tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post1390139761365832231..comments2024-03-18T01:59:58.705-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: Proof of Infinite Regression's FallacyAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-1266401695612622512013-03-30T16:45:35.288-04:002013-03-30T16:45:35.288-04:00I agree. I don't think I looked at it quite th...I agree. I don't think I looked at it quite that way before.<br /><br />However, that established, if logic were calculus, there could be an infinite number of distinct implications between one physical entity and another. Or at least, that's how many seem to think. <br /><br />Really just wanted to clarify that, though. It gets busted by the same principle. It's only meaningfully infinite if it requires an infinite amount of information to specify. Information has mass. We can be 100% certain there's no infinite masses to observe. <br /><br />Ergo, logic isn't like calculus. (Or calculus isn't properly understood.)<br /><br />-<br /><br />If I were in your position, I would appreciate being told that I went overboard on the question marks. Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-46942188664420253582013-03-30T16:09:52.986-04:002013-03-30T16:09:52.986-04:00Doesn't being able to follow a cause to an eff...Doesn't being able to follow a cause to an effect essentially allow an affect to be tracked back to a cause? If a=b, then b=a?<br /><br />The only way one would not be able to fully track an effect to a cause would be if one did not incorporate all actual causes into the effect. In other words, one cannot give a definitive answer from incomplete information. Therefore, one must be able to assume with complete information, one can draw a definite conclusion.<br /><br />Can we create a word that actually only exists within the realm of an idea? If I write the word 'unicorn', does that mean unicorns exist in the same way that horses exist? In other words, can we create ideas that exist only within the realm of ideas without being able to translate into a multi-dimensional realm? Would not such a thing as an infinite proof fall into such a category, and thus attempting to equate it with finite proofs contained within the 4th dimensional sphere actually be incorrect?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-46423464317521395592012-12-19T10:38:45.498-05:002012-12-19T10:38:45.498-05:00Re: infinite negatives, the key word is 'may.&...Re: infinite negatives, the key word is 'may.' <br /><br />They may have the right answer, but they failed to demonstrate it. I do not believe in things I cannot personally demonstrate. <br /><br />In addition, I've spent enough time on this already as compared to the likely payoffs, according to my judgment, so I'm not going to try to fix their proof for them. <br /><br />So I'm trying to say I think their line of inquiry doesn't have any obvious fatal flaws, and might be worth pursuing. That said, I thought I made it apparent enough I'm not going to personally pursue it. <br /><br />-<br /><br />Re: Munchausen trilemma, I don't find the axiomatic solution unsatisfying. Instead, I find it obvious. Of course there are bedrock facts which neither admit nor need justification. That being the case, we approximate the actual bedrock facts by assuming certain more-convenient axioms for the question under inspection. <br /><br />Or: do not pretend to question in your philosophy what you do not question in your heart. <br /><br />Also, good luck finding a way to question things like A=A. <br /><br />This seems to want an example. So, if I'm questioning dopamine, I take as axiomatic certain bits of chemistry, then reason forward to the effects on the mind. If I later find a need to question chemistry, I retreat the axioms only slightly, then reason forward. (Then recurse.)<br /><br />Tangenetially, this made easier because I can safely rely on my habit of questioning the questionable. No matter how confidently I assert some axioms, I will easily and naturally un-accept them if I come across a good reason to.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-26935102368407181592012-12-15T15:39:09.694-05:002012-12-15T15:39:09.694-05:00In saying that the person who used an infinite seq...In saying that the person who used an infinite sequence of negative numbers may be correct, yet their proof is flawed, how does this correctness effect your argument? Also, if you are appealing to logic and philosophy, you have to consider Munchhausen's Trilemma, correct? This Trlemma would suggest that infinite dimensions must exist for reality to exist, because otherwise you are left with circularity, or you allow that Churchill is a carrot. This is especially frustrating if you focus on the need for infinite regression in time, and the origin of existence itself. Eventually I had to allow for 1=0 but pretend that it could not be allowed to maintain a functional reality :-PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-47907548971593074422012-08-29T10:31:05.780-04:002012-08-29T10:31:05.780-04:00I called my interpretation grotesque only because ...I called my interpretation grotesque only because I worry about my English. I really hardly imagine how a native speaker sees my expressions. Regrettable if this is the reason for stopping the communication.<br /><br />Best regards.AlexZynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-3475461800773805872012-08-28T20:26:16.659-04:002012-08-28T20:26:16.659-04:00The use of the word 'grotesque,' as with s...The use of the word 'grotesque,' as with similar phrases, reliably indicates no communication is possible. <br /><br />I conclude no communication is possible.<br /><br />I will now stop pretending communication is possible. <br /><br />Good day sir. Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-50708467779188707512012-08-27T13:40:07.088-04:002012-08-27T13:40:07.088-04:00So, let's check if I got your general point pr...So, let's check if I got your general point properly. I will try to summarize it in my dummy terms. Please do not hesitate to correct me.<br /><br />Putting it in physical terms, there are no infinite energies in the world, thus, due to energy-information interrelationship, every event brings a finite quantity of information as well. No infinite information - no infinite judgment and/or sequence of premises. The informational finiteness leads to tautologies (circular reasoning), whenever reasoning about a matter terminates or exhausts itself. I can accept that or something similar but more finely formulated.<br /><br />If this grotesque interpretation was reliable at all, I would like to know how one should deal with the Gödel's formalization theorem?AlexZynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-54989162184895721582012-08-27T11:12:16.928-04:002012-08-27T11:12:16.928-04:00I'm not bothered by length or language struggl...I'm not bothered by length or language struggles. Instead I'm happy we share an interest. I go long myself - it would be hypocritical for me to object to long comments.<br /><br />The meta-statement is ambiguous. It can be meant literally, or it can have its implied, second-level meaning.<br /><br />If I say the snow is white, then I'm communicating that I believe it is white. (Nobody's burning coal nearby, say.) If I add that it is true, I'm just wasting time.<br /><br />If a second person adds that it is true, they're communicating that they agree with my assessment. They can also say, "Yes, the snow is white," or, "The snow <b>is</b> white," and similar things.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I am indifferent to consensus. With one caveat, the deflationary theory is true - reality's is the only opinion I much care about. (Note that is it bad grammar to simply assert 'deflationary theory' though I can simply assert 'snow is white.' Although <a href="http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html" rel="nofollow">logicians often assert that P</a>. Logicians and I agree that grammar doesn't make sense.) <br /><br />The caveat being that a statement that fully defines the question may still need computation to get from the statement to prediction. Pi can be defined very quickly but there's no shortcut to knowing the 10,000th digit, if you need it for something. <br /><br />Get at deflation from another angle. If I'm doing an experiment to determine whether, p, snow is white, do I need an additional experiment to show that '"snow is white" is true'? I don't think I do. I record a broad spectrum reflected from the snow, and I'm done - the whole chain of self-asserting statements is justified.<br /><br />This angle method can be generalized. If the belief were in an impenetrable black box, can you tell the difference between one world where deflationary theory is true and one where it is false? I can't. I can't see any consequences except to itself, so it dies to the hard form of Occam's Razor. <br /><br /><br /><br />The snow is white is true is true etc. chain is a good example of what I mean by a finite proof. We both understand what we're talking about - which means it was communicated in a finite time. Its apparent endlessness is illusory, as the actual information inside must fit into a few natural-language sentences.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Rather than talking about ways to justify, I'd like to talk about the way any particular statement is related to its justification. <br /><br />My claim is that after stripping illusory infinities from justifications, all true statements have finite justifications or else go circular. Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-10375753706037253322012-08-27T07:40:12.747-04:002012-08-27T07:40:12.747-04:00Thank You for the reply. Please forgive my trivial...Thank You for the reply. Please forgive my trivial notes below. I need them to define, whether I understand You properly. I am afraid, one problem is that there is no consensus about the so-called deflationary theory of truth and meaning in philosophy. Do 'meta'-statements provide extra information via predicating truth-value or meaning to statements about the world, or they are informationally equal? If '"The snow is white" is true' tells something distinct from 'The snow is white' (for me it is intuitively right), then there is an infinite possibility to produce new statements:<br /><br />p; p is true; 'p is true' true etc.<br /><br />To get closer to the skeptical argument, let's express it in a way below:<br /><br />(1) Q is true, because it is justified by P.<br />(2) Q is true, because P' justifies that P shows the evidence for Q... etc.<br /><br />Do You argue that there is a countable number of ways to justify the existence of or explicate relations between statements, objects and, the most important, statements about statements? I believe that infinity appears due to the need of a new theory of justification for each level or step of justification: P justifies Q, because it corresponds to facts and implies Q; 'correspond to facts' means '...' or take place when ..., 'imply' means '...' etc.<br /><br />So, it looks like in my example (which is obviously not mine, but a variation on the old one) an infinite regression is supported by implementing an iterating operation to changing matter of statement. This iteration relates to form, so there seems no circularity in content presented.<br /><br />Sorry for this long note.AlexZynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-81945154822365387492012-08-26T21:43:55.909-04:002012-08-26T21:43:55.909-04:00I'm arguing against both; the physical possibi...I'm arguing against both; the physical possibility and the proofs trying to use it. <br /><br />I'm happy to try to make things clearer for non-native speakers, though I suspect I don't have the necessary skill to succeed. <br /><br />I can now state my argument better, I think. To prove anything, it must be written down in a finite number of words, which means a finite number of premises, which means finite information.<br /><br />A truly infinite proof would require infinite information. Since information has mass, physics cannot contain anything that would require infinite information to specify. <br /><br />Any proof by infinite regression cannot be meaningfully infinite, which means it either terminates or goes circular. If it terminates, it isn't a regression either, and if it goes circular it is just a fallacy. Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-45284817921094437252012-08-26T05:16:20.642-04:002012-08-26T05:16:20.642-04:00Please, help me to figure out. Are you arguing aga...Please, help me to figure out. Are you arguing against the possibility of infinite regression or for the impossibility to prove anything via IR? My English is not so good, so I could miss something in your reasoning, but I partially expected to find some keys to skeptics IR argument against the possibility of justification. Excuse me if this was not your concern.AlexZynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-33854527260231178502012-07-17T01:28:33.444-04:002012-07-17T01:28:33.444-04:00You may be correct, but your proof is flawed.
Th...You may be correct, but your proof is flawed.<br /><br /><br />The series of negative numbers contains a very finite amount of information. For example, I just exactly described it in a finite sentence.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-43182472901172942162012-07-16T22:25:35.559-04:002012-07-16T22:25:35.559-04:00You assume that just because a regression is infin...You assume that just because a regression is infinite, that every possible configuration must occur an infinite amount of times.<br /><br />This is not necessarily the case.<br /><br />The string of numbers -1, -2, -3, ... and so on, regressing by 1 infinitely, does not contain each number an infinite amount of times, but is a valid example of an infinite regression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-12984488063187954872012-06-19T18:01:44.063-04:002012-06-19T18:01:44.063-04:00I'm glad you like it, because that makes at le...I'm glad you like it, because that makes at least one of us.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-74408111625643162672012-06-18T19:59:02.254-04:002012-06-18T19:59:02.254-04:00Wow, this is a great post. I've been ponderin...Wow, this is a great post. I've been pondering infinite regression, myself, because I have heard it asserted countless times that an infinite regression is not logical yet pretty much anyone that makes that claim is quoting a philospher who is quoting a philosopher who is quoting a philosopher who is quoting a ....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com