05:00 - 19:0019:00 - 23:00

5:54 AM
On the shoulders of Maxwell...

1 hour later…
7:13 AM
What if the scale bundle is the opposite of a jet bundle
Instead of derivating you are integratating
its the shape modality or something

Is $\mathcal{H}$ also a rectangle for ya'll? I don't know what happened that made this change

Mathjax in the end is just the mathml tag in HTML
Maybe you have some mathml issues

7:35 AM
"Following Kearns (2011), consider for instance a scenario in which an enduring wall, W, is shrunk down to the size of a brick and eventually brought back in time so as to be used to build (along with other bricks) the original W."

8:15 AM
@SillyGoose It works here:
It sounds like a font problem i.e. whatever font your browser is trying to use is missing that character code.

8:29 AM
@John Rennie follow up to my question yesterday So does it apply in General relativity also that if the rate of time passing was faster the weight of an object would increase?

Hi :-)
Suppose we pick some coordinates (t, x, y, z) and we use these coordinates to measure the position of the object we are watching.

Then we can differentiate the position wrt time to get the velocity, and differentiate a second time to get the acceleration.
OK so far?

But if we differentiate with respect to our time coordinate t that isn't very useful as dt/dt is always just equal to 1.
Instead we differentiate wrt proper time τ i.e. the time measured by a clock attached to the object.

8:33 AM
yes

So then the acceleration is d²X/dτ² where X is the position (t, x, y, z) and then dt/dτ ≠ 1
In fact dt/dτ is just the time dilation factor.
This quantity d²X/dτ² is called the four acceleration

I recognise that

OK :-)
The four-acceleration is given by the geodesic equation. For a particle falling freely we get a simple equation that relates the acceleration we measure in our coordinates to the spacetime curvature (again measured in our coordinates)
We get:
$$\frac{d^2 x^i}{dt^2} = - \Gamma^i_{jk} u^ju^k{dt}$$
This looks a bit scary, but it's a lot simpler than it looks.

Is that gamma to the i

The uʲ and uᵏ are the four velocity dX/dτ
And the gammas are the Christoffel symbols that describe the curvature.

8:38 AM
alright

So the equation relates acceleration on the left to curvature on the right.
Oops, I just noticed an error: the "dt" shouldn't be there. That was a copy and paste error. Oh well ...
Anyhow, note that on the right side we have the curvature Γ but also the four velocity 𝑢. So the acceleration is proportional to both the curvature and the speed the particle is moving through spacetime.
That's why the speed affects how fast we see the particle accelerating.

great explanation, it will take me time to go through it though

OK :-)
I'm around for a while if you want to ask anything more about it.

3 hours later…
11:58 AM
Hi
Some philosophers/physicists hold the viewpoint that nature is a very complex set-theoretic structure, and that we are part of that structure. And also that it's our mathematicalbstructure that makes us self aware @ACuriousMind @Amit @Slereah
Stephen Wolfram has this theory
Is this correct to say that these theories are at least incomplete/ at worst wrong
I say they're at least incomplete because qualia are nowhere in any computable structure. Yet we know that qualia exist. But some pholosophers like Daniel Denett are saying that the structure IS qualia
Gerard t'hooft also believes in a cellular automata theory that represents the universes's "beables" that are ontological
Is it correct to say that these theories r incomplete becuz qualia also exist? @ACuriousMind @Slereah @Amit

12:20 PM
@RyderRude the computationalist position is precisely that qualia are explained as functions/epiphenomena of computation

Yeah, but on what basis do they say that? Do they just take that as their starting point with no justification needed?
Like, how did they reason themselves into that philosophy? I can't think of any justification to this philosophy except the circular justification where u take it as ur starting point

iirc e.g. Dennet denies that qualia, in their standard formulation, make sense as a concept
like, just because I believe in Santa that doesn't make Santa real, and just because I believe I have subjective experiences that doesn't make them real, either
i.e. one branch of computationalism just denies that qualia exist

But the devil cudnt confuse u about ur sentience. If u r doubting ur sentience, u r sentient
And mathematical structure cudnt doubt
And qualia r right in front of all of us. Devil cudnt fool u about qualia

the position here is we can computationally explain how the mind believes in Santa without Santa needing to exist, and likewise we can computationally explain how the mind believes in subjective experiences without them needing to exist; the claim is that these two beliefs are not fundamentally different in the computationalist viewpoint
@RyderRude Well, the thing about computationalism is that it doesn't really agree that there is a meaningful difference betwen sentient and non-sentient things
it's all just systems performing computation, and at some level of complexity we have historically started to call the abilities of some computational systems "sentience", but this is just a silly category, not some inherent property

Ummm.. This is a very weird position. They r accepting some parts of our existence and denying others

12:27 PM
You're right that this is incompatible with the Cartesian cogito, ergo sum and a focus on personal sensations as the only certain things I've talked about in the context of Decartes and Hume
but that's the thing: If everyone agreed Descartes and Hume were correct, epistemology and theories of mind would have stopped with them :P

Ok they say they can explain everything about the human using math structure. I think that's where there mistake is. There mistake is in their definition of "everything"
Their definition of everything is "everything that is explainable using math structures"
So it's circular. I'll give an example of something that falls outside their definition of everything
They can't explain the "redness" of red. Cuz they dont count it in their definition of "everything about red"

I feel you're always very quick to focus on what you think is wrong in any particular philosophy we talk about :P

They just count the wavelength, the mathematical information about red as "everything about red"
@ACuriousMind I think their position is valid, but it also takes itself as the starting point. Their position is : "everything about the world describable using math is describable using math"
And they define "everything about world describablw using math" as "everything about the world"
So it's a consistent position I guess but it take itself as the starting point

You are correct they don't explain "redness" - that's what I mean when I say Dennett denies the existence of qualia. But this isn't supposed to be "let's not count that because we can't explain it", it's supposed to be "we don't need to explain that because we don't think it's actually real"
it's not "qualia don't exist because we can't explain them", it's "we can explain why people believe in qualia without needing to assume their existence"
I think it's uncharitable to represent this as the circular position; in general I tend to assume that any objection I can come up with only minutes after hearing a new theory is something someone else has already thought of :P

Yeah, I think people have thought of this objection for sure :)
So I can't convince followers of this philosophy that it's circular. I can only believe myself that it's circular
@ACuriousMind I am finding this to be a convincing foundation of their philosophy

12:40 PM
Good enough
go with it

Ok I cud understand their argument : "Assume only a deterministic set-theoretic structure exists like Cellular automata. In this, there is a structure corresponding to " People" and a structure corresponding to "light". When " Light" encounters people, the People structure spits out a string "I see light"
It's philosophical zombies in a mathematical structure
my objection would be that the "behavior of people", which includes what they say or think, is already part of "Everything explainable using math structures".
The " Shape" or "color" of a person is not part of "everything explainable using math". But Denett just denies that the qualia that he feels exist. So he excludes that from his definition of "everything"

12:59 PM
But determinism and QM aren't friends

Ceullar automata is a hidden variable theory anyway :) @Amit

Exactly

Oh, it's an attempt to reproduce qm using hidden variables and determinism
It's sort of like Bohmian mechanics. But at least Bohmian is a complete theory for non relativistic QM

But if you relax the criteria of "computation" to include quantum computation, it's a different matter. I think it's a nice way to see how we slowly move our goal posts in accordance with evidence. We once thought physics and computation are about accuracy of predictions. Now we are forced to kind of separate predictivity from computation

@Amit yeah, the goal now is to at least have an objective reality. Cellular automata stuff obviously still has to be random in practice.
It's just philosophical matters. But the theory of thooft does make different predictions too
His theory means that quantum computation would fail at large scales

1:06 PM
It's not that qm disproves cellular automata, I think only if it's combined with some other assumptions like locality

Yeah, but u can also have superdeterminism to violate Bell's inequality. Thooft supports some version of sueprdeterminism
But i dont think he supports the conspiracy version. But idk of any other version of superdeterminism
Thooft has spoken against conspiracy

So here's an interesting thought experiment. Suppose we have the precise rules for the cellular automata. all physics are explained, whatever experiment we do, we got the algorithm to predict the result to any accuracy. Do we then conclude that the automata is nature at a fundamental level? Or, perhaps still, this is just a model and we don't know if that's how nature "does it"?

A scientist would always assume that measurements arent precise enough

Nonoooo im telling ye, we got the digits dude lol

But maybe after a 1000 years, u would have people saying, in practice, that cellular automata are the beables

1:11 PM
However many you like
No abnormalization required

Lol

🤣
Are the beatles?
Oh sorry, beable, thanks I learned something new

Beable is an official term for ontological stuff lol

Cool

But i guess cellular automata evolution wud look like beatles breeding

1:14 PM
Lol
It was right under our nose this whole time

1:38 PM
@ACuriousMind @Slereah @Amit What is ur personal opinion on the "computational universe, qualia dont exist" philosophy?

Does it mean that computer also perceive qualia like us
if only illusorily

Yeah, i guess. But idk if u r allowed to talk about qualia even as an illusion. Becuz then theyd exist as an illusion
And an illusion is already subjective
They deny subjective stuff

But subjective stuff is the only thing u experience in the world

So u too dont like their philosophy :P

is it not truer than any "objective" notion that you have never perceived!
Are atoms truer than love

1:41 PM
Exactly!
@Slereah lol
I think people from that philosophy are trolling hard

Probably not
It's a pretty old idea

Oh
I guess they just want to be the cool kids idk

The qualia concept doesn't seem refutable which is kind of a turn off for me lol

But ofc they genuinely believe in it

cf. Democritus' idea in the 5th century BCE
"by convention sweet and by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; but in reality atoms and void"

1:43 PM
@Amit glad u r in too!

all is atoms and the void

Wow this guy was extremely ahead of his time.
Kinetic theory of heat

I mean those were ancient atoms
Not really comparable to modern notions

Yeah
Still extremely impressive

For a start they did not have a set size
You could have giant atoms
Atoms larger than Earth

1:45 PM
I was born relatively recently and i didnt come up with the kinetic theory until i was taught it

I'm not sure he had the idea of the kinetic theory of heat

I thought heat was fundamental lol

He probably thought that heat was because of a specific kind of atom
Spiky atom probably

Oh :P

he also thought that souls were round smooth atoms

1:46 PM
Lol, the spikard

I think he did mushrooms

A bit of a rough theory of everything, but on the other hand the previous' guy's idea was "everything is water", so it was pretty good by those standards
@RyderRude Back then you drank the kykleon of the Elysian mysteries

Socrates would understand modern science in a heartbeat I concur

probably not
For a start we don't really know his ideas that well
Most of his philosophical ideas are conveyed in Plato's dialogue where he is a Mary Sue of Plato's ideas

Oh I don't mean the theories just the faithful recording of data etc. But yeah, I certainly like to project Socrates in a certain manner

1:50 PM
Except for his brief appearance in Aristophanes' play where he is portrayed less wise than in Plato

There's also Xenophon

SOCRATES

Well then, reflect what a noise is produced by your belly, which is but small. Shall not the air, which is boundless, produce these mighty claps of thunder?
Different sort of philosophy pictured there

He was a strange character

He was basically a crazed homeless man

Yeah, like every good mystic must be

2:25 PM
While finding mode coefficients from the mode expansion of a field on some spacetime, we use the orthonormality condition of the basis. What if the orthonormality holds only on an interval of the full spacetime
E.g. In half Minkowski space the plane wave basis looks like $e^{i\omega_\vec{k} t} \sin(k x)$ upto some normalization factors. But when I want to use the orthonormality of the sine functions it is defined only for an interval of the half line. The integral $\int \sin(kx)\sin(mx)dx$ does not converge on the half line...
I guess I would just have to use Euler's formula and use the fact that Fourier transform of unity is the dirac delta function :)

2:57 PM
@Amit Not really, because other rule sets can behave identically to the set of our chosen automata. Even worse, if you can determine that two different rule sets always result in the same outcome you've solved the Halting Problem.
FWIW, I asked 't Hooft a question about CA, but he didn't respond.
In classical cellular automata, cell states are updated at the tick of a global clock. I suppose that the clock pulses could be generated locally, so each cell stays in sync with its neighbours, but I think that means every cell must participate in this local clock synchronisation process, even the totally empty cells. — PM 2Ring Oct 16, 2022 at 12:35

@PM2Ring You are very correct. But actually my question is motivated by trying to figure out whether it's even "worse": can we even conclude that any automata is "computing" in real nature, or could a totally different mechanism yield the same results?
Cool, I didn't know in 2022 t'Hooft was still active here

@Amit Well, if two computing machines are actually executing the same algorithm, then we consider them to be equivalent. If the universe is a computer, we can't see the actual "hardware" they're running on, all we see is the output of the computations.

Right, so it's like a black box problem. No matter how many input output pairs we obtain we learn nothing about the insides of the black box?

Yeah, I was pleased & surprised to see that post. But his activity on the site has been very minimal for several years

Even if there is an input equivalent to "Are you an automaton?" and the answer is "yes" it may be a lie! Lol

3:07 PM
@Amit Exactly. We're doing damn well if we can even get an accurate idea of the rule set. We have no chance of knowing the inner mechanism of the black box.

Certainly, it's a crazy edge case :)

But even if we do have perfect knowledge of the ruleset, that doesn't mean we can then make useful predictions of any physical phenomenon. We're still in a similar situation as what we have today, where we can easily compute some stuff to useful precision, but in general there's plenty of stuff where the calculations are intractable.

And all this is assuming reality is computational in the first place, i.e. qualia dont really exist

The most well-known CA is (probably) Conway's Game of Life (GoL). People have been playing with it and studying it for ~50 years. It has a very simple ruleset, and we now have clever algorithms that can generate billions of generations per second if there are periodic sub-patterns. But the GoL community is still discovering new stuff in relatively small patterns.

Ok even without qualia, u can have a non computational ontology of reality. Becuz even math need not be computable
Becuz if real numbers exist in the "Black Box Machinery", then the Black Box can do more than a Turing Machine

3:24 PM
Qualia are a side-issue. It may be the case that that universe can be accurately modelled as if it's a giant computation. But that doesn't necessarily imply that there really is some meta-computer hardware generating the universe.
OTOH, it may be the case that some elements of reality cannot be captured by any finitely-describable computational rule. If I understand correctly, Penrose is claiming that consciousness is in that category. But I can't decide if he's being scientific, or that's just a quasi-religious belief that he's attached to.

@RyderRude I think computationalism is probably true but not useable as a foundational theory. That is, I do believe in the primacy of our sensations much like Hume, but within the theory of science I then construct based on that I have to conclude physicalism and computationalism is true - but true only in the secondary fallible sense that any idea derived from sensations can ever be true

It would be crazy surprising however to actually find out that nature is deterministic. At least that metaphysical question may one day be answered by physics.

It's true like "effects follow causes", and not in the primary, certain way something like "I feel pain" is true

I assume that physical processes in the universe ticked along nicely long before sentient organisms with qualia existed. ;)
OTOH, maybe stars have qualia, and even sapience. I don't know how to discuss that with them, though. :)

@PM2Ring I do think Penrose is motivated by belief, but as long as he "plays by the rules" of good science, it's just as well having someone like him attacking this problem from a new perspective

3:30 PM
@ACuriousMind Do u buy a modified version of computationalism where u accept qualia exist and that computationalism is true only within your subjective experience instead of as the primary objective nature of reality?

There are also subtle points to Penrose arguments I am not qualified to comment on. He claims that in a way Godel's theorem shows that a computation cannot "understand" things

I am very much with Nigel and his famous "What is it like to be a bat" article that I find it impossible to deny the existence of subjective experience - it would be denying my own existence, which is incoherent

@Amit I agree. Sure, it has diminished his reputation a bit in some quarters, but it's good to have someone who's a good physicist thinking about this stuff. And as I said the other day, his dad was a psychologist, so it's not unreasonable for him to have a strong interest in this stuff from an early age.

Yeah, his father was a real multidisciplinary... very scholarly family...

@ACuriousMind I agree. Computationalism MAY be true within subjective experience. computationalism as objective reality cant explain subjective experience, because you'd just get philosophical zombies.

3:36 PM
But I do find the computationalism convincing enough that I think we're trapped in a very weird place here: it is through sensation that we experience the world but the best models for interpreting that experience ultimately have to disregard the subjective, pretend that it doesn't exist even though "one level higher" it is the one thing we cannot reject
I have physicalism as an application running inside of a more fundamental radical skeptic operating system, to make an analogy I'm not sure how to feel about

It's the agreement among the sentient beings about whats out there that makes computationalism seem very attractive to me. All sentient beings agree about the events of spacetime

@Amit I'm a bit suspicious of some of his arguments regarding that. I read his "The Emperor's New Mind" when it was new, and I re-read it ~10 years ago. And I occasionally re-read bit & pieces from time to time. I tend to agree with Douglas Hofstadter: consciousness involves Strange Loops that somehow manage to cross levels of abstraction.

But yeah, subjective experience has to be primary in our ontology as it's the only thing we know for sure
@ACuriousMind great analogy

Do Penrose and Chomsky agree on any aspects of consciousness?
I saw Jordon Peterson trying to interview Penrose; but, couldn't finish watching it because Peterson gets on my nerves too quickly.

Sir Roger does tend to waffle on a bit...

3:49 PM
(?)

A discussion between Chomsky & Penrose could be interesting... if it happened a few decades ago when they were both still near their intellectual peaks. But they'd probably need to spend a few months learning each other's worldview and communication style, first.

But ultimately I have to admit I think that I really need to reject computationalism as fundamental not because of the Inconsistence but because it is unusable as a foundation for morality. Computationalists tend to be utilitarians but I don't really think you can get even that out of it if you really believed in it

Morality is a tough nut to crack. Not even all philosophers agree on what separates it from ethics.

Even if computationalism is true, and there is a perfect computational description of how human consciousness works, i.e., a program for consciousness, I expect that program is far too complicated for humans to understand. I guess it's a Gödelian thing: an information processing system cannot process structures that are as complicated as it is.

4:03 PM
@PM2Ring Interesting. I didn't read his book but I think perhaps I could judge what he says better if I first have a better grasp of Godel's theorem
@user726941 I managed to get through that interview. Peterson and the other guy were constantly leaning in to try and learn something from the wise sage lol, that's how it looked to me. But Penrose always repeats more or less the same verbal explanation for his view, which I find insufficient in itself to really understand him

@PM2Ring ok i got a counter argument. the human brain's computation system is "more powerful" than an animal's. So we should be able to explain an animal's qualia as a computation. But we cant answer what it is like to be a bat
In any case, it is very handwavy to say that qualia are unprovable Godel sentences
Becuz there's no indication that qualia are sentences

But don't judge a bat by its ability to swim 😉 😉
::nudge nudge::
😜

I can kill bats with an egg spoon

@PM2Ring The usual approach among computationalists is to deny qualia exsists so that computationalists can claim that they've explained everything that exists using math. But they define everything that exists as "everything they can explain using math"

@RyderRude You know the joke about the murderer who tried to use Newton as a defense...

4:17 PM
Wut is it

@RyderRude again, I think that is a mischaraterization: the reason they deny qualia is not "in order to" claim they've explained everything by computation/physicalism. It is because they believe in physicalism that they deny any objective existence of qualia.

Mathematician / scifi author Rudy Rucker has a nice simple informal proof of Gödel Incompleteness in Infinity and the Mind. FWIW, Rucker is a direct descendant of the philosopher Georg Hegel.
2

there is an important difference between motivated reasoning (I already believe X, but Y contradicts X, so I must deny Y even though it is obviously true) and proof by contradiction (I believe in X, and Y contradicts X, so Y cannot be true), even though it can be hard to tell the difference in practice

I may be telling it inaccurately.. but he tells the judge "Newton taught us that all is governed and predictable by forces between particles... since I am made of particles I had no choice but do what I did.."
The judge ponders this a bit and says "Oh ye, but since I am also made of the same particles, I have no choice but sentence you to life in prison"

@ACuriousMind I agree it's a consistent belief then :P There's no inconsistency, yes
@Amit 😂
I wonder if this joke is seriouslu used in philosophical discussions about punishing criminals
I've thought before along similar lines

4:24 PM
Determinism vs. free will is absolutely an important part of theories of justice
but it's not quite the same as the discussion about consciousness and computationalism we're having, even though almost all computationalists are also determinists in the traditional sense

I agree computationlism is consistent. I personally don't like it becuz it seems like it starts with itself with no justification. Not that that's a problem in the "circular logic" sense.
But yeah, these discussions inevitably have to go "circular". I can't fault computationlism
Becuz it's all a belief. U gotta start with ur belief

well, you could also start with God or The Good

Or The Truth.

You mean using morality as the target for our philosophy, so that it can achieve something useful

it's a bit hard to imagine for us today in our individualist modern societies, but for a large period of human thought the "certain facts" from which philosophy started wasn't the rationalist cogito, ergo sum or the skeptic "I can trust only my senses", it was some other "fact" about the world that people believed in
Things like the ontological proof of God's existence or Plato's world of ideas look deeply absurd to many modern humans who have been exposed to at least some folklore version of the scientific method, but I see no reason to doubt that some people did (and do) genuinely believe it.
from the "outside" view, my conviction in the primacy of my own sensations and my reason is just due to the success the enlightenment thinkers had in spreading their ideas
it's very hard to realize today how radical enlightenment philosophy was compared to what came before it
(and you can see how successful it was just by the fact that we call it "enlightenment" rather than some more neutral term)

4:38 PM
there was no lack of skeptics and relativists in ancient philosophy
It's just that Plato and friends got all the glory later on

sure, they existed but they usually weren't particularly popular

I think that the fact it has the root word "light" is ironic.

Weren't they
Some of them were pretty big back then
Evil individuals
Claiming that man was the measure of all thing!
What even is truth

The indefinable subject of religion.

@user726941 what's ironic about it?

4:42 PM
@ACuriousMind "enlightment philisophy". So we choose our philosophical beliefs with human happiness as target
This is a very good idea

@RyderRude where did you get that from what I wrote?

Things got pretty dark from time to time in the Dark Ages...

I googled "enlightment philosophy" @ACuriousMind
It said focus on human happiness on wikipedia

I...would not agree with that, although utilitarianism is part of the enlightenment
Kant was one of the figureheads of enlightenment and definitely didn't really focus on "happiness" at all

@ACuriousMind the speed of light at first being infinite and then a defined constant.

4:45 PM
Still, he focused on ethics. It's similar goals

there isn't really one particular "enlightenment philosophy", it's more a name for a collection of ideas that all emerged in a relatively narrow timespan and mostly rejected traditional ideas about reason and society

Yeah I'm not sure I would describe the Panopticon as for the happiness of humans
👁

I thought it meant philosophers finally got enlightment that the only point of philosophy could be to target human happiness :P

no, not really
and different people mean slightly different things by the term

I personally find myself with zero targets in philosophy :P

4:48 PM
Zeno had many targets

What was Zeno's motivation @Slereah

to prove the oneness of all things

He wanted to be lazy. So he proves it was impossible to cross the room
@Slereah oh that's better :P

In German, the foundational text is Kant's "Was ist Aufklärung?" (what is enlightenment?) and we should remark that "Aufklärung" actually doesn't relate to light at all but means the process of "clearing something up".
To him, enlightenment was the process of a human endowed with reason ending their self-inflicted Unmündigkeit (apparently the English word for this is "nonage", which I've never heard before) - and that Unmündigkeit is the inability to use your own reason without external guidance.
So the "enlightenment" here is not about happiness, it is about discarding traditional patterns of obeisance, about a new, radical, individualistic notion of humanity where it is our own innate reason that guides us and not external factors
Kant credited Hume with awakening him from a "dogmatic slumber" and the fact that we today usually associate the word "dogma" with Christian churches tells you who the main "target" or "opponent" of enlightenment was
:63272617 Given that it has been public domain for hundreds of years, I'm sure of it

Got it, thanks.

4:53 PM
You know, Popper said in his late years... "after all this time, I merely arrived at the Pre socratics..."

@Amit And what did he mean by that?

There's a lot to cover.

pithy quotes by philosophers are very often easy to misinterpret because you're missing the context

My only target in philosophy is to be able to hold a completely useless but entertaining belief about the universe :P

e.g. Kant has a quote where he says he had to give up knowledge to make room for faith or something like that but I assure you that when you hear this without context you will definitely make the wrong assumptions about what he meant by "knowledge" or "faith"

4:55 PM
It seems like Kant achieved his target then

@ACuriousMind In this case I didn't see a reason not to take this quote at face value, that is, just look up what the pre Socratics said.. but you are probably right and more context is needed

he was probably just being extra

Popper was minimalist about a lot of things, Kant I think was always more complex to figure out

And terse.

I'm loving Zeno now. He came up with all those entertaining paradoxes to show oneness of things
He had a very nice paradox about a flying arrow
I agree with Zeno. Nature is one. There's no collections out there
I thought all of Zeno's stuff was just a misunderstanding of limits lol. Many people talk about him that way

5:02 PM
@user726941 you evidently have never had to read one of Kant's run-on sentences :P

Apparently part of the reason that a lot of physics took a while to mathematize was that it was considered Illegal to mix Aristotelian categories
You cannot talk about the QUANTITY of a QUALITY
that is absurd

Aristotle slowed down physics a lot, yeah. He had a cult following spanning till Newton's time

I mean people didn't have to trust him

And he didnt even bother counting the teeth
Of men and women
Didnt he have a "result" about the number of teeth

Trente deux dents et deux dehors

5:07 PM
Somebody wrote all of philosophy is foot notes on Plato.

I'm not a Kantian as such but I think there is something very important about his conception of duty: Because we are endowed with reason, we are duty-bound to use it - it is irrational to have reason and not use it. This is not duty to anything outside of us, but duty baked into the very nature of what it means to have reason.
All beings must strive to figure out the world, to give answers to the questions of philosophy - what can I know? what must I do? what can I hope? - and not to do that is giving up part of yourself

I am a reverse Kantian
I must always do evil

@ACuriousMind But how to implement this in society without leading to paternalism?
I have an inherent resistance to "must"s in many cases

very interestingly, though the existentialists don't agree with much else about Kant, they reflect this in their notion of the authentic self

Know thy self?

5:12 PM
@Amit I'm not sure where I said anything about society

Just what is it that you want to do?
Well, we wanna be free, we wanna be free to do what we wanna do
And we wanna get loaded and we wanna have a good time
And that's what we're gonna do
Primal Scream - Loaded youtu.be/Y3ixEzKA4k0

again: this is not duty to anything outside of us - the whole point is using my reason to figure out what I must do, and not rely on anyone else's guidance just because they hold power over me

Inserting authentication doesn't make it any easier :P

@ACuriousMind You didn't. But when you say beings must, have a duty, etc. It often quickly leads to okay so let's bake this into our educational system, and then inevitably the question is, what about those who don't fit in to this ideal..

it is precisely when we do not use our reason - when we accept external pressures guiding our actions instead of fulfilling the duty we have to reason - that we end up in Unmündigkeit - paternalism, as you call it

5:16 PM
But if reason is so innate why don't we see more evidence for that? :)

Is our duty to reason a moral obligation?

to me it is a deeply individualistic philosophy at its core, even though there is a line of reasoning that takes the categorical imperative and ends up in very strict societies

@ACuriousMind Yeah, that's interpretation again :) If it leads to individualism I have no objection

but then again, the way we end up with these strict rules in these scenarios is only because by the power of our reason we all, by ourselves, agree this is how it should be. there is nothing here that directly obligates you to obey anything but the commands of your own reason

But... reasonableness evolves through experience

5:24 PM
@ACuriousMind It's a difficult point, because you know of course of the argument that people "drift" and get "pushed" to places in an "unconscious" way very often. Not everyone accepts that, and some would say an unconscious act is just a conscious decision to ignore something...

🙊🙉🙈

Exactly :)

@Amit well, the reason I say I'm not a Kantian is because Kant himself ends up in very strange (to me) places like arguing you should never start a revolution no matter how unjust you think what's going on is
I think he got something very right about the nature of reason and then took a wrong turn somewhere because he wanted to use the universality of reason to get everyone else to act exactly like him

I didn't know that, but from all I heard about Kant it feels to me like he found it more important to be self-consistent than to be critical in some sense.
I think it's almost impossible to talk ethics without bringing in society

So when Kant critiqued reason he was being introspective?
Sorry, forgot the noun :P

5:31 PM
:) IDK about that

@Amit well...what point is there in critique if it is inconsistent?

Which gets back to context. To properly understand a philosopher we need to have some understanding of the cultural / social context they were operating in.

@ACuriousMind You can often manage without being totally consistent nor inconsistent -- leave some things open. I think many philosophers answered what they could and left questions they couldn't answer just by presenting them and leaving it there...

... exercise for the reader.

@PM2Ring indeed - Kant's enemies aren't other individualists who have more pluralist visions of society, they are the dogmatists who don't believe in individualism and freedom as the idea that it is we ourselves who ultimately determine what we must do.
again, an idea reflected very darkly in the existentialist "we are doomed to be free"

5:36 PM
For example, I don't think Kant would accept it useful to say something like: there is a constant conflict between an individual and society. Often, it was thought that society must win because society can manage without a single individual but not the other way around. On the other hand, it can be argued that every individual inherently values his own freedom above anything else... the resolution of this conflict is yet to be settled...

every time I start ranting about Kant I end up realizing how much I understand existentialism as a response that removes the focus on the universality of reason but leaves the fundamental idea about duties we have to ourselves simply by virtue of existence

Thanks for the rant.

@Amit well, in order to really understand how Kant ends up in the weird places we'd really need to start discussing in much more detail wtf a categorical imperative is :P

@ACuriousMind I still have some homework before I can have this conversation :) Maybe I'll get there some day. It's more GR for me at the moment :D

the categorical imperative, especially the various formulations that are allegedly equivalent, is somewhere between a very simple idea and something I'm not sure I have ever understood

5:41 PM
If people still find it difficult to understand Kant, I tend to blame Kant more than the people :)

5:55 PM
@ACuriousMind people talk too much about that too much. more important than that to me is the concept of humanity as an end in itself
tho whenever i talk about Kantian ethics, i have to remember to preface that with "Kantian ethics according to this one prof whose work i know well"

@Semiclassical agreed - I think I disagree with a lot of the formulations but not with the humanity version.

@Amit what you do get for sure in Kant is the notion of "unsociable sociability" (ungesellige Geselligkeit)
aka, the human "propensity to enter into society, bound together with a mutual opposition which constantly threatens to break up society"
but that's not why i came by. i'm trying to remember what the simplest way to see that Tesla^2/Ohm = kg/m^2/s

lol
I daresay more important

I don't even know what a Tesla is without looking it up :P
magnetic field?

SI unit for magnetic field
the route i have right now is to use Faraday's law to remember that Tesla * m^2 = V * s
and then P=IV=V^2/R to get Volt^2 = Joules * Ohms
but that feels like overkill

6:08 PM
I'm not sure it's overkill

what else connects the magnetic field with resistance if not the law of induction?

true
at the level of units, the way this arose (dimensionally) was from $F=I\ell B=mv/\tau$ with $I=V/R=B\ell v/R$
i guess there's no avoiding how irritating the units are :P

yeah, units suck

KMS is fine

6:11 PM
don't make contact with experiment, stay away from units, kids!

i'd say to use Gaussian units instead but i think that just makes things worse
@ACuriousMind well, this was more in the context of "how do you check that your answer has the right units"
besides just "trust that you haven't made a typo"

oh, I kid, don't take me seriously :P

lol, fair enough

05:00 - 19:0019:00 - 23:00