Stack Exchange
log in

RodolfoAP

 Discussion on question by al-Mu'tamid…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Jan 13, 2024 10:58
@al-Mu'tamid you can find them in any dictionary.
RodolfoAP
Jan 13, 2024 10:58
There might be arguments, depending on the definition of slavery. Typically, survival of the group: slavery as a part of a hierarchy might improve survival probabilities of the group, mainly in complex environments/situations. In war, humans practically become slaves.
 

 Discussion on question by al-Mu'tamid…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Jan 10, 2024 15:15
This should be moved to english.stackexchange.com
 

 Discussion on question by philosodad:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Jan 6, 2024 13:56
Philosophy targets final truths, not benefits.
 

 Discussion on question by David Gudem…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Nov 25, 2023 19:43
"Feminism is all about tearing down gender roles": NO. That's equality, and that's old. Feminism has the "femen" root, which finally tends to be the opposite of "machism", which effectively implies unequal rights (that's clearly visible: laws favoring women exist in evident inequality). Feminism is nowadays poorly defined, it is a mix of fuzzy ideas, that's why it is controversial and tends to lose adepts. Transgenderism has no relationship with equality, but in current feminism even air conditioning is involved. Evidently, with a load of contradictions, your point being just one more.
 

 Discussion on question by Dheeraj Ver…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Nov 3, 2023 05:36
That is not scientific philosophy, contradictions are always wrong, but the contradictions here come from the faulty interpretation.
 

 Discussion on question by prof_post: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Oct 4, 2023 07:44
"...persisting would not make life any better": false, it is the opposite: persisting allows a better (or worse) life. Non-persistence is what will not make life any better or worse, because there is no more life to improve or degrade.
 

 Discussion on answer by RodolfoAP: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 15:28
Haha, sorry this is fun, no personal intentions. 2+2 is not always 4 in reality. If you have a weighing device that displays weights rounded to the Kg, without decimals, and you weigh an object of 2.33 kg, you'll get "2Kg". Put another of the same weight on the device, and you'll get "5Kg". So, logically, "2+2=4", but empirically, in this case, "2kg+2kg=5kg". And THIS IS NOT THE ONLY CASE! In reality, the weighing device could have bad batteries, no decimals, exhaust springs, bad calibration, etc. In other words, the empirical probability of 2kg + 2kg measuring 4kg is not 100%.
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 15:28
Can someone please move this to chat? This is a completely unnecessary discussion. Thanks!
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 15:28
@DikranMarsupial "logical(...) events in the real world" is an oxymoron. Either an event is logical (e.g. A->B, A) or either an event is empirical ("real") (e.g. it rains). Relativity formulae are logical facts, where 0≤p≤1, so, logically, 100% probability is OK. In "reality", 0<p<1, so, 100% probability is impossible, independently of what formulae say. This occurs because reality is far, far, far more complex that logical abstractions. You should avoid mixing logic (mind) and reality (senses), they are two different realms. Read the answer carefully.
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 15:28
@DikranMarsupial I don't see the point on rebating an idea that dates from 1700 (see David Hume). If you want to believe that 100% and 0% probabilities exist, good for you! Congratulations! You know the future! Science doesn't. In science, there are no unquestionable predictions (not even statements) in the full body of science. Regarding Schroedinger's cat, it does not work for macro bodies, correct, but I've assumed you would consider the idea. You don't need to put a fat guy inside the box. Just a quantum particle in superposition, as the indicator married/non-married.
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 15:28
@DikranMarsupial somewhere I've read that in some country, a man can be (legally) married, while for taxing purposes he is (also legally) considered a bachelor because he doesn't live with his wife. Sounds correct. Voilà, a married bachelor in practice (while here, there's clearly a logical error, empirically, this works. Apparently, lawyers have the right to break the rules of logic).
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 15:28
@DikranMarsupial logical tautologies are not empirical facts, read the answer. 0<p<1 occurs empirically, not logically (metaphysically, rationally). Rationally, p=0 or 1 is not a problem. Empirically, you can ask Schroedinger to change the cat with a bachelor in a superposition of being married and single states, even I can think of a mechanism to do that. Or you might apply the scientific method, measure the married state of the bachelor and get two false positives among three measurements (and then, you will write a successful paper, not joking). Probability of error is never 0 in science.
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 15:28
@Anoe your statement about gold in your house is quite naive. It is possible that a plane with gold falls over your house, it's possible a friend gives you a surprise, it's possible an animal leaves it, it's possible that it's hidden behind a wall and an earthquake suddenly throws it in your hands, etc. The probability is small, but it's NEVER zero. Empirically, p is never 0 or 1. The probability that a coin breaks in the middle, and each side falls visible over the table is not zero. The probability you win the lottery is not zero, even if you try ten times and win nothing.
 

 Discussion between Dikran Marsupial a…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 14:22
Haha, sorry this is fun, no personal intentions. 2+2 is not always 4 in reality. If you have a weighing device that displays weights rounded to the Kg, without decimals, and you weigh an object of 2.33 kg, you'll get "2Kg". Put another of the same weight on the device, and you'll get "5Kg". So, logically, "2+2=4", but empirically, in this case, "2kg+2kg=5kg". And THIS IS NOT THE ONLY CASE! In reality, the weighing device could have bad batteries, no decimals, exhaust springs, bad calibration, etc. In other words, the empirical probability of 2kg + 2kg measuring 4kg is not 100%.
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 14:22
Can someone please move this to chat? This is a completely unnecessary discussion. Thanks!
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 14:22
@DikranMarsupial "logical(...) events in the real world" is an oxymoron. Either an event is logical (e.g. A->B, A) or either an event is empirical ("real") (e.g. it rains). Relativity formulae are logical facts, where 0≤p≤1, so, logically, 100% probability is OK. In "reality", 0<p<1, so, 100% probability is impossible, independently of what formulae say. This occurs because reality is far, far, far more complex that logical abstractions. You should avoid mixing logic (mind) and reality (senses), they are two different realms. Read the answer carefully.
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 14:22
@DikranMarsupial I don't see the point on rebating an idea that dates from 1700 (see David Hume). If you want to believe that 100% and 0% probabilities exist, good for you! Congratulations! You know the future! Science doesn't. In science, there are no unquestionable predictions (not even statements) in the full body of science. Regarding Schroedinger's cat, it does not work for macro bodies, correct, but I've assumed you would consider the idea. You don't need to put a fat guy inside the box. Just a quantum particle in superposition, as the indicator married/non-married.
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 14:22
@DikranMarsupial somewhere I've read that in some country, a man can be (legally) married, while for taxing purposes he is (also legally) considered a bachelor because he doesn't live with his wife. Sounds correct. Voilà, a married bachelor in practice (while here, there's clearly a logical error, empirically, this works. Apparently, lawyers have the right to break the rules of logic).
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 14:22
@DikranMarsupial logical tautologies are not empirical facts, read the answer. 0<p<1 occurs empirically, not logically (metaphysically, rationally). Rationally, p=0 or 1 is not a problem. Empirically, you can ask Schroedinger to change the cat with a bachelor in a superposition of being married and single states, even I can think of a mechanism to do that. Or you might apply the scientific method, measure the married state of the bachelor and get two false positives among three measurements (and then, you will write a successful paper, not joking). Probability of error is never 0 in science.
RodolfoAP
Sep 8, 2023 14:22
@Anoe your statement about gold in your house is quite naive. It is possible that a plane with gold falls over your house, it's possible a friend gives you a surprise, it's possible an animal leaves it, it's possible that it's hidden behind a wall and an earthquake suddenly throws it in your hands, etc. The probability is small, but it's NEVER zero. Empirically, p is never 0 or 1. The probability that a coin breaks in the middle, and each side falls visible over the table is not zero. The probability you win the lottery is not zero, even if you try ten times and win nothing.
 

 Discussion on question by thinkingman…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Sep 5, 2023 15:02
This is moreover a discoursive figure. Yes, you can have the probability of an uncertainty of the impossibility of a probability of another probability.
 

 Discussion on question by Starckman: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Aug 23, 2023 11:29
@Starckman "so we must relied on subjectively designed methods to investigate questions": we already do so, we just take the subject for granted. The approach needs to be formalized, that's essentially what the Kantian Transcendental Doctrine is about, to raise metaphysics to the level of science.
RodolfoAP
Aug 23, 2023 11:29
In simple terms, from your Cambridge reference, "knowledge comes from things that can be experienced with the senses", assumes that the senses and reason do not bias perception, which is false (senses are not identical and necessarily biased, and reason is even more). See another discussion here.
 

 Discussion on question by MeltyButter…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
May 18, 2023 18:04
Computation involves mathematical operations, and mathematics is a (human) mental process. Although rocks don't perform mathematical operations, they can be said to perform equivalent processes.
 

 Discussion on answer by RodolfoAP: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
May 17, 2023 07:57
@frIT a) conservatism is about preservation of traditional values, no relation whatsoever with survival; b) it is specifically stated "for me"; c) common left definitions tend to egalitarianism, which for me is absurd and self-destructive (the stronger the differences, the stronger the group); a socialist approach (priority is the group) seems always better, and consistent with differences, competitivity, capitalism, etc.
 

 Discussion on question by Starckman: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Mar 30, 2023 21:24
Comments are not for discussion. If you have further questions, post them as such. Any further observations should be part of the post. Thanks.
RodolfoAP
Mar 30, 2023 21:24
Less consumism means more psychological satisfaction, which means more happiness. Consumism can be a quite reliable indicator of happiness/suffering.
RodolfoAP
Mar 30, 2023 21:24
The goal of life might not always be happiness. For own experience, americans (I've worked with them for years) tends to think the goal of life is happiness (precisely perhaps because they aren't). I live in France, and I see (some, not all) intellectuals look for suffering as a way of improvement. Same as Bukowski, Kafka, Jesus, Kant, Stoicism and a large etc. Another signal of happiness here in Europe I find is less consumism: psychologically, you consume because you are not satisfied. Here, while the common pattern is to consume avidly, intellectuals tend to be frugal and simple.
 

 Discussion on question by zero: Given…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Mar 16, 2023 12:22
Knowledge can be a set of beliefs, but the objects of knowledge (eg. rules or apples) are not beliefs.
RodolfoAP
Mar 16, 2023 12:22
Morals are rules, eg. "be honest". If you want to call that a belief, ok. But rules are strictly not beliefs.
RodolfoAP
Mar 16, 2023 12:22
1) Moral rules have a goal. If you are still alive, you have them. 2) there's no formal justification to morals. If you have them wrong, you get isolated, imprisoned or death. If you are not, chances are you have them sufficiently fine for your goals.
 

 Discussion on question by tryingtobea…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Jan 24, 2023 14:18
Regarding arguments 1 and 2: limits are ideals, they don't exist in nature. We create limits, frontiers, boundaries depending on our mental needs (here you can see 14 or 15 dwarfs, depending on the disposition of the surface, while the total surface doesn't change) and our body physical constraints (think what would the limits of an apple look like if you would have the size of a quark). The argument is naive.
 

 Discussion on question by Felicia: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Apr 15, 2022 07:33
1) To what extent? The simplest: this line of BASIC code, 10 print "Hello, World!", was just uploaded from my mind and can perfectly emulate a specific behavior. A complex one: a signal of pain can, in humans, contribute to heal a region of the body. How would you upload such algorithm, if the physics are completely unrelated? You want a speaking computer? They exist already. 2) There is no conjecture in your question. A conjecture is something like "a human mind can be uploaded..."
 

 Discussion on question by More Anonym…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Apr 14, 2022 20:23
@causative Then, focus on the question and please answer the poster with such interpretation.
RodolfoAP
Apr 14, 2022 20:23
"The universe is a system that follows mathematical laws" implies that mathematics exist independently of our minds... sounds like Plato's Theory of Forms, abandoned long time ago in most mature forms of philosophy.
RodolfoAP
Apr 14, 2022 20:23
Godel addresses mathematics, not physics. Mathematical axioms are essentially the formal expression of thinking rules. Thinking rules have no physical interpretation.
 

 Discussion on answer by Futilitarian:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Mar 12, 2022 15:33
Consider this misuse of mathematics (it is real: this was written by a real kid): A dog has: tail: 1; legs: 4; ears: 2, eyes: 2, snout: 1, teeth: 32. Total = 42. This is an example of how logic and mathematics can be correct, although its application in real life is wrong (a martian scientist would accept this logic without hesitation). More formally, Kant says that logic is pure (independent from experience) knowledge, so, it has no relation whatsoever with its use. Induction is part of logic, but its empiric application (how to use the tool in the real world) is not always correct.
RodolfoAP
Mar 12, 2022 15:33
Just think that the only number of observations necessary for an induction to be empirically valid is ALL, but for it to be logically valid is just ONE. Less than ALL observations are not a false induction. Induction is the logical mechanism that leads to a conclusion from a previous and related fact, even if it's a single observation. "Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy" (C.D. Broad)
RodolfoAP
Mar 12, 2022 15:33
Precisely, it was stated that it is empirically false.
RodolfoAP
Mar 12, 2022 15:33
It is logically correct to induce something from an arbitrary number of observations, although it might be empirically wrong. One or a hundred observations of black crows are enough to assume they all are black (logic does not guarantee the correct use of logic). Although, empirically such logic could be wrong. The only way to know with absolute certainty that all crows are black is observing them ALL. And that's evidently impossible.
RodolfoAP
Mar 12, 2022 15:33
Nope. This is a typical induction, it does follow (non-sequitur=does not follow), it is logically correct (although empirically faulty).
 

 Discussion on question by Amr: Has th…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Feb 5, 2022 16:46
@amr An example could help: dS=dQ/T (an algorithm and a formal language: ds=entropy difference, dq=heat change, T=temperature) has absolutely no sense. Why? because you don't have the axioms and concepts of thermodynamics, which is the formal system that you really need to prove such statement valid against some reality. Without a formal system, a set of symbols+rules is meaningless. You might argue that axioms are part of the algorithm, that the algorithm evolves integrating each consequent, and the language rules the concepts of our understanding: an excessive twist of language.
RodolfoAP
Feb 5, 2022 16:46
a) "A formal language and an algorithm" are useless to prove anything. You need a formal system, which is different. b) asking for "valid or not valid" is a metaphysical request. The maximum you can ask is "matches a rule" or not. There's no universal rule of validation (or, ask God). c) there's no universal system allowing validation of whatever "pair". d) if you talk about Goedel, it's not a proof, just an observation about the scope of mathematics. e) what you are proposing here is equivalent to classify philosophers as less/more rational, using the length of their beards.
 

 Discussion on question by Alonda: Can…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Jan 29, 2022 09:50
Knowing knowledge is different than knowing a plain fact. The science (knowledge) that deals with knowledge itself is epistemology. It exists because we don't know knowledge and it is necessary. You seem to ask if there's information that we can't know, that's a simple yes.
 

 Discussion on answer by causative: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Nov 15, 2021 12:29
@Futilitarian Sorry, I didn't meant to be rude. I was just pointing the fact that your approach exceeds the context of the discussion, and if we adopt such wider perspective (i.e. assuming determinism), the discussion is useless and the answer would be straightforward: we have no control of our desires and actions.
RodolfoAP
Nov 15, 2021 12:29
@Futilitarian You are exceeding the context of the OP. In such case, you can just create an answer: "no, according to determinism, you have no control at all not only of what you want, but of any of your acts, so you should just wait for the outcome".
RodolfoAP
Nov 15, 2021 12:29
@Futilitarian we seldom want contradictory stuff (have muscles, avoid effort; salad or chips; enjoy the rain or enjoy home, etc.), choosing is an act of control; the fact that choices are so simple to control does not mean they are not under control.
 

 Discussion on question by J Kusin: If…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
RodolfoAP
Oct 5, 2021 09:37
@jkusin yes. Mathematical objects are not physical things, therefore, they don't exist in the universe as such (see Aristote's theory of form and matter, which would propose such approach). They exist in our minds.
RodolfoAP
Oct 5, 2021 09:37
Godel deals about the structure of mathematical axioms, and would be independent of the properties of the universe. In general, empirical facts don't affect mathematical rules.