.

If the experiment remained consistent, then the differential should allow us to construct a model that can predict change in this self-referentially changing universe.

We could predict the measurement from the next observation based on the model.

The model could then be tested with other similar experiments, but with slight changes, to see if it can predict each future observation based on the previous readings.

If that didn't work, then a more complex model might be possible by creating 1000's of the previous models, and directly comparing those to create a differential model based on comparing the 1000's of other models created for each individual experiment, that correctly predict the next observation based on the previous observations for each experiment in their specific domain.

If we could map out the differences between the experiments and the corresponding differences in the final model, we may have a way to create a universal model that can predict any observation based on previous observations.

 

[deppo]

I only come up with such questions after either an ayahuasca trip or getting laid.

 

[UnusualSubstance]

Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?

I don't believe so.

If cause doesn't precede effect how would we even begin to describe time?

Time wouldn't exist as we know it in this hypothetical universe ergo we couldn't possibly have a system to record knowledge.

There probably wouldn't even be a big bang since that would require causation to exist and a forward flow of time to be in place.

Unless some quantum foam shenanigans exists in place of time.

Maybe everything can happen all at once but then how would beings even exist in such a universe and even begin to start collecting knowledge.

Question B): If reality itself is infinitely self-referential—such that any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality—how could conscious entities within this reality ever confirm the accuracy or objectivity of their observations? Would this imply an inherent, insurmountable limitation on knowledge itself, or could an entirely new form of epistemology be developed to accommodate infinite self-reference?

That would make manifestion legit .

I'm getting double slit experiment vibes from this question.

I don't think we would ever be able to record anything of utility since it would change so rapidly from one second to the next.

Only a subjective view of the world would ever exist.

Maybe a type 3 kardashev civ could answer this accurately.

 

[splishsplash]

I don't believe so.

If cause doesn't precede effect how would we even begin to describe time?

Time wouldn't exist as we know it in this hypothetical universe ergo we couldn't possibly have a system to record knowledge.

There probably wouldn't even be a big bang since that would require causation to exist and a forward flow of time to be in place.

Unless some quantum foam shenanigans exists in place of time.

Maybe everything can happen all at once but then how would beings even exist in such a universe and even begin to start collecting knowledge.

That would make manifestion legit .

I'm getting double slit experiment vibes from this question.

I don't think we would ever be able to record anything of utility since it would change so rapidly from one second to the next.

Only a subjective view of the world would ever exist.

Maybe a type 3 kardashev civ could answer this accurately.

Wait, have I confused you. There was another question about causality. I accidentally first gave my answer to that, instead of the principle of non-contradiction one.

The answer you gave is more like the answer to this :-"If the concept of causality were discovered to be an emergent illusion rather than a fundamental property of reality, what would be the implications for the possibility of knowledge, understanding, and the validity of scientific inquiry?"

For the question of Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?
I'm not sure where time would fit into this.

I came up with a new answer for A. My first answer was actually a bit weak and misunderstood the question.

Revised answer for A) In a universe where the principle of non-contradiction is false, we would have to understand why and under what circumstances it's false.

The question specifically says "A *CAN* be both A and not A. It doens't say A is always A and not A)

I would have to make the assumption it's not a weird universe with some random laws that change A from being true and not true sometimes, to only true other times.

In this case, in this universe, some A would be true and false at the same time, and some B would be only True, and some C would be only false.

This means if we have rules like we do in this universe, then we would have a consistent system of formal logic, and from that consistent system of formal logic I conclude that we would be able to construct a meaningful self-consistent system of knowledge.

 

[back2form]

I know the answers , that but am not going to tell you

 

[Dopious]

Damn, I`m getting Reaaski vibes in here, you ok Tom.