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

[splishsplash]

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

Uh, Reaaski..

He made absolutely no sense and would do so much rambling he would lead people towards nihilism. Everything he said was just a mixture of circular logic or overly pointless philosophical relativism.

You definitely tickled my nickel there, RoiBox ;-)

I posted 2 real questions that are grounded in logic and reasoning.

They test your ability to visualize, think abstractly, engage in metacognition(thinking about your thinking) and logically connect abstract, non-physical ideas together without losing coherence in order to form a conclusion.

 

[Dopious]

He made absolutely no sense and would do so much rambling he would lead people towards nihilism. Everything he said was just a mixture of circular logic or overly pointless philosophical relativism.

He was a freethinker just as you right? I miss that little guy, loved his none relevant rants even if he got overoard sometimes, likable harmless nice guy.

 

[splishsplash]

He was a freethinker just as you right? I miss that little guy, loved his none relevant rants even if he got overoard sometimes, likable harmless nice guy.

He was highly frustrating. I just avoided him because I didn't want to hurt his feelings, but he was highly inconsistent. I can't think of examples from memory, but there was constant inconsistencies.

I remember the intense relativism and him being very nihilistic.

He would say things along the lines of "money is so easy to make in our society it's become pointless to even try"

I personally can't work him out. He was highly unusual. That in itself is ok, but it was the inconsistency that made it strange.

 

[koxokot890]

You're not real. If even Einstein rejected the idea that the moon wasn't there when he wasn't observing it, imagine an ordinary person, and that same denial makes the dog keep chasing its tail without stopping, until you realize the joke.

 

[UnusualSubstance]

He would say things along the lines of "money is so easy to make in our society it's become pointless to even try"

Didn't he also say that you might as well work at McDonald's since you'll make more there than making money online.

I sort of miss his inane posts tbh.

He was highly unusual.

Unusual, you say?

 

[Funiki]

I'm too dumb for this.

I just came for the answers cuz i’m too dumb for this as well and looks like this is the most honest opinion and i support it, thanks for sharing.

Same as roydan here!

 

[4440]

He was a freethinker just as you right? I miss that little guy, loved his none relevant rants even if he got overoard sometimes, likable harmless nice guy.

Reaaski is like a low-parameter AI with a 10 temperature.

 

[AOT]

My brain isn't braining

 

[splishsplash]

My brain isn't braining

They're suppose to be super hard and require really deep thought.

 

[MR.Spuf]

My suggestion is to re-read carefully.

If you still don't understand where you went wrong here, then ask and I'll explain, but I'll give you the opportunity to redeem yourself.

I could not care less about philosophy, from my point of view it's only brain masturbation, doesn't add anything meaningfully to (my) life. But I don't judge, you do you.

 

[splishsplash]

I could not care less about philosophy, from my point of view it's only brain masturbation, doesn't add anything meaningfully to (my) life. But I don't judge, you do you.

That's lovely. Did you just come here for a fight or something?

You had the option to just move on to any thread of your choice, but you decided to come here and thought you had a "gotchya" that would make me look stupid, and when, presumably you realized that you completely misread the second quote, you've decided to just shit-post about how it's brain masturbation, and I should "do me".

 

[johnbennett]

Question A: In a universe where something can be both itself and not itself at the same time, can we build a meaningful system of knowledge?

My Thoughts:
Our usual logic says a thing can't be both true and false at once. If this rule doesn't apply, our standard way of understanding things would struggle. However, some alternative logics, like paraconsistent logic, allow for contradictions without collapsing into complete incoherence. In such systems, we might develop new rules to handle these contradictions, creating a different kind of knowledge framework.


Question B: If understanding reality changes it, how can we be sure our observations are accurate? Does this mean there's a limit to what we can know, or can we develop new ways to understand an ever-changing reality?

My Thoughts:
If observing reality changes it, achieving complete objectivity becomes challenging. This situation is similar to self-referential paradoxes, where statements refer back to themselves, creating loops that defy simple truth or falsehood. To navigate this, we might need to create new ways of knowing that accept and incorporate these self-referential aspects, acknowledging that our understanding is always evolving and never absolute.

 

[MR.Spuf]

you had a "gotchya" that would make me look stupid

I don't think you're stupid.

 

[indianmojojojo]

I dont belive the second question is hypothetical.

We humans are tuned to think in terms of binary so we limit our interpretations. But reality is different. It's not binary.

ps: our memories can be tricked easily between real and fabricated.

 

[splishsplash]

I dont belive the second question is hypothetical.

We humans are tuned to think in terms of binary so we limit our interpretations. But reality is different. It's not binary.

The second one is saying in a reality where, if you observed, which implies measuring, since to measure you have to observe, then the act of measuring that thing will cause the underlying thing to change, so that the next time you measure it, you get a different result.

This would be like, every time a computer measures the voltage levels in the CPU, it gets different results. It would be a very wacky universe.

 

[indianmojojojo]

The second one is saying in a reality where, if you observed, which implies measuring, since to measure you have to observe, then the act of measuring that thing will cause the underlying thing to change, so that the next time you measure it, you get a different result.

This would be like, every time a computer measures the voltage levels in the CPU, it gets different results. It would be a very wacky universe.

But if our memories can be tricked to believe there wasn't any change from the first observation to the second change. We will never know or should I say we would have never known

So technically when there is a change everytime after the observation, our memory is tricked into thinking nothing changed

I think we still cannot compute infinity. We limit it in one box. When we go beyond this infinity, are where the answers lie.

It's a trippy answer, my typing isnt as articulate as my brain thinking right now

 

[splishsplash]

But if our memories can be tricked to believe there wasn't any change from the first observation to the second change. We will never know or should I say we would have never known

So technically when there is a change everytime after the observation, our memory is tricked into thinking nothing changed

I think we still cannot compute infinity. We limit it in one box. When we go beyond this infinity, are where the answers lie.

It's a trippy answer, my typing isnt as articulate as my brain thinking right now

Sure, but machines won't work. They have to measure in order to compute. Computation is measurement.

So there's no reliable way to compute or build any sort of machine or tool.

 

[indianmojojojo]

Sure, but machines won't work. They have to measure in order to compute. Computation is measurement.

So there's no reliable way to compute or build any sort of machine or tool.

Its just the unknown unknown. But we will get there.

 

[SilverClouds]

Sure, but machines won't work. They have to measure in order to compute. Computation is measurement.

So there's no reliable way to compute or build any sort of machine or tool.

Ahhh, we're getting to that quantum computing stuff that @RoiBox posted and nobody understood shit, me included. These computers have lots of interferences, no?

But you know... I see one error in thinking here. The fact that multiple things are true DOESN'T mean everything is true. So you still can measure *something* and it will be replicable. It's just that there will be more true things at the same time, not only one.

 

[Indescribable]

This looks like fun, so I will try it. But I'm no grand philosophical intellectual.

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?

In such a world, where absolutely everything can be both true and false, then I see no reason why a system of knowledge cannot also fit this world order, and therefore, have said system to be both pointless and meaningful simultaneously.

It would be impossible to actually comprehend this with the human mind, since the logic here doesn't hold up as objectively consistent. I'm sitting here trying to envision what a world could look like but it's too much for me.

I guess such a world would be like if dividing by zero is allowed and is the law, lol.

Though, thinking about it a little more, if A is A and not A. Then wouldn't you simply need to know what A is and ignore not A to determine what A truly is and use that as a base of reference for interacting with A, and then go as far as to apply the same standards when evaluating other variables. I'm not sure how far this universe would extent. I'd assume, absolutely everything down to the atom and abstract thoughts of man would be affected, but if you could somehow managed to perceive things rationally in this world for whatever reason, then you could derive a legitimate 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?

They couldn't, I'd imagine. Maybe they could if the system of change could be measurable, but I'd imagine that too follows this law of reality this universe proposes.

There would probably be a huge lack of knowledge indeed, since absolutely everything is always changing. This kinda world would just be like god playing dice forever and anything could happen. I don't understand the use of trying to understand this world. Sounds as if one moment I could be walking, the next I could be flying, the next swimming, the next floating in some void lol.

I don't know how much of this is true but if some action requires mostly no thought (like a reflex) then maybe, since you skip the "thinking" phase, it could be possible to go around reality without having that particular function ever changed. I don't know what the limit to that be, no one really thinks to walk or talk but could you realistically say, that even in subconscious action, no one stops to understand legs or mouth in general? I think that would be far from the truth, and thus, those interaction methods would cease.


Anyway, that's what I'd think. It's not Tuesday anymore though, so I think I failed that part.