5 ms·

I agree with this position. The idea that there may be 'truths' sounds utterly bonkers to me. a ^ -a is considered a contradiction for a reason.

nix23 5y ago
Please then tell me what is the one true religion? :) Humans are not logical systems.
- dalo 5y ago
  Belief is independent of reality. There is only explanation of our origination that is true.
- username90 5y ago
  The one true "religion" is science. Once a religion is discovered to be true then science will include that religion.
  - nix23 5y ago
    Science is NOT religion, believes have no weight in science just proof. Religion is the exact opposite.
- dudeman13 5y ago
  >Please then tell me what is the one true religion? :) I dunno. I'm inclined towards none of the ones I know a little about being true since they really like to ask you to 'trust me bro, feel it in your heart' instead of just giving you good reasons to believe them. Newton gave us far better arguments for universal gravitation than most people do for their religions, and he was ultimately wrong/incomplete. >Humans are not logical systems. Yes, that is a bug in the humanity system. Generally we try to diminish its effects when truth-judging (or maybe probable-truth-approximation-judging if you care about your epistemology). Recognizing this bug is useful to try and diminish its effect.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >Yes, that is a bug in the humanity system. So the urge for flying to the moon is a bug? Climb a Mountain?
    - dudeman13 5y ago
      It depends on your utility function, of course. Will flying to the moon or climbing a mountain bring you closer to the things you value? The urge is a bug if it doesn't match the things you value. The urge is not a bug if it matches the things you value. With some fat margin for uncertainty around 'matching the things you value' because that's hard to quantify. Utility functions can have 'axiomatic values' in them. Not everything you value is deduced from underlying principles.
      - hirako2000 5y ago
        Try cocaine (saying this could be deleted by Google if it hosted this message) And see for yourself whether we humans have bugs.
MatteoFrigo 5y ago
There is a lot of subtlety hidden in "a ^ ~a is a contradiction", because physical reality is more complex than it appears. For example, one of the stunning consequences of Special Relativity is that there exist situations in which an observer says that event A happens before event B, and another observer says that event A happens after event B, and both are correct. Nature does not appear to be at all bothered by this "contradiction", however, and the world works just fine. Even more puzzling "contradictions" arise in quantum mechanics. For all we know, it appears that reality is indeed dependent on the observer at a deep level. Maybe there is an even deeper level at which statements such as "a ^ ~a is false" hold, but so far nobody has been able to discover any.
- ghoward 5y ago
  The Special Relativity example you brought up is not a good example because it's about observation, not the truth of the order of the events. Reality is not dependent on the observer, but we are observers, so that's why everyone thinks they have their own version of the truth. We are the weak link.
- resonious 5y ago
  I think the real difficulty is in human language. "a ^ ~a is a contradiction" is still perfectly applicable but apparently requires a "for observer A" clause. To supply all of the clauses necessary to make a completely unambiguous statement would be way too long to be humanly comprehensible. It makes me think of the Carl Sagan quote about needing to invent the universe before you can make anything "from scratch".
- dudeman13 5y ago
  >Nature does not appear to be at all bothered by this "contradiction" There is no contradiction. Our intuition for what 'A happens before B' means and implies is just bad/incomplete, as special relativity models. >Even more puzzling "contradictions" arise in quantum mechanics. I would bet a couple years of wage that what seems like contradictions will eventually be cleared up with some non-intuitive models, just like with special relativity. I imagine the 'changes based on observer' problems of quantum mechanics will be more understandable once we decide what an observer is ( goddamnit people from physics, you don't add such a highly abstract variable to your model without giving it some good definition x( ), with some better experimental apparatus or with some deeper models of reality.

nix23 5y ago

Please then tell me what is the one true religion? :) Humans are not logical systems.

dalo 5y ago
Belief is independent of reality. There is only explanation of our origination that is true.
username90 5y ago
The one true "religion" is science. Once a religion is discovered to be true then science will include that religion.
- nix23 5y ago
  Science is NOT religion, believes have no weight in science just proof. Religion is the exact opposite.
dudeman13 5y ago
>Please then tell me what is the one true religion? :) I dunno. I'm inclined towards none of the ones I know a little about being true since they really like to ask you to 'trust me bro, feel it in your heart' instead of just giving you good reasons to believe them. Newton gave us far better arguments for universal gravitation than most people do for their religions, and he was ultimately wrong/incomplete. >Humans are not logical systems. Yes, that is a bug in the humanity system. Generally we try to diminish its effects when truth-judging (or maybe probable-truth-approximation-judging if you care about your epistemology). Recognizing this bug is useful to try and diminish its effect.
- nix23 5y ago
  >Yes, that is a bug in the humanity system. So the urge for flying to the moon is a bug? Climb a Mountain?
  - dudeman13 5y ago
    It depends on your utility function, of course. Will flying to the moon or climbing a mountain bring you closer to the things you value? The urge is a bug if it doesn't match the things you value. The urge is not a bug if it matches the things you value. With some fat margin for uncertainty around 'matching the things you value' because that's hard to quantify. Utility functions can have 'axiomatic values' in them. Not everything you value is deduced from underlying principles.
    - hirako2000 5y ago
      Try cocaine (saying this could be deleted by Google if it hosted this message) And see for yourself whether we humans have bugs.

MatteoFrigo 5y ago

There is a lot of subtlety hidden in "a ^ ~a is a contradiction", because physical reality is more complex than it appears. For example, one of the stunning consequences of Special Relativity is that there exist situations in which an observer says that event A happens before event B, and another observer says that event A happens after event B, and both are correct. Nature does not appear to be at all bothered by this "contradiction", however, and the world works just fine. Even more puzzling "contradictions" arise in quantum mechanics. For all we know, it appears that reality is indeed dependent on the observer at a deep level. Maybe there is an even deeper level at which statements such as "a ^ ~a is false" hold, but so far nobody has been able to discover any.

ghoward 5y ago
The Special Relativity example you brought up is not a good example because it's about observation, not the truth of the order of the events. Reality is not dependent on the observer, but we are observers, so that's why everyone thinks they have their own version of the truth. We are the weak link.
resonious 5y ago
I think the real difficulty is in human language. "a ^ ~a is a contradiction" is still perfectly applicable but apparently requires a "for observer A" clause. To supply all of the clauses necessary to make a completely unambiguous statement would be way too long to be humanly comprehensible. It makes me think of the Carl Sagan quote about needing to invent the universe before you can make anything "from scratch".
dudeman13 5y ago
>Nature does not appear to be at all bothered by this "contradiction" There is no contradiction. Our intuition for what 'A happens before B' means and implies is just bad/incomplete, as special relativity models. >Even more puzzling "contradictions" arise in quantum mechanics. I would bet a couple years of wage that what seems like contradictions will eventually be cleared up with some non-intuitive models, just like with special relativity. I imagine the 'changes based on observer' problems of quantum mechanics will be more understandable once we decide what an observer is ( goddamnit people from physics, you don't add such a highly abstract variable to your model without giving it some good definition x( ), with some better experimental apparatus or with some deeper models of reality.