/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15590555]

*solves epistemology*
*kills the humanities-fag*
STEM solved epistemology, retards. I wonder how many more philosophical """problems """would be solved within minutes if they were handled by actual intellectuals instead of philosophy pseuds

[Anonymous No.15590571]

>>15590555
>Bayesian LessWronger shit
Pseud detected.

[Anonymous No.15590587]

But how do numbers real?
*flips a coin*
*BTFOs science*

[Anonymous No.15590593]

>>15590571
how does scientific epistemology account for the fact that reading the lesswrong wiki makes me question my will to live

[Anonymous No.15590606]

sorry sweetie

[Anonymous No.15590613]

>>15590555
i like how the picture is colour coded for the retarded stem fags with no ability to read

[Anonymous No.15590619]

>>15590613
>he sees it as color coded
anon...

[Anonymous No.15590623]

>>15590555
>All knowledge is just probability

[Anonymous No.15590625]

Fuck off Pointsman, we live beyond the zero around here.

[Anonymous No.15590637]

>>15590613
this image is clearly intended to be understood humanitards who would be scared by equations and need soothing colors to cope

[Anonymous No.15590683]

>>15590555
what's going on here lol

[Anonymous No.15590703]

>>15590593
you will to live is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.15590708]

>>15590555
why do nu-rationalist autists fellate antiquated basic mathematics as if only this piece of simple machinery could divine truth?

[Anonymous No.15590710]

>>15590623
Yes

[Anonymous No.15590722]

>>15590710
why? anyone can just say 'no' and be just as valid. not very strong claim lol.

[Anonymous No.15590724]

>>15590555
Deleuze's Rhizomatic philosophy refuted this STEM shit show long ago.

[Anonymous No.15590737]

>>15590724
The only thing Deleuze refuted was the French language, which he continuously raped with his nonsensical and meaningless ramblings.

[Anonymous No.15590742]

cringe

[Anonymous No.15590745]

>>15590555
>positing an equation for the chance evidence supports a hypothesis
>solving epistemology
And what's chance? Could it be that a 40% chance of rain tomorrow indicates that across 40% of the forseen possibilities, rain occurs? But then what are those possibilities? Are you empirically observing them happen? Are you empirically observing non-actual worlds? Hmm?

[Anonymous No.15590748]

>>15590722
Nothing is completely knowable, and even assuming something is, we can't be the one to know it since we perceive the world through our senses which don't perceive the world directly.

Because of this we can only make assumptions, look if they hold true, and update our priors according to the outcome.

Further still the universe is fundamentally probabilistic.

[Anonymous No.15590759]

>>15590748
>Nothing is completely knowable
are you completely sure of that?

[Anonymous No.15590770]

>>15590708
Because based triangle man said numbers true and shapes true, and Parmesian cheese proved nothing can be said to be real except for the One, and 1 is a number, so math real.

[Anonymous No.15590772]

>>15590724
>Hey Felix, open the window and watch me disprove gravity to dunk on this STEMtard

[Anonymous No.15590781]

>>15590745
Pseud

Your reasoning has a lot more consequences than you seem to realize. If predictions and non direct observation isn't to be used then nothing can be known to any degree.

Hint: you've never directly observed anything, only experiences a statistical interpretation of excited senses.

[Anonymous No.15590788]

>>15590781
i directly observed your mom last night lmao

[Anonymous No.15590790]

>>15590781
>Pseud! Why, if I didn't make that assumption, everything would fall apart!
oh you're almost there

[Anonymous No.15590798]

>>15590737
>>15590772
Disgusting copes

[Anonymous No.15590800]

>>15590759
Are you 5?
Yes, the sentence itself is a paradox at first glance, but that is only because of the medium I used to express the idea with, which is the English language.

I made my arguments in the post and you being insincere won't change them.

[Anonymous No.15590813]

>>15590790
I am already there, it's you who don't understand the true consequences of OP's formula, or you refuse to understand the because as OP said, it'd shatter your world view.

[Anonymous No.15590814]

>>15590800
>Yes, the sentence itself is a paradox at first glance, but that is only because of the medium I used to express the idea with
are you sure?

[Anonymous No.15590835]

>>15590814
I see you concede the argument.
It's rare to see here.

[Anonymous No.15590837]

>>15590555
Your thoughts created everything, there is no mathematics.
STEM is just another useless field for autistics fags to cope with death.

[Anonymous No.15590841]

>>15590781
>If predictions and non direct observation aren't to be used
The point of the post is specifically that observing something which by-definition did not happen within your actuality is fucking obviously absurd. It is not that observation cannot be trusted, but that there are a wide swathe of likely infinite things that cannot be seen or even known to exist, which probability is itself rests upon. I am not pointing to gow untrustworthy it is but to how short its limits are: known limits, not its ambiguity. If you think epistemology is "solved" by OP you're a fucking dope, OP pic is just an algorithm for progress.

[Anonymous No.15590843]

>>15590835
>It's rare to see here.
you can't possibly know that

[Anonymous No.15590846]

>>15590837
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15590867]

>>15590841
Either we assume that there is some correlations with our experience of the world and some approximate reality or absolutely everything is completely without meaning and can't be productively thought about.

If you follow your thought pattern then even posting, and reading and even using your computer or phone to post here is delusional since you can't even know you're interacting with anything or if anything happening is at all happening or is coherent in any way.

If we do assume there is some correlation between our experiences and some kind of reality then OP's formula is the most powerful tool to date for finding out more about reality, no matter how flawed our interpretation of it is.

This is OP's argument but to understand it you must truly understand what the formula means and the consequences it has.

[Anonymous No.15590904]

>>15590867
>If you follow your thought pattern then even posting, and reading and even using your computer or phone to post here is delusional
so close

>what it means
Anyone who's passed the fifth grade knows what an average looks like anon. You take the thing you're looking for and divide it by the total. Wow, I am so shocked, you have solved epistemology.

[Anonymous No.15590917]

Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.15590921]

lmao, an equation. god damn cave dweller

[Anonymous No.15590930]

>>15590904
You are not arguing against me, you are repeating weak points which I've shown to be incorrect several times.

You are indeed a pseud.

Anyone can solve specific special relativity problems but plugging in numbers into a formula, that does not mean one grasps the consequences of the formula and what it really represents.

[Anonymous No.15590944]

>>15590930
Try applying it to a courtroom scenario instead of an experiment. The hypothesis is that you are guilty. The equation shows that the evidence has a 80% chance of supporting this hypothesis. And it's true that it has an 80% change, why, metaphysically true even! Thus, the gavel is swung down. Except, in 20% of the possibilities, this was a false verdict. Oops.

[Anonymous No.15590945]

>>15590921
math is the light outside the cave retard

[Anonymous No.15590966]

>>15590944
And even then, with wualitative information how can you prove that 80 percent? You need a lot of fixed constants in math which are often not there, or can change from perspective when it comes to signifigance.

[Anonymous No.15590967]

>>15590623

>I don’t have a power, shit

[Anonymous No.15590985]

>>15590944
You are supposed to use Baye's Theorem iteratively and update your priors each iteration and as new evidence comes.

Also the justice system is built on reasonable doubt. They means statistical certainty to a good enough degree. The there are innocent people found guilty but not too many for the populace to feel it needs even more certainty.

You misunderstand Baye's Theorem.

[Anonymous No.15590994]

>>15590985
>You misunderstand Baye's Theorem.
No anon, I don't; I understand the limits of it which you are now steadily admitting to, and in turn that it has not "solved" epistemology.

[Anonymous No.15590997]

>>15590985
>Baye's

[Anonymous No.15591012]

>>15590997
English is not my first language.

[Anonymous No.15591022]

so this is the power of STEM

[Anonymous No.15591034]

>>15591022
This is really the power of analytic philosophy. If you wanna blame anyone, blame Bertfag russell

[Anonymous No.15591036]

>>15590994
Ok, stop smugposting and try to convey which you're referring to and what I've admitted to.

It has always supposed be be iterative. All your senses are iterative.
Your thoughts are iterative.

[Anonymous No.15591045]

>>15590571
Bayes >>>>>>>>>>> LW

their namedropping doesn't magically transfer his cred

[Anonymous No.15591052]

>>15590994
>>15591036
Which limits*

[Anonymous No.15591093]

>>15591036
>which limits you're referring to and what I've admitted to.

I dunno maybe uh, when I called it just an "algorithm for progress" only for you five posts later to call it iterative and something which needs to be continually updated? How about instead of trying to get me to read your homework for you, try explaining how this """"solves"""" epistemology.

[Anonymous No.15591161]

>>15591093
It being iterative is a positive thing, it does not make it weaker at all.
As we can't directly observe anything something that is not iterative can't be trusted at all, that is self obvious.

You said you would explain your argument.
All you've done is said what you don't like, not why that is a problem for the Theorem.

>try explaining how this """"solves"""" epistemology
That was OP's words, not mine.
However it is the only way to achieve knowledge that relates to reality.

I have already explained how the process is a sure way to get better knowledge of whatever thing that you can in some way observe the consequences of.

[Anonymous No.15591169]

>>15591034
Keep analytics out of this dude. Analytics hate LessWrong pseud bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15591171]

>>15590781
I have directly observed my own phenomenological processes in the act of observing itself.

[Anonymous No.15591178]

>>15591171
how’d you do that

[Anonymous No.15591198]

>>15591161
>not why that is a problem for the Theorem.
See >>15590966, and then your response, which essentially boils down to "noooo it's iterative I can forever procrastinate making a decision to avoid this fault but it's also still suuuuper progressive aahhhhhh!"

[Anonymous No.15591220]

>>15591178
meditation

[Anonymous No.15591229]

>>15591198
Have you bit read my posts?
Knowledge is itself statistical, you can never know anything with absolute certainty, where you draw the line is arbitrary and should be sole depending on what you need and the consequences of it.

In particle physics a minimum of 5 sigma is needed to officially proclaim a discovery. That is arbitrary but makes sure not many false positives are announced.

This is not a weakness of the Theorem.
Maybe you don't like that there is no clear black and white but that is irrelevant.

Try again?

[Anonymous No.15591253]

>>15591229
>bit read
Your ESL has been showing for a few posts now but at this point I don't actually know what you're typing.

>This is not a weakness of the Theorem.
>Maybe you don't like [weakness of the theorem] but that is irrelevant.
Great argument. Try again?

[Anonymous No.15591275]

>>15590606
Oof

[Anonymous No.15591332]

>>15591253
> I don't actually know what you're typing.
It's supposed be be 'not' to instead of 'bit'
You should have been able to figure that out. It was auto corrected, I'm in bed almost falling asleep. Also as I've said earlier English is not my first language.
Further, the way I type is irrelevant to the argument at hand and a weak attack from you.

>Great argument. Try again?
Sure, but first explain how your feelings about my an algorithm decides its validity.

Since you made no counter argument against me explaining why an iterative process is in fact positive I assume you saw the light. If not try to argue against what I've argued.

[Anonymous No.15591376]

>>15591332
>Further, the way I type is irrelevant to the argument
I gues you can just fall asleep on the keyboard and them hit the enter button. It'll be an approximation of what you meant to say, right? Good enough!

>Since you made no counter argument against me
I'm the one waiting to get one from you. At most OP pic reduces the risk involved in bringing the gavel down in >>15590944, but it isn't complete nor does it adress >>15590745 i.e. the general shortcoming of probably within empiricism. Empericism is quite literally the practice of trying to judge a book by its cover, it cannot be your lone method of seeking knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15591393]

>>15591376
>probably within empiricism
probability*

[Anonymous No.15591466]

>>15590835
Not that anon, but if it's probable to be the case, it's also probable to not be it. I think this is what he was trying to say.

[Anonymous No.15591490]

>>15591376
Once more then.
Everything you know and everything you experience is statistical, arguing against it doesn't change the fact.

>>15590745
I explained that the process is iterative and when to stop is is arbitrarily decided by the one conducting the process.
If society decided a 80% chance of being guilty is enough then there is no problem otherwise just gather more evidence before judging.
This is pretty much how it works now, even if you don't see it and it is not an argument against Bayes.

>>15590745
The world is fundamentally statistical and arguing about unobserved worlds is irrelevant to how effective the method is.
>Empericism is quite literally the practice of trying to judge a book by its cover, it cannot be your lone method of seeking knowledge.
Empiricism is the only way to achieve further knowledge about reality.
Any other method used can't be used to decide if the conclusions are true of false with any certainty except through statistics means.

This does indeed not encompass everything because there is math and logic too, but those are not fundamental parts of reality, only the way they work is.

I know you will refuse to concede anything so this post is mainly for lurkers I guess. Anyway it's late and I need to sleep.

[Anonymous No.15592047]

>>15590800
Has nothing to do with the medium you're expressing through. Your arguments just unavoidably wrong.

[Anonymous No.15592157]

>>15590798
hahaha
> I read deleuze because my mind can't grasp any basic mathematical concepts and need some french guy to quote so I don't feel left out of any actual meaningful discussion

[Anonymous No.15592703]

>>15590555
Analytic philosophy
>◇ ∃p ≡ q{d~p} ∀m ⊢q∥~p ⊃ d p ⊧ ~p ∄ p
>∴ Matter is material.
>Ergo, mid-20th century market liberalism is objectively correct, as is every conception, ca. 1965 in Oxbridge, UK, of the ideas and culture of all past and future civilizations. Read John Rawls and John Locke every day. Ethics was solved by the Bloomsbury circle.

[Anonymous No.15592720]

Continental philosophy
>What is a tree? Is there an abstract "treeness" like the old Aristotelian etiology or Platonic metaphysics? Or is it just some kind of base set of elements, or "matter," obeying laws? If that's the case, what are the laws? Are they abstracts? What is the non-material ground of matter? Or is matter somehow self-grounding? Even more importantly, how is it even possible for us to be certain in our judgments about any of these things? Can we ever be certain? Can we even know things about the world? Who's to say there isn't a real nature out there, whether it's abstract "treeness" or some kind of base essence of matter and cosmological laws, except it's the nature of consciousness not to be able to know those essences and laws? Are we locked into our experience of the world, which pre-theoretically "makes sense" to us, only to be irritated any time we try to look beyond that pre-theoretical experience and really KNOW things? But how does that make any sense? Surely not everything can be subjective and "social," can it? The basic of the subjective must be the objective; or maybe a unity of the two that is higher than both? Maybe one way to know the "outside" is by better understanding the "inside," since both spring from the same source; yet a lot of philosophers are pessimistic about this, and think we are trapped in language. It's like we're right back where the Greeks started.. How are we to live in a world where we can't even get a firm footing on what it means to "be?"

Analytic philosophy
>◇ ∃p ≡ q{d~p} ∀m ⊢q∥~p ⊃ d p ⊧ ~p ∄ p
>∴ Matter is material.
>Ergo, mid-20th century market liberalism is objectively correct, as is every conception, ca. 1965 in Oxbridge, UK, of the ideas and culture of all past and future civilizations. Read John Rawls and John Locke every day. Ethics was solved by the Bloomsbury circle.

[Anonymous No.15594077]

Bayes is for gays