3 ms·

using 'is' or 'to be' causes sloppy thinking. The main confusion here arises from using the is of identity on reality. Reality is as described by this math.

by LPTS 18y ago

using 'is' or 'to be' causes sloppy thinking. The main confusion here arises from using the is of identity on reality. Reality is as described by this math. That's a case of confusing a reference and the thing refered to. That's calling a hand pointing at the moon the moon. Mathematics points to the structure of reality, but mathematics is not reality. Pointing to a theory understood in terms of language about mathematics about reality, and then saying "reality is that theory" is like pointing to a hand pointing to a hand pointing at the moon and saying "that hand is the moon." You can't really get started correctly not understanding quantum physics until you get real clear on those differences. You can't get real clear on those differences while using the is of identity. so it's not the source of all confusion in communication (I find poor communication is the fault of the person listening to me), but it is the source of the intuitions that make quantum physics seem counterintuitive, weird and mysterious.

astine 18y ago
using 'is' or 'to be' causes sloppy thinking Nonsense. Using sum when you don't mean sum is what causes problems. The ability to express such a thing isn't. Your complaint is that sum is being used express things that it doesn't properly mean, and your solution is to throw the word out altogether. Rather than taking the time to clarify what you mean, (English has perfectly good mechanisms for describing signifyers,) you blame the language and claim it needs to be changed. What's particularly striking is the fact that you decry the dogmatism implied by sum, while at the same time being very dogmatic in doing so. In fact you used the word six times just now.
- LPTS 18y ago
  Your second point seems very good to me. I admit, I do not take the care to write in english prime (english without 'to be') all the time. I should have while posting on it. LPTS Irony Check Fail. (Also, there are other uses of to be rather then identity, such as the figure of speech 'it's ok'. It's OK to use those.) Using is or to be causes sloppy thinking, because you are cashing out your description of the universe without relativizing it to a frame. A seems B to instrument C, or A seems B relative to nervous system C. If you are talking about quantum physics, you can't discharge that. If you use the is of identity, your language discharges the observer as a feature. Quantum physics Fail. This guy I was talking too seemed pretty interested in this stuff. If you want to take our science and apply what we learn to the world at large, then taking the language we use to talk about things in science (no is of identity in quantum physics equations or papers) and applying that grammar seems to me a very smart way to see the world more like science revels it. It turns out this makes you sound exactly like a sufi or a zen monk a lot of the time, but that should surprise no one, since mysticism is a branch of neurology.

by LPTS 18y ago

astine 18y ago

using 'is' or 'to be' causes sloppy thinking Nonsense. Using sum when you don't mean sum is what causes problems. The ability to express such a thing isn't. Your complaint is that sum is being used express things that it doesn't properly mean, and your solution is to throw the word out altogether. Rather than taking the time to clarify what you mean, (English has perfectly good mechanisms for describing signifyers,) you blame the language and claim it needs to be changed. What's particularly striking is the fact that you decry the dogmatism implied by sum, while at the same time being very dogmatic in doing so. In fact you used the word six times just now.

LPTS 18y ago
Your second point seems very good to me. I admit, I do not take the care to write in english prime (english without 'to be') all the time. I should have while posting on it. LPTS Irony Check Fail. (Also, there are other uses of to be rather then identity, such as the figure of speech 'it's ok'. It's OK to use those.) Using is or to be causes sloppy thinking, because you are cashing out your description of the universe without relativizing it to a frame. A seems B to instrument C, or A seems B relative to nervous system C. If you are talking about quantum physics, you can't discharge that. If you use the is of identity, your language discharges the observer as a feature. Quantum physics Fail. This guy I was talking too seemed pretty interested in this stuff. If you want to take our science and apply what we learn to the world at large, then taking the language we use to talk about things in science (no is of identity in quantum physics equations or papers) and applying that grammar seems to me a very smart way to see the world more like science revels it. It turns out this makes you sound exactly like a sufi or a zen monk a lot of the time, but that should surprise no one, since mysticism is a branch of neurology.