andrewducker | Interesting Links for 02-04-2025

From:

cmcmck

6 I'm a transcendental idealist, apparently!

From:

calimac

3) That's fine so long as the FTC exists, which is not a given.

5) I was expecting something on England v. Scotland Wales & Ireland, but this is a much broader point.

6) Emergent materialist, definitely. My thinking is probably most influenced by the Game of Life, which shows how systems can be more complex than any of the rules making them up. If anything explains the existence of consciousness in a materialist universe, this does.

From:

andrewducker

1) Yes. It remains to be seen how badly they can fuck up the country before they grind to a halt.

5) Me too!

6) Yes. I see that and Pragmatic Instrumentalism as simultaneously true, and Poetic Naturalism as a restatement of Emergent Materialism.

From:

calimac

Hmm. I don't hold to Pragmatic Instrumentalism because I'm so annoyed at evasions and misstatements of what "reality" is,* and while I agree that Poetic Naturalism is true, I don't see it as a collection of equally valid statements of the fundamental nature of the universe. They're true in different and limited ways.

*e.g. the common statement that a solid object is "really" mostly empty space, because the atoms occupy only a small part of it. Actually, that space between the atoms is occupied by mighty lines of force, which are what make the solid object solid. (The atoms don't: the air is full of atoms and it's not solid.) Leaving that out is to deliberately mislead, i.e. to lie.

So you may ask, what does that example have to do with Pragmatic Instrumentalism, which eschews any definition of reality? Because it's evading the question of reality because the question has been muddled by arguments like the above.

Edited Date: 2025-04-02 01:57 pm (UTC)

From:

fanf

Hmm, that’s a good argument.

I quite like the slogan “all models are wrong, but some models are useful”, though it’s more cynical than my beliefs. I take it more as a statement of the limits of what we know.

From:

calimac

"All models are incomplete" would be better, at least if applied to those models that are useful. (Phlogiston is not very useful. The sun rising in the East is useful.)

Spaceships navigate by Newton's laws, modified by relativity only when necessary. It's incomplete, but it's damn useful.

From:

ljgeoff

Multiverseist? Multiverser? I like both the brane and bubble theories.

From:

agoodwinsmith

You know how a beaver builds a lodge - doesn't need to be taught how, can't stop itself, must do it? That's the divine doing the universe. Equally fascinating and amazing.

(Such a relief to stop trying to wallpaper a personality on a portion, and have a meaningful relationship with it.)

I also find it interesting to realize that my steely intellect is all permeated by my mushy juicy physicality. What does it *meeean*? Nothing, baby; it's a wholly holy puzzle to explore.

From:

haggis

Unfortunately, Question 13 doesn't have the option of "I don't understand the question, can you expand?"

From:

andrewducker

Some people think that there is consciousness, and based on what that consciousness perceives there is reality. Some people think there is reality, and then conscious things perceive that reality.

From:

andrewducker

But if I were you I'd take a look at "Analytic Idealism" further down and see if any of those options appeal.

From:

haggis

I ended up at Scientific Materialism but I am not clear enough on the distinctions to select any of the more specific options within that.

From:

andrewducker

I also found some of the distinctions less than useful.

From:

channelpenguin

I'm definitely Multiverse Theory, probably most likely quantum multiverse but I don't rule out combinations of them all..

From:

juan_gandhi

To agree even on the methods of comparison of beliefs of reality, we have to somehow come to a common idea regarding what is reality. So many serious mathematicians somehow believe that the axioms they prefer are reality, and other axioms are "non-standard". Then we move to physics, etc. Chemists in Leningrad recognized "electronegativity" (no clue what it is), while Chemists in Moscow denied its existence.

From:

mountainkiss

The amount of work that's gone into (6) is impressive.

From:

andrewducker

It is!

From:

mountainkiss

I am finding it quite valuable in forcing me to think through what I actually believe.

From:

andrewducker

I am intrigued that you haven't already firmly considered this to a more precise point than most!

From:

mountainkiss

Not within any meaningful structure. And when I cross structures here, it pushes me to make forced choices. I rather like it and will probably give it another couple of goes; I’m by no means certain that I’ve ended up in the right place yet.

From:

andrewducker

I think that's a perfectly reasonable way to be. I could easily have been in a couple of other places from where I ended up, as "Well, this is possible, it just seems less likely to me."

I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts when you've collected them.

From:

danieldwilliam

I am probably an Emergent Materialist with some elements of Pragmatic Instrumentalist in practice.

From:

andrewducker

No disagreement here!

From:

hairyears

6) Scientific Materialism, type b: Emergent Materialism

I suspect that this says rather more about me,than it might about the universe we live in.

From:

andrewducker

Clearly not a believer in Transcendental Idealism then!

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Interesting Links for 02-04-2025

Page Summary

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags