Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 04-17-2014, 07:03 PM   #6281
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
"Explain" =/= "Information".
Yeah, the whole just existing, or it just being stems from the fact that we are looking at it from a level of abstraction, or even if it's just a concept with no meaning, it may not explain much (or anything). But what do you want it to "explain"? Just the fact that these terms exist, we can conceptualize it this way, and the entity itself exists, gives us information. If we hadn't known anything about it, we'd be having less information about reality and ourselves.


Imagine 2 scenarios:
1)I am in my home, I think and create concepts A and B
2)I am in my home, I think and create concept A

Now, concepts A and B may explain nothing about reality, may be "useless". Would you say then, that the net information we have in scenario (1) and (2) is the same? I don't believe so. Even if B is pointless, doesn't explain anything, just "is", or whatever....it is there, while in (2) it is not. It is something that makes us able to differentiate both scenarios, so they are not exactly the same. If you could somehow encode both scenarios, scenario (1) would give you more data than scenario (2), because something exists in (1) that doesn't in (2). Both scenarios would supposedly have the same "explanatory power", yet if I were to encode them into a file, one would be different than the other one.
That alone gives it information in my mind, even if so slightly, even if it doesn't explain anything and is completely useless.

Same with wholes. Just the fact that there is a whole gives me information. Whether the whole is an ontological entity that exists, whether it's just a concept we created, it gives you more "net information" than in an exact replica of our reality, but where said whole doesn't exist or isn't there. This information can't be explained by reductionism
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2014, 07:05 PM   #6282
willT08
SM58 beater
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: with jah
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Imagine 2 scenarios:
1)I am in my home, I think and create concepts A and B
2)I am in my home, I think and create concept A

Now, concepts A and B may explain nothing about reality, may be "useless". Would you say then, that the net information we have in scenario (1) and (2) is the same?

who the **** could even possibly care
willT08 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2014, 11:12 PM   #6283
progdude93
UG Member
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
"Explain" =/= "Information".


that's the most pedantic bullshit you've pulled out of your ass thus far, and that's saying something.

an explanation necessarily conveys information. information necessarily explains something. stop with your bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Yeah, the whole just existing, or it just being stems from the fact that we are looking at it from a level of abstraction, or even if it's just a concept with no meaning, it may not explain much (or anything). But what do you want it to "explain"? Just the fact that these terms exist, we can conceptualize it this way, and the entity itself exists, gives us information. If we hadn't known anything about it, we'd be having less information about reality and ourselves.


no it doesn't, and no we wouldn't. you're getting into psychology more than philosophy. and the truth is that i have no idea how the human mind would conceive of things without the concept of wholes. it's such a faraway possible world that i don't even know why we're discussing it, not to mention the fact that you're drawing such bold conclusions from such unfounded assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Imagine 2 scenarios:
1)I am in my home, I think and create concepts A and B
2)I am in my home, I think and create concept A

Now, concepts A and B may explain nothing about reality, may be "useless". Would you say then, that the net information we have in scenario (1) and (2) is the same? I don't believe so. Even if B is pointless, doesn't explain anything, just "is", or whatever....it is there, while in (2) it is not. It is something that makes us able to differentiate both scenarios, so they are not exactly the same. If you could somehow encode both scenarios, scenario (1) would give you more data than scenario (2), because something exists in (1) that doesn't in (2). Both scenarios would supposedly have the same "explanatory power", yet if I were to encode them into a file, one would be different than the other one.
That alone gives it information in my mind, even if so slightly, even if it doesn't explain anything and is completely useless.


Give me an example of a concept that explains nothing about anything and is completely useless. HOW DOES IT GIVE YOU DATA (data=facts) IF IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING?!

you're asking a lot of questions, but they don't seem to make much sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Same with wholes. Just the fact that there is a whole gives me information. Whether the whole is an ontological entity that exists, whether it's just a concept we created, it gives you more "net information" than in an exact replica of our reality, but where said whole doesn't exist or isn't there. This information can't be explained by reductionism


yes it absolutely can. refer to my previous post.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgery
i'd just end up watching porn all night until i pass out and wake up with a carrot up my ass and shit on my dick
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:21 AM   #6284
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
that's the most pedantic bullshit you've pulled out of your ass thus far, and that's saying something.

an explanation necessarily conveys information. information necessarily explains something. stop with your bullshit.


*sigh* it's not pedantic, they are completely different concepts (in my mind).
If you are so concerned about the terms then change them to "Blublublu" and "QuackQuackQuack" if you want, I don't care.

An explanation necessarily conveys information, this is true.
Information doesn't necessarily explain something...well, depends on what you think "explain" is. Would saying "An apple exists" explain something to you? I mean, an apple is a group of molecules behaving in a specific manner, and all of those explain everything the apple by itself could ever explain, so "An apple exists" wouldn't explain anything that "A group of molecules behaving in a specific manner" wouldn't. Yet it carries information.

Quote:
Give me an example of a concept that explains nothing about anything and is completely useless.


How about anything we've been discussing so far? The "wholes" whose explanatory power can be reduced to the explanatory power of its parts, thus the whole itself "explains nothing"? Being "completely useless" was just an expression. You could change it to "explains nothing by itself" if you want to instead.

Quote:
HOW DOES IT GIVE YOU DATA (data=facts) IF IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING?!


Relax dude. You got my analogy wrong. Data=Binary data of the encoded file. In the analogy, I "encode" that scenario into a file and compare them. I could encode them in any way I want, the easiest way would be perhaps to have this:
File 1:
A
B
File 2:
A

So here, the additional "data" in File 1 would be the string "B".

Also, regarding that specific question: Dunno, you tell me why it's such a problem. The "wholes" that get reduced to their parts, don't "explain" anything apparently (its parts do). Yet you could conceive one of them as such concept "B" from the example I posted, thus could encode it to the file and get more "data".

Quote:
yes it absolutely can. refer to my previous post.


Quote:
and what information does that whole have? wholes don't answer any questions, nor do their presumed existence explain anything. you can argue reductionism doesn't prove the existence of wholes, but I could easily respond that a "whole" is simply a concept we invented (or that naturally arose) and its existence doesn't need to be proven. and all the properties of the "whole" we created can be fully reduced to certain things, which we call the "parts."


Right there you have 2 things reductionism can't explain nor "prove", but which I consider valuable information about the whole (either its existence as an entity, or its existence as a concept created by man).


Anyways, I'm getting tired of this shit
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:55 PM   #6285
progdude93
UG Member
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
*sigh* it's not pedantic, they are completely different concepts (in my mind).
If you are so concerned about the terms then change them to "Blublublu" and "QuackQuackQuack" if you want, I don't care.

An explanation necessarily conveys information, this is true.
Information doesn't necessarily explain something...well, depends on what you think "explain" is. Would saying "An apple exists" explain something to you? I mean, an apple is a group of molecules behaving in a specific manner, and all of those explain everything the apple by itself could ever explain, so "An apple exists" wouldn't explain anything that "A group of molecules behaving in a specific manner" wouldn't. Yet it carries information.


??? Information absolutely does necessarily explain something. Saying "an apple exists" explains something about an object that occupies space. It's absolutely true, according to a reductionist, that explaining the properties of the parts would explain MORE, but that doesn't ****ing matter, because it still conveys information.

Give me an example of information that explains NOTHING.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
How about anything we've been discussing so far? The "wholes" whose explanatory power can be reduced to the explanatory power of its parts, thus the whole itself "explains nothing"? Being "completely useless" was just an expression. You could change it to "explains nothing by itself" if you want to instead.


You're misunderstanding EVERYTHING. the whole can explain things. but all that explanatory power can be reduced, and there is nothing that it can explain or convey that the properties of its parts cannot explain of convey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Relax dude. You got my analogy wrong. Data=Binary data of the encoded file. In the analogy, I "encode" that scenario into a file and compare them. I could encode them in any way I want, the easiest way would be perhaps to have this:
File 1:
A
B
File 2:
A

So here, the additional "data" in File 1 would be the string "B".


Encode what scenario? You still haven't proven that there can be information that explains absolutely nothing, nor have you given me an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Also, regarding that specific question: Dunno, you tell me why it's such a problem. The "wholes" that get reduced to their parts, don't "explain" anything apparently (its parts do). Yet you could conceive one of them as such concept "B" from the example I posted, thus could encode it to the file and get more "data".


again, WRONG. you still don't get reductionism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Right there you have 2 things reductionism can't explain nor "prove", but which I consider valuable information about the whole (either its existence as an entity, or its existence as a concept created by man).


Anyways, I'm getting tired of this shit


You don't need to prove its existence as a concept created by man, because it's self-affirming level of abstraction.

I've been tired of this shit for the last few pages. Good thing I wasted all this time on you....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgery
i'd just end up watching porn all night until i pass out and wake up with a carrot up my ass and shit on my dick
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:28 PM   #6286
captaincrunk
See, I Got News for You.
 
captaincrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
You're misunderstanding EVERYTHING. the whole can explain things. but all that explanatory power can be reduced, and there is nothing that it can explain or convey that the properties of its parts cannot explain of convey.

unless you aren't a reductionist, of course
__________________
#15 in the 2012 top 100
#23 in the 2010 top 100

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by element4433
I respect crunk.
captaincrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:05 PM   #6287
ichiefG13
Registered User
 
ichiefG13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
jesus loves me this I know
__________________
Whats goes around must come down
ichiefG13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:14 PM   #6288
Rust_in_Peace34
Pancakes are my business
 
Rust_in_Peace34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home in the Northern Cold
Wait, so if you're a reductionist you believe that: Considering you know the details of all the workings of the individual parts that constitute a whole, then you know the whole? Is there a distinct basis for this?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcw00t
"so you mean if the father is sterile, the kid will be sterile too?"

Proof God exists and evolution is a lie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elguitarrista3
the prove is u because u did n create urself and ur parents dindt and their parents didnt and so on and we are not monkeys peace

Rust_in_Peace34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:15 PM   #6289
progdude93
UG Member
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincrunk
unless you aren't a reductionist, of course


i've been going through my posts after i finish writing them to see if i've forgotten to include an "according to a reductionist" and i guess i missed one
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgery
i'd just end up watching porn all night until i pass out and wake up with a carrot up my ass and shit on my dick
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:20 PM   #6290
progdude93
UG Member
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_in_Peace34
Wait, so if you're a reductionist you believe that: Considering you know the details of all the workings of the individual parts that constitute a whole, then you know the whole? Is there a distinct basis for this?


yeah, basically.

reductionism states that if you have perfect knowledge of all the parts, you have perfect knowledge of all the wholes (if they do in fact exist).

this relies on the axiomatic principle, which states that the emergence of the whole is within the properties of the parts. it's a property of oxygen that when an atom of it bonds with 2 hydrogen atoms, it forms water.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgery
i'd just end up watching porn all night until i pass out and wake up with a carrot up my ass and shit on my dick
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:26 PM   #6291
Rust_in_Peace34
Pancakes are my business
 
Rust_in_Peace34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home in the Northern Cold
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
yeah, basically.

reductionism states that if you have perfect knowledge of all the parts, you have perfect knowledge of all the wholes (if they do in fact exist).

this relies on the axiomatic principle, which states that the emergence of the whole is within the properties of the parts. it's a property of oxygen that when an atom of it bonds with 2 hydrogen atoms, it forms water.


It's a pretty big assumption to make, I'm just trying to go through my head to find a reason to dismiss this. I know I have a problem with it, just don't know why.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcw00t
"so you mean if the father is sterile, the kid will be sterile too?"

Proof God exists and evolution is a lie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elguitarrista3
the prove is u because u did n create urself and ur parents dindt and their parents didnt and so on and we are not monkeys peace

Rust_in_Peace34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:28 PM   #6292
progdude93
UG Member
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
reductionism vs. emergence is one of the most basic principles in philosophy, in that tons of other things draw on it. for example, if you're a determinist, you're a reductionist. if you're a probabilist, you're not.

have you ever seen any metaphysics without assumption? read spinoza. shit will make you want to vomit out of sheer frustration
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgery
i'd just end up watching porn all night until i pass out and wake up with a carrot up my ass and shit on my dick

Last edited by progdude93 : Yesterday at 02:29 PM.
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:34 PM   #6293
progdude93
UG Member
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
but i don't know if i'd really classify it as assumption.. i don't think it's a falsifiable statement.. it's just a way of looking at things.

i was reading hindu philosophy for a class of mine a while back, and they had this concept called "satkaryavada," which means "the effect is present in the cause."

if you want to look at it this way, is it not a property of water that when drank, it quenches thirst? is it not a property of water that when poured on a fire in sufficient amounts, it extinguishes it? if this is the case, then you accept reductionism.

the only legitimate way to disagree is to say that the effect is not present in the cause, as it is the result of transformational processes
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgery
i'd just end up watching porn all night until i pass out and wake up with a carrot up my ass and shit on my dick
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:12 PM   #6294
WhiskeyFace
NSFW
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by progdude93
it's a property of oxygen that when an atom of it bonds with 2 hydrogen atoms, it forms water.

__________________
Hors Phase~

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornmancer
Forget the fundamentals of filmmaking, this thread needs the fundamentals of condom wearing.
'There is hope - but not for us'
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:09 PM   #6295
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
I'll make this as unambiguous as possible:

A = The "parts"
B = The "whole"

E(A) = What the parts A explain
E(B|A) = What the whole B explains given the parts A

Axiom 1: E(A) = E(B|A)
Based on reductionism

Scenarios:
1)There is A
2)There is A and there is B

Definition: For all scenario N, E(N) = Union of E(Xi|X1...Xi-1,Xi+1..Xn), for all things X1..Xn in it (e.g A, B)

Therefore:
E(1) = E(A)
E(2) = E(A|B) U E(B|A)

Axiom 2: E(A) = E(A|B)
The parts can explain the same things independent of the whole being there or not

Lemma 1: E(1) = E(2)
E(2) = E(A|B) U E(B|A)
E(2) = E(A) U E(A) (based on axiom 1 and 2)
E(2) = E(A) = E(1)

Definition: For all scenario X and Y, X-Y indicates what there is in X, but there isn't in Y.
Axiom 3: Given X and Y, E(X-Y) = E(X) - E(Y)
What the differences between X and Y explain, is what X can explain without Y

Lemma 2: E(B) = 0
2-1 = B
E(2-1) = E(2) - E(1) (based on axiom 3)
E(B) = E(2-1) = E(2) - E(1) = 0 (based on lemma 1)

Therefore E(B) = 0, thus B, or the "whole" can't explain anything (by itself without its parts).

Now, if "explain" is isomorphic with "information", or E(B) === I(B), then I(B) = 0.
I reject this, for me I(B) > 0

Quote:
I've been tired of this shit for the last few pages. Good thing I wasted all this time on you....


ok

I'll politely remove myself from this discussion then. Good day and good luck in your endeavours
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:55 PM   #6296
daytripper75
First Sword of Braavos
 
daytripper75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: King's Landing - Formerly in Braavos
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerBabbath
Never read it, but I'm familiar with the author. He was actualy set to be ordained as a deacon in the Church of England but declined it because of the church's attitude towards his homosexuality.
I've read another of his books, 'Reformation: Europe's House Divided 1490–1700' and that was pretty good. Infact it won several awards when it was released.

But I have to ask, why are you asking us for our opinions when the book was recomended to you by someone like Reza Aslan? Just read it, it's not like you even have to pay for it because it's available to download for free on several sites.



I was just curious to see if anyone here was familiar with it, and what they thought of it. It just arrived in the mail today.
__________________

SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!
daytripper75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:10 PM   #6297
progdude93
UG Member
 
progdude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Is anyone familiar with the concept of Platonic summoners?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgery
i'd just end up watching porn all night until i pass out and wake up with a carrot up my ass and shit on my dick
progdude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.