1 2
Posted: 4/5/2005 1:30 PM
Post subject: Knowledge philosophy
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
Recently I had a class about the theories of knowledge and how you obtain it, about empirics and rationalism. I think it is really interesting since I myself have though a lot about this. Also, people around here seems too have a great skill in arguing and discussing. (I've read this thread, and gotten the impression there). I am convinced that what many describe as "random" is something that only exists in theory. I think that it is possible to foresee anything if you just have enough data on earlier events. Example: If I knew how one person was raised, every single detail, then I would be able to tell how he/she will react in a certain situation since I know what experiences that would be used. I also could tell how he/she would interact with other people. I you then extend this too that I knew everything about everyone, I would be able to "read" what everyone would do and when. It's here my problem arose: If everything is predictable, then do you already know everything you will ever know when you are born, since there is only a certain amount of information that you are meant to obtain. Or do you learn things by experience and impressions but what you will learn is still a result of earlier events. I'd really like to hear other peoples thought, how you think. It is a subject that I really love to discuss so feel free to argue. ; ) Edit: Spelling
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/5/2005 1:52 PM
Quote
Boco
Former player
Joined: 3/30/2004
Posts: 1354
Location: Heather's imagination
So.. determinism?
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster. I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Posted: 4/5/2005 1:55 PM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
You could say that, though I am not so familiar with all that is included in the deterministic ways. But I am convinced that everything is possible to foresee, yes. Didn't get what you point at though, is it a question about what I think or is it a sugestion on where to search?
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/5/2005 2:10 PM
Quote
Boco
Former player
Joined: 3/30/2004
Posts: 1354
Location: Heather's imagination
Well, both. You seem to be describing determinism, so the answers to your questions should be found in deterministic philosophies. I'm most definitely not a determinist so I can't help you.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster. I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Posted: 4/5/2005 2:17 PM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
Determinism is probably the closest I can come to relate my theories too, but the question of how to obtain knowledge is still a big problem for me, wheter you obtain it by experience or if you'r born whit it. I don't expect an answer, just some thought. Though I won't force anyone to it.
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/5/2005 3:52 PM
Quote
Truncated
Editor, Reviewer, Experienced player (969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Arcade TAS of 2023 Sega TASer of 2021 Sega TAS of 2021
>Example: If I knew how one person was raised, every single detail, then I would be able to tell how he/she will react in a certain situation since I know what experiences that would be used. No, because all behaviour is not learned. Some (more than you'd like to think) is genetic. >I am convinced that what many describe as "random" is something that only exists in theory. I think that it is possible to foresee anything if you just have enough data on earlier events. Depends. It is impossible to know if the universe is fully deterministic, at least at the moment. For example, radioactive decay seems to be random within some limits, but we don't know if this is because it is truly random or if it depends on some process we have not yet discovered. Then there is that pesky uncertainity law which prohibits you from knowing both the velocity and the position of an object at the same time. This means it is impossible to obtain enough data. >If everything is predictable, then do you already know everything you will ever know when you are born, since there is only a certain amount of information that you are meant to obtain. Or do you learn things by experience and impressions but what you will learn is still a result of earlier events. Even if which things you will learn troughout your life were deterministic, this wouldn't mean that you knew them before you actually learned them. (I think this is kind of obvious so I'm wondering if I'm really answering your question or somehow misunderstood it.) >But I am convinced that everything is possible to foresee, yes. To foresee everything you would need to know everything. To store all that knowledge you would need as many atoms and photons as there are in this universe, at a minimum. Where would you put them? You could simplify it (a whole lot) to some model of course (this is what all science does) but it wouldn't be wholly accurate anymore, especially not for something as complex as a human. That something is practically unforeseeable doesn't mean it's not deterministic though.
Posted: 4/5/2005 4:07 PM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
>No, because all behaviour is not learned. Some (more than you'd like to think) is genetic. Yes, but it was an example. To get this theory to work you would need to know even the genetic codes of everyone, and what it does. >Depends. It is impossible to know if the universe is fully deterministic, at least at the moment. For example, radioactive decay seems to be random within some limits, but we don't know if this is because it is truly random or if it depends on some process we have not yet discovered. True, and I am willing to letgo of my theory when someone can prove that randomness exists. >Then there is that pesky uncertainity law which prohibits you from knowing both the velocity and the position of an object at the same time. This means it is impossible to obtain enough data. I know of it, but what you need to do is to se outside the human perspective. I know I might sound wierd now, but imagine if even that was possible. I is not possible today, but what says it's impossible in the future? >Even if which things you will learn troughout your life were deterministic, this wouldn't mean that you knew them before you actually learned them. I know this one sounds strange, but this way of thinking was natural in ancient times. Sokrates even "proved" this in an experiment. (Well, not so good maybe). Sokrates claimed that all knowledge was stored inside a person and could be brought up to the surface, i.e. learning. >To foresee everything you would need to know everything. To store all that knowledge you would need as many atoms and photons as there are in this universe, at a minimum. Where would you put them? One of my biggest problems. I don't know actually. Maybe it would be possible to make a super-mega-hyper-computer, maybe not. I haven't got an answer to that, yet. I hope that covered most of it.
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/5/2005 4:30 PM
Quote
Bag_of_Magic_Food
He/Him
Active player (278)
Joined: 5/29/2004
Posts: 5712
What about the cat that may or may not be dead? It might or might not just be resting.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Posted: 4/5/2005 4:37 PM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
What? Didn't follow you there.
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/5/2005 4:47 PM
Quote
Bladegash
Former player
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 484
Location: ­­
Hakuna Matata
Posted: 4/5/2005 4:53 PM
Quote
Truncated
Editor, Reviewer, Experienced player (969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Arcade TAS of 2023 Sega TASer of 2021 Sega TAS of 2021
>True, and I am willing to letgo of my theory when someone can prove that randomness exists. I was trying to say that it's impossible to know if randomness exists or not. >I know of it, but what you need to do is to se outside the human perspective. I know I might sound wierd now, but imagine if even that was possible. I is not possible today, but what says it's impossible in the future? The uncertanity law has nothing to do with humans or their perspective. Unless some new discovery completely invalidates this law (which seems unlikely - any new discovery would also have to explain earlier data which the law fits). What if is not meaningful. What if you traveled at the speed of light? What if you went north from the north pole? >I know this one sounds strange, but this way of thinking was natural in ancient times. Sokrates even "proved" this in an experiment. (Well, not so good maybe). Sokrates claimed that all knowledge was stored inside a person and could be brought up to the surface, i.e. learning. I agree with you and not with Sokrates. That was a pretty sorry excuse for an "experiment". ;) We know a lot more about the brain now than he did and it cleary does not operate that way. I guess my main point was: wheter the universe is predictable in any practical way (it's is clearly not) does not change if it's deterministic or not. That is unknowable.
Posted: 4/5/2005 5:14 PM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
>The uncertanity law has nothing to do with humans or their perspective. Unless some new discovery completely invalidates this law (which seems unlikely - any new discovery would also have to explain earlier data which the law fits). What if is not meaningful. What if you traveled at the speed of light? What if you went north from the north pole? Well, the problem is that you have to try to imagine beonde that law to make this work. I am well aware of the problems with this and many claims that the prof that I am wrong is in this situation. Most of my arguments are based on "what if" and that's what makes it so hard to follow, but what I claim is that you only need to know one thing and that is the very beginning and how things worked then. From this, everything would be possible to foresee.
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/5/2005 9:48 PM
Quote
Ramzi
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
Maybe we're just an atom in God's fingernail. My contribution to this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology Bye byez.
Posted: 4/5/2005 11:18 PM
Quote
BillBull
Former player
Joined: 5/22/2004
Posts: 462
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
What about the cat that may or may not be dead? It might or might not just be resting.
Schrödinger's cat is the type of pet I would want to have, because there's a 50% chance you wouldn't have to take care of it. However, there's a 50% chance that I would have to feed the pesky thing, and there's also a chance that it will become an undead zombie-cat, which wouldn't be good.
Posted: 4/6/2005 1:59 AM
Quote
feitclub
Former player
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
This kind of reasoning is something my friend uses to argue against the existence of free will.
Do Not Talk About Feitclub http://www.feitclub.com
Posted: 4/7/2005 8:18 AM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
Feirclub -> You seem to have a very interesting friend. ; )
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/7/2005 10:27 AM
Quote
Blublu
Player (67)
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjaví­k, Ísland
The only way to "predict" the universe would be to somehow be outside it. For example, imagine the universe as a super basic pocket calculator. Pretty easy to predict what it does, right? But the pocket calculator cannot predict itself. It's just not possible, it doesn't make sense. It would first have to predict itself predicting itself, and it would just be a mess. So a pocket calculator can NOT predict itself, but it IS deterministic. I think our universe is like that pocket calculator, only much more complicated. In other words, no, we can't predict the future. Sorry.
Posted: 4/7/2005 1:21 PM
Quote
feitclub
Former player
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
Mazzic wrote:
Feirclub -> You seem to have a very interesting friend. ; )
Typo! Anyway, yes he is. Want to see some of his art? http://www.troutmouth.com
Do Not Talk About Feitclub http://www.feitclub.com
Posted: 4/7/2005 3:16 PM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
Blublu > But why can't the calculator not predict itself? Because it lacks the ability to se itself as a object. If a calculator was granted an extreme intelligence it would be able to predict itself. I don't say that we posses the knowledge to predict our self, we simply lack the ability to obtain so much information. I can agree that it becomes messy when someone becomes able to predict himself, 'cause then will he be able to predict what he will predict and thus he won't have to predict it later since he has already done it... but I don't see a problem in it. Fietclub > He sure knows how too draw. Edit: Darn spelling...
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/7/2005 8:57 PM
Quote
feitclub
Former player
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
Mazzic wrote:
Fietclub > He sure knows how too draw. Edit: Darn spelling...
Typo again! My name is easy to spell, just look at my sig...
Do Not Talk About Feitclub http://www.feitclub.com
Posted: 4/7/2005 11:44 PM
Quote
Sastopher
Joined: 3/15/2005
Posts: 30
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
From the way you phased your whole discussion post, it sounds like you're taking ToK/IB. Is this correct?
I ought not to tie the knot too taught.
Posted: 4/10/2005 5:35 PM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
Feitclub> ... Sastopher> I don't understand what you mean by ToK/IB. Would you please explain?
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/12/2005 10:14 AM
Quote
VirtualAlex
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 464
Location: Minnesota
I am sorry, I simply skimmed most of this thread so if this has been brought up then... I am sorry again :D Have you ever read much of Isaac Asimov? He wrote a series of books called Foundation which talk about something very similar to this. The books the hero, Harry Seldon, is a brilliant mathmatician who invents a whole new branch of math called Psycohistory. It is the study of peoples reactions to events. What he can do is convert a bunch of events (involving humans) into numbers, write an equation for it. Then if a similar event occurs, he can simply change some variables and the equation will give him a prediction of what might occur. I didn't read the whole series, only the first book. But in order for Harry to get his project off the ground he needs to learn alot about human psychology. He needs to study history carefully and try to figure out how humans have acted in various situations. This story takes place in the distant distant future I beleive in the year 20,000 AE. A universe where the Earth is not only long gone, but long forgotton. In Harry's world even bringing up the idea that ALL humans came from only one planet is absurd. So there a few million, or maybe couple hundred million years of human history and psychology for Harry to study. What you are talking about is very interesting indeed. As for your question of where to get all this knowledge, I will say it might be possible but like Isaac predicts, not for a very long time. I don't think the human race has set enough precedence yet. Maybe when we are a much older and wiser species something like this will be possible. But it also brings up many questions of free will. if predicting what people will do becomes a part of culture then there will be people who will do things against what they are predicted to do...
JXQ's biggest fan.
Posted: 4/12/2005 12:12 PM
Quote
Mazzic
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
12Motion wrote:
if predicting what people will do becomes a part of culture then there will be people who will do things against what they are predicted to do...
...and it will then be predicted that they will not do as they are predicted to do. Kinda wierd but that would probably be that way it would work.
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Posted: 4/12/2005 12:17 PM
Quote
Jukeboksi
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 79
Location: Finland
Mazzic wrote:
Sastopher> I don't understand what you mean by ToK/IB. Would you please explain?
He probably means the schoolprogram in high school, where you study in english instead of your mother language. I'm not interested, and never was, in this topic when it comes to philosophy, therefore not participating in discussion :>
1 2