yes true, not the job for “lesswrong”, but job for ours to reflect “lesswrong” by being patient , less hasty
Seremonia
Karma: −93
okay now perhaps we will discuss,
i want to explain the foundation of cause and effect, namely logical consequences, which are not just the commonly known logical consequences that fall into the category of cause and effect.
instead, these are logical consequences that are truly separate from cause and effect because they form the basis.
That’s the essential information. if it’s not fully understood, it’s okay, but at least you grasp that there are ‘logical consequences’ different from the commonly known ones.
we can breakdown our discussion in days or weeks, it is okay to clarify the ambiguous for days, since lesswrong not a get smart quick schemes.
it’s a gradual process. otherwise, this is really “hugewrong” not just lesswrong
“less of this” is true less reply as it should be
you can try to point on specific paragraph or line to discuss it?
if you know the “doesn’t make sense” part of it, then you must be able to show us where those parts.
otherwise there must be wrong communication between us, i don’t know where side
any way objectively, you’re not speaking for yourself, thanks for your comment
Downvoted without explanation, is not a rebuttal at all, not intellectual disagreement but subjective haste 👎
RELATIVE ANSWER
The yes or no answer is multi-dimensional. Not only from a certain point of view, but broadly there are certain aspects of achievement and certain failures, so that from a time point of view, currently there are two answers in different contexts.
YES, because many people use calculus mathematics to calculate changes
NO, because mathematics cannot yet reconcile general relativity & quantum mechanics
When you ask for a definitive answer, I also have to answer objectively. And that’s a close to objective answer. Why?
In a level of causality. It has a degree of functionality that gives different results (between yes or no)
So in this case I answered objectively.
DEFINITE ANSWER
UNLESS THE QUESTION ABOUT ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL TRUTH, there has to be a definite answer (YES OR NO)
There must be as part of a process, but basically it can be solved in the sense that mathematic essential in physics for formulating theories, making predictions, and quantifying relationships between variables
But not for philosophy in the sense that philosophy mostly abstract, not objective
Somehow philosophy must have its own formula, a rational & objective statement(s), so there won’t be a gap in between philosophy to both (mathematic & physics)
Please don’t just downvote based on karma or other values, as this is still something new. Downvoting might not be beneficial for ongoing discussions where we could potentially inspire each other without stopping in unnecessary mid-discussion.
Feel free to discuss for days; it’s better than rushing to judgment.
Thank you for your courage in providing reasons.
I will give an explanation, hoping it can be understood.
Sometimes we pursue idealism without trying to adjust our approach. We focus solely on one method based on principles, stubbornly afraid to deviate from the dream we’ve planned.
Yet, we can change our approach to achieving our dreams in a more realistic way. However, sometimes what is considered realistic turns out to be futile because, despite being within our capabilities, it is misplaced in terms of timing.
The key here is that sometimes we don’t simply understand what is realistic, pragmatic, and idealistic, as if they overlap.
Here, I try to emphasize the boundaries of their meanings so that we don’t get trapped in stubbornness or futility, thinking we have done it all (idealism that is realistic and pragmatic) when, in fact, each has hidden limits.
By understanding these boundaries more clearly, we can self-correct and assess how far we have met the requirements to achieve our dreams.
Please rather just downvoting, try to explain briefly your reasoning otherwise it’s just sentiment with no objectivity at all. Besides, we have more time to discuss. Don’t be frightened if you have sharp & coherent answer.
As stated from guidelines:
Aim to explain … blah blah blah ..
Don’t be afraid … blah blah blah …
When we use logical consequences, it means we have gone one step beyond reasoning with cause and effect, because logical consequences are the gateway to universal truth. and that is what actually happens in the phenomena of quantum physics, revealing truths beyond the cause-and-effect relationships of induction or deduction. By delving into the logical consequences behind cause and effect, it enables us to perceive universal truths.
This is where quantum physics comes into play, in the realm of simplicity, which, from a logical standpoint, falls under the category of truth based on universal logical consequences.
Unlike commonly known deduction, where conclusions are drawn from premises that may not be universal, here the deduction involves universally true premises, albeit arranged differently. Each syllogism doesn’t necessarily consist of two premises, but the relationship between one premise and another is also a universal truth.
The synergy lies in the fact that philosophy has its own formulation of universality (through non-mathematical axiomatic statement), similar to mathematics and physics
Hence, among physics, mathematics, and philosophy, there can be a mutual conversion of understanding without any gaps.
Metaphilosophy is about reasoning through logical consequences. It’s the basic, foundation of causality
You can read here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Xnunj6stTMb4SC5Zg/metaphilosophy-a-philosophizing-through-logical-consequences
As you said: “Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I’m having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it’s basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America.”
I am not saying something irrelevant, It’s not like that. What I mean:
When doing activities that involve patterns of circles, thinking in a circular patterns, researching things, and there are many circular patterns involved and occur repeatedly. This shows that we are facing a lot of evidence of intelligence related to what we’re dealing with.
I confirm that all that we face (if not for all) have a lot of crossing patterns and return to its original position, the circle, and this is enough for us to show the existence of intelligence behind it all.
Tracking something in relation to this case which involves a parabolic pattern and circle, or in other words think of something, make an argument involving parabolic and circular pattern, it also indicates the existence of intelligence.
Protecting—self defense in such way that leave a trail near parabolic or circular pattern, it indicates there is something intelligent involved.
As you said: ” It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules.”
But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.
As you said: “celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space”
It’s not a problem. The possibility that a planet circulating around the sun because of being pulled (classical theory) or it happened because they were held by a curved space, it still shows a force or property that has a characteristic capable delivering simulation near parabolic or circular motion.
One more thing, I’m also not simplify anything, but I just try to see things from another perspective and see what’s there. On further application should stick to relevancy. When talking about nature and how to interact, then we can not let go of physical explanation, but at least when we talk about an awareness that higher than our own, then physics has room for it.
On outer space, if something is thrown, then the object will travel a straight path. Please try to use your feeling (your sense of self-evidence), whether the object will turn from its original direction (if there is no obstacle)? Of course not. If the object is in conflict or are attracted by gravity from another object, maybe it’ll shift. And if the attractiveness of the object is stopped, then this object will be shifted from its original direction but not in a circle.
Imagine a missile exploring a space and bound by a strong rope in its nose. When the missile is traveling in a straight direction, then pull the rope on the missile until the missile is enough to make the shift, then cut the rope, so the missile can travel free to move forward in accordance with the residual energy.
Are you aware of this? Missiles will be shifted but did not form a circular path. If necessary, the rope can be drawn continuously (with supervision—consciousness) to shift the missile and withdrawn continuously to form a round, but this reflects a conscious effort (intelligent).
Or after shifting, the rope is released and a new missile has a trajectory different from the original trajectory (but not a circle). Or taken over by the program to return to its original position, and this shows there is intervention of intelligence.
Here asserted that the missile which shifted from its original direction of movement will tend to have a new path which will never form a parabolic or circular.
Do you believe in someone who said he had seen a missile shot and after a hit by something and still be able to continue the trip, the missile is moving in different directions with the direction of movement that is almost close to parabolic or circular path (and this is done without using a program or without the remote control by humans that is considered to have intelligence)?
Suppose you look at the super computer that is turned on for weeks and just make a simulation of image as a circle. Is this enough to show us there will always be a simulation of image as a circle that repeated for many times, so it is considered there is no intelligence (programming) guiding the supercomputer?
Let us now thinking by scaling with our own reality. We see through a smaller scale in our lives. Is there something not worth mentioning as intelligent but it can form a movement from A back to A or more perfect again by forming a pattern of near parabolic shape or a circle?
Maybe we have been so affected by the circumstances of the movement pattern of celestial objects are repeated continuously so as to give the impression as it is without any effort (negligible resistance), automatically or similar to these, etc. Strong enough to ignore the existence of resistance. But this is actually a relative.
Negligible resistance? Because of what?
It’s not about analogy, but it’s about thinking by scaling.
Thank you for this http://lesswrong.com/lw/rj/surface_analogies_and_deep_causes/
The momentum of something that moves without any obstacles at all will likely move to a perpendicular direction.
Something (gravity etc) that forcing something else to form as an angular movement (closer to parabolic or circle), then it requires the resistance that is not random.
Moreover, for the motion that closer to parabolic or circular and it was happened over and over again, then this further indicates the existence of resistance to the linear momentum that is not random and directed, and this confirms there is something behind it, and it’s the existence of intelligence and strength enough to adjust and controlling.
We can validate it with empirical evidence, and easy to know in everyday life.
A dog that is chasing its tail.
Computer simulation featuring a circular image, it simply shows the intelligence behind the computer, and it has been proven which is human.
and other similar with these, etc, …
The more neat for something doing movements (left traces in the form of) that is closer to the parabolic shape or a circle with a greater difficulty (compared to our lifes) and it was happened again and again, the more shows there is the existence of an intelligent with the power which is also higher (large).
We all share just looking for suitability in between us, not arguing.
Arguing to reach an approval is only an illusion, but actually, everyone has limits in the adjustment, and when the compatibilities occur among us, it will be formed as an approval.
There is no arguing, it’s just adjusting. So, if you do not agree with me, that just because you do not have compatibility with me. Nothing is wrong, truth is subjective to the observer, but not for truth itself, It’s just an illusion about arguing on our own perception.
Another proof for intelligence life, that should be considered leads to the existence of The Most Powerful Consciousness:
Please note that there is an axiom to show that something has a connection directly or indirectly with the awareness. And it can be tested by being able to travel from point A towards a certain direction and return to starting point A. This proves that something should be considered able to adapt and communicate directly or indirectly with us.
And the more difficult things to establish movement patterns near circular trajectory, parabolic, it indicates the less chance of something considered to have a conscious and able to adapt and communicate better. If something more intelligent, then something will be increasingly able to demonstrate the ability to create movement closer to parabolic trajectory or circle. This is the axiom.
If there is something is big enough (planet, Einstein’s geometric gravity etc) and considered difficult compared to our lifes to forms the trajectory approaching the form of spheres or parabolic, but it did, then it assert that there is a consciousness that has the quality to adapt a more diverse and better communication.
As I realize, this community seems trapped in downvoting, making it easy to judge without prioritizing intellectual arguments, except for limited responses or subjective criticisms.
It’s the evident from the overly sensitive downvoting due to capslock …
It’s the evident from the non-objective response, ‘Speaking for myself? you’re talking to yourself’? (You’re not talking to yourself)
It’s the evident from merely protesting without pinpointing the objection, indicating subjective dissatisfaction that cannot be understood objectively at all?
Is it evident from seeking justification like someono said” ‘others will downvote’? (how strong provoking)
I think ‘lesswrong’ reflects ‘tolerance’ (a bit wrong). Or ‘hugewrong’ (lots of subjectivity, little objectivity)?
Well, I think there’s a change; apparently, it only discusses common things and rejects new thought concepts with a spirit of downvoting but fears absolute argumentation.
I won’t respond to your next comment.
And a suggestion for ‘lesswrong.’ You’re not different from other intellectual communities that see ‘downvoting’ as a way to set quality standards.
You don’t have a simple concept to show argument quality without going through public opinion. This makes it no different from LLM, which seems argumentative but is actually at risk of huge collectiion of ambiguous quality judgment, based on un-objective reply and afraid of facing absolute rebuttal.
I thought this is a community that emphasizes quality based on absolute truth standards? OR? ARE YOU LESSWRONG NOT UNDERSTANDING DISCUSSION QUALITY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ABSOLUTENESS? JUST PUBLIC OPINION?
Feel free to delete this comment to protect your privacy?
My suggestion: dare to make a gradual, absolute rebuttal, for days or months. Unless you didn’t know what absolute rebuttal is or thought it’s impossible.
I want to see how much i can increase my downvoting and my karma as a new record. My suggestion to all of you: don’t trust public opinion.
Currently at −14 downvoting. If, over time, these downvotes stop, that means you realize you need to reconsider your position (judgement). But if the downvoting increases, it’s true that there’s no absolute rebuttal, just less hasty—huge wrong.
In any way you do… wrong!
Ok BYE