MSC

How many meals a day does a mathematician eat?

9

They eat 3 squared meals a day.

Good thing portion sizes are relative..

At least we've still got the big yin... Fer noo

Still, fuckin miss you Draco, to the stars!

Anywhere but here

Evidence of hawking points

Sorry I misspoke before, beyond SMBHs in the early universe and explaining how they grew to such a size so quickly; there is also evidence of blackhole evaporation in the CMB.

Which to me presents a bit of a dilemma. If the universe is a little under 14billion years old, and it takes 10^64 years for a regular sized blackhole to evaporate, how can we explain the potential evidence of black hole evaporation in the CMB without throwing out the age of the universe?

As for the voids, I double checked what I meant there and withdraw that completely. I was thinking of the bootes void and I remembered watching a documentary of some kind that probably put a bit of woo science in there for dramatic effect. It cited that the universe wasn't or isn't old enough for the bootes void to have formed to the size it is, but having double checked that myself before replying I think it might be a load of BS. 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Absolutely not! You just read some Dostoyevsky and started Russian to conclusions.

Am I Russian to conclusions or are you Gulagging behind? 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

These could be interesting topics to explore in their thread, but come across as a hijack here. 

Fair enough. Personally I prefer discussing simulation theory, as the brain in the vat hypothesis has a lot of problems, as a thought experiment. A brain in any kind of container that can still feel touch just strikes me as a brain with what functions as a body to house the brain. That and whomever is caretaking the vats has their own vat problem to consider... They might just be a brain in a vat inhabiting a simulated experience where they care for other brains in vats. The whole thing just becomes a great big headache. 

That being said, another thread on simulation theory might already be kicking around somewhere. Even though it has the same problems and the same headaches. 

On 11/18/2020 at 7:04 AM, arnold3000 said:

If the hypothesis of the brain in the vat is correct, this means that we cannot touch another person or object.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether these hypothesis are correct or not. The only thing that worries me is how the touch happens if in the real world it is the interaction of atoms (in particular, electrons). thanks

This would beg the question; is everyone a brain in a vat or is there just one brain in a vat hallucinating everyone else?

Let's say you and I are both brains in vats. Are we occupying different simulated experiences or the same one? If it is the latter, then there would still be atomic touch interactions at a longer distance, if we bumped fists in the simulation. If it is the former, then touch between two persons is an impossibility. 

What would it mean for you if the hypothesis was correct? Or if simulation theory was correct?

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Now two people have taken the point.

Is that a pun?

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Biggest problem with all versions of cyclic cosmologies is the fact that entropy has to be 'reset' to the low initial state.
One mechanism proposed by R Penrose with Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is that all particles have to eventually decay.
And while a proton decay is possible ( even with other theories ) after more than 10³² years, the decay of fundamental fermions is a lot tougher to come to grips with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

Thanks for the response! How are you keeping MigL? 

I don't understand how particle decay of protons or fermions relates, admittedly. 

Isn't that only a problem with indefinite and infinite cyclical cosmology? There could very well be bounces without an entropic reset, how many possible bounces there are might be something with a hard limit. It could even be that the limit has already been reached and that is why expansion seems like it will overcome any ability for a contraction to take place again.

Why cyclical cosmology seems relevant to me; there are black holes and voids that are described as potentially being older than the big bang. Not to mention Methuselah, if the margin for error on that approximate age calculation falls before the big bang. 

All that being said, maybe I'm not reading from the right sources but would be interested to hear your thoughts.

21 hours ago, joigus said:

Very interesting topics. Looking forward to seeing them posted. I've got some other historical topics to suggest.

I'm glad to have you back, @MSC, after the pachi-dermatological treatment.

As am I! I've a few historical ones of myself to suggest in the future. 

Yes, the treatment worked wonders. Turned out all I had to do was try to bathe in a field of cacti and listen to Dostoyevsky insult me five or six times a sentence. Half-True story, everyone should try it!

Disclaimer: The cactus stunt suggested here is fictitious and should only be performed by the professional idiots out there in the world... To YouTube!

The Big Bounce - Quantamagazine

Quote

In a cyclic universe, periods of expansion alternate with periods of contraction. The universe has no beginning and no end.

I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly. Is there no upper limit to how large the universe can bounce up to or is the image misleading? Is matter a fixed finite or is more created at each bounce? 

If I view it as a series of warping bubbles moving through this multiversal vacuum space, at what point is everything so spread out that it just pops? If expansion is stretching everything further apart, how can another contraction take place if there is no force great enough to overcome expansion and pull everything inwards again for a bounce? 

Another thing I don't understand due to the image, does the universe have some form of directionality in its expansions and contractions? How and why?

Sorry if these seem like stupid questions. I'm sure someone here can help me understand. 

36 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

You are now a pachyderm.

From the greek (pachy- (“thick”) +‎ -derm (“skin”).

Can I put that on a CV? Haha

On 10/14/2020 at 5:57 AM, swansont said:

If MSC chooses to return (with perhaps a slightly thicker skin), then perhaps they will be willing to do a little legwork to prove that we should have a these suggested subsections inside of philosophy by providing us with some statistics of how many e.g. logic threads exist already. Maybe going back a year. Along with some examples so we can check the data.

In addition, they could also tag their thread titles (e.g. Some title [logic])  so we can track what happens. With that and other suggested subsections (Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics and Phenomenology)

 

You seem to be missing the point. I didn't say we don't apply logic, or that we don't understand logic. I didn't say you don't need to understand logic to do science. I'm saying we don't have to have discussions about logic in order to do good science, which is the kind of discussion you would expect in a logic subsection.

You can say the same for math. Physics uses a lot of math But you can have physics discussions independent of the math section, because you don't need to contemplate the purely math considerations. You are using the math, but you are not discussing the math. You can say you need to integrate the force dotted with displacement to get the work — that's a physics question — but that's not a discussion about what a dot product is, or what an integral is, which is what you might discuss in mathematics. IOW, we don't have a mathematics section because you need it to discuss physics. We have a mathematics section because there is a lot of traffic in people discussing mathematics.

Which is why "Without logic, no science" is a non-sequitur for making the case of having a logic subforum. 

 

 

My skin is thicker, or I should say the environment is no longer thinning my skin. I had a lot going on personally last month and I sincerely apologise to you and the other moderators for taking out those frustrations on this forum and causing offense. I hope I can earn your forgiveness by displaying a more relaxed attitude within this space, that you all do an excellent job of overseeing, despite the fact that it is voluntary within your own time. 

I'd also like to thank you for not having a knee jerk reactions to my criticisms of this space and not banning me outright, thank you for allowing me to come back.

I do see your points, I did do some checks on logic threads, I also did a check on individual comments alone. While there are certainly a few instances of individuals who display a lack of understanding of what logic is, the traffic is low and the context of those dialogues usually either leads to someone correcting the logic anyway or it just not being touched with a ten foot barge pole.

Should the traffic for any of these things increase, I'll make a politer petition at that time and won't make it a hill to die on. 

That being said; Aesthetics and History.

The Sculptures made of Almonds, with a few rule tweaks could also be an area where aesthetics can feature. I think it could not only be enjoyable for users, but moderators too. If we use a broad definition of art. Music, TV, Movies, Paintings, Almond Sculptures obviously, theatre, paintings, who the fuck is banksy? Etc. You don't even have to change the name of the thread. It can just be like an inside art joke on comedy. 

I do also like the idea if a history section as it is such a catch all. Every field has it's history after all! It's also one of those subjects where if it was there, I think a lot of traffic would naturally flow into it more than if it wasn't there. A good analogy might be to say that a History thread would be like a new highway, as opposed to a Logic thread, which is just new footpaths.

One thing that I should highlight for everyone who would want a history section and an aesthetics section; How should they be moderated and what should the rules and guidelines be for those new forums? What does a good thread and a bad thread look like in those forums? 

On 10/15/2020 at 2:55 PM, MigL said:

I don't care; I still want a History forum.
I ( and CharonY ) are constantly having to sneak in historical tidbits into other forums.

Please, please, please.please, ...

Hi MigL! Hope you are well! Can you give an example of a thread you would post in a history section? Me personally; I would use it to ask questions about history for things that I don't know but am curious about. Things like, Who built this? How did this war start? What turned this dictator into such an asshole? That sort of thing. But only if I had a hard time finding information on those things myself or conflicting accounts.

As for Aesthetics; I'd probably just post things about movies, video games, the occasional painting, artists, books, music. With questions about those like, What is the moral of this story? What does this song mean? 

As for how they would be moderated and what the rules for these new forums should be.. *Shrugs*

41 minutes ago, studiot said:

The downvotes are nothing to do with me and this seems to be the real content of your last post, along with a large clutter about not giving a shit.

 

Actually I find that using google is good for finding threads on subjects at SF.
Put in SF plus subject plus any members you know have responded.

The place for your resume of Cohen's book should surely be in this thread  ?

I have recommended some beginner's books on logic in other threads but don't know this one so I am interested to know more.

You may like to look at

E J Lemmon's "Beginning Logic"

and

Simmon's "Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis"

if you don't already know them.

I have also found the book reviews section at SF to be pretty unpopular for some reason I don't understand.

Familiar with Simmons, not Lemmons. Will take a look when I've finished my Dostoyevsky novel.

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But if I thought we should have them, would it be better to make an intellectual appeal by promoting discussion along these lines, or should I just stamp my foot and demand that it be done?

Tried that, no one was biting and INow made a point to put words into the forums mouth and drive off any interest. If at first you don't succeed, try again and again. When it is clear it won't work, stamp your feet until they listen. Worked for Wittgenstein.

46 minutes ago, studiot said:

have also found the book reviews section at SF to be pretty unpopular for some reason I don't understand.

I don't understand either. I can only guess as to what Neurotypical unwritten social BS makes that happen. Anti-intellectualism is everywhere even in intellectual places.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

What happens when you get a contradiction of the premise in a logical argument?

Depends on the type of argument, but it usually casts doubt on the validity of your conclusion.

An example: 

We can't be sure of anything

Therefore we know nothing. 

If the premise is true, then we do know something. We know that premise. So the conclusion is immediately falsifiable if we believe the premise. 

A premise is contradictory if it both asserts and denies the conclusion.

Another example would be to say something like; 

God can do anything

So god can make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it.

But then he can't do anything if he can't lift the stone.

That only covers contradictory premises in logical arguments though. Not incorrect premises or missing ones.

For example: until recently we were missing dark matter as a premise in the models we made. 

We can now try to make logical arguments about the nature of the universe a little bit more accurately now that we have found that premise. The problem, what is dark matter? If we get it wrong, any conclusion we make is thrown into doubt. The conclusion should be different depending on how we answer the question of "what is dark matter?" 

You and your colleagues can do quality science with low quality logic. You can have a conclusion that is probable, even if the premises it took to get there are in some way wrong or contradictory. It would just mean you were lucky or intuiting premises without mentioning or being consciously aware of them. It would also mean you'd have an explanatory gap between a true conclusion and the why it is true. 

The danger of saying something (not an argument) is illogical, doesn't mean it isn't logical. It means you don't understand the logic or how it is being used.

I'm going to leave it here now. My partner pointed out that I've been in a somewhat manic state for a few weeks and now I'm falling into a depression. I still want a logic section added, but I'm sorry for getting so worked up about it. That's not how I want to be or how I want to present myself. This stuff, science and philosophy means a lot to me and it provides me a lot of relief from the meaninglessness of my current existence. I feel like I haven't contributed enough to society, but I don't know how to get anyone interested in even allowing me to contribute anything. 

I'm going to take a long break from here for awhile. You'd probably be able to help with that by applying a temporary ban for a month. I'd be able to be less obsessed with this place and focus on my Dostoyevsky book.

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

You can action this all you want when you start your own forum. For now, you're doing more harm than good by continuing to comment as you are. Logic dictates that you shouldn't act abrasively toward those from whom you need help to get what you want. 

Hume would disagree but then whether or not something is "abrasive" is subjective. Some undergrads find compatabilism "Abrasive" to their beliefs in free will. 

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Nobody is claiming that the site is free of the use of logic. Logic is not a required topic of discussion when discussing science. Feel free to peruse the science threads and see how many of them do not go into discussions of the finer points of logic. IOW, no logic ≠ no logic section

But hey, nice strawman.

No but it is a requirement to do science well. God forbid any premise to any scientific argument is missing or wrong.

Not a strawman. 

Learn some manners and respect when people go out of their way to do the same for you. You're easily the most "Abrasive" moderator here.

No one is going to convince me that I'm in the wrong here without first learning how to speak respectfully to others. Your comments to me yesterday were uncalled for and they were off-topic to the discussion and you put words in my mouth. Philosophy birthed your entire field as it is today. Show it some respect.

If you'd climb down off your pedestal and apologise, like I did yesterday for upsetting you, just for stating some facts about science and philosophy, then maybe we can have an adult conversation instead of a pissing contest.

Next time you want to talk about fallacies in logic, like strawmen. Do so in the appropriate logic forum.. Oh, wait

1 minute ago, swansont said:

To follow up on this, the philosophy section has just under 29,000 posts. Physics, chemistry, biology, medical science and mathematics all have more. By a lot, in most cases. That’s one of the reasons they are broken down.

Also because we’re a science discussion forum. We include philosophy (and other topics) because there is a natural spill-over in discussions. But the primary focus is science.

The primary focus can't be science if there is no logic. Without logic, no science. 

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Yes, but the rest of us understand how being harsh while trying to persuade is a failed tactic

Tell that to Swansont.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Also have you looked at some past threads on logic here in the forums ?

I would but there is no section for it all to be found.

Why should I have to promote logic at all? It's a field of study you can take a class in at most University's and you can get degrees in it. It's important. It's not my job to explain the reality of that to others who allegedly went to university.

Just so you're all aware, I could have 1000 downvotes and still not give a shit. They aren't real communication and half the reason they are programmed into anywhere is to make the screen more addictive. "Oh yay I got an upvote, free dopamine!" "Oh no I got a downvote from a stranger, I must have been bad boohoo." 

So yeah, downvote away. I couldn't give less of a shit. It's the go to response for people who have no good response.

Quote

Over the past two centuries the field of logic has developed at an explosive pace into new areas far removed from the traditional syllogism and formal proof. The purpose of this well-known introductory treatment is to chart, clearly and lucidly, this new domain of today's vastly sophisticated logic. Author Morris R. Cohen explores "the periphery of logic, the relations of logic to the rest of the universe, the philosophical presuppositions which give logic its meaning, and the applications which give it importance."
Beginning with an exploration of the traditional scope of logic as the medium of formal proofs, the text pursues a modern investigation of the relationship between logic and the mind, logic and speech, logic in metaphor and fiction―and most significantly, logic and the concept of abstract reasoning as applied to the empirical world. Additional topics include logic and statistical method, probability, and scientific models. Concise and highly readable, this volume is suitable for college undergraduates and other readers interested in logic. 

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 5 year old black kid that MSC mentions, might have a chance at an education IF his dad was home to encourage him.
If his dad was home, he might not be on his own most of the time, and might not have to drop out to get a job, or worse , join a gang.

Why do you assume it's because his dad isn't on the scene? You do realise most black fathers aren't leaving. It's a vicious stereotype that needs to stop. It's not like there aren't absent white fathers too.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

My friend, your signal to noise ratio is WAAAAY off. I think you need to take a break for a while, and think about your behavior towards a volunteer staff of people looking to share science knowledge. Your behavior behind the scenes is equally appalling. Please, everyone is frazzled at the present, and nobody needs you adding to the stress load. 

Yeah, my behaviour is clearly the problem. Only asking for my field to not be denigrated and insulted. Clearly I'm bang out of order. 

Projections are a pound a piece here it seems. It's not like I'm not also stressed. 

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We're not saying we won't add a new header if the membership wants it, but know that it's not a decision you're going to make for us with your browbeating and petulance.

My petulance? What about Swansonts petulance yesterday in the general philosophy section? Takes one to know one.

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

the worst ones are of our own making.

Our own making. Collectively or as individuals? 

A number of pragmatic theories of ethics highlight that in terms of blame, Society is the object of moral responsibility and is far more deserving of moral condemnation than any individual who happens to randomly be born into it, without any say in the matter or any say in how society treats them for things beyond their control. 

It's all very well to say that individuals have to do more to contribute to our moral ecology, but institutions have far more power to do this than any one individual can and many actively try to uphold a maladaptive status quo that harms our moral ecology and life as a whole. Why? Because money is God. People are expendable if there is enough money in it for institutions.

One of the hurdles to getting a degree in ethics for example; is the desire of the ethical student to have an ethical teacher. How can he have an ethical teacher when his teacher props up a system of inequality and coercive manipulation? A system that uses people up and milks them for all they are worth. A system that has the audacity to talk about Free education as a good idea while it puts all mention of it behind a paywall so that only those who have proven themselves worthy by buying into it, can read it only to see it as a joke because why would they need free education when they've already paid for it?

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That all being said, an inquisitive mind with willingness to learn is clearly an important element. At the same time, I do understand that this in itself is a luxury that not everyone can afford. 

In my experience this is something every child has, not everyone allows children to keep it though. 

I can only afford this luxury because I refused to listen to anyone who said I should give it up since I was never going to be able to "Make money like that." I wanted to go on to study physics at University but all the adults in my life at the time, said it would be a waste of time and money and that I should just settle for joining the army so I could "stay out of prison."

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why is it always barriers imposed by, or the fault of society, when someone fails ?
What part does personal responsibility play in this ?

Markus Hanke taught himself GR ( and many other aspects of Physical Science ).
It was not provided for him, but he wanted it and he got it.
Barriers did not hinder him.

You, yourself, have displayed a questioning attitude.
One of the best ways to learn about things you know little about.
Yet others come here with the attitude that what little knowledge they have , is all there is.
They ask no questions, but make conjectures and proclaim results which more learned members quickly dismiss.
And yet their attitude, not barriers, allows them to double down and insist they are right ( until they are banned ).

A good attitude, and a willingness to learn, go a long way in these days of internet access and on-line courses.

Differences between moral and causal responsibility. 

Would you say this to a five year old black kid, who's teachers have point blank said to him to give up on his dreams? Does the five year old black kid need to take personal responsibility for his failure there? Is it even his failure? Or should he just be put through it all and left to figure out at 30 that his teacher was talking shit?

Responsibility cuts both ways. A good attitude and a willingness to learn gets you nowhere when it comes to career prospects and getting around other peoples prejudices and biases. It is not a failure of the victim that they are victimised by others. Victim blaming BS. 

As for the people without a questioning attitude and a desire for some kind of positive attention, they seek what they have lacked their whole lives. They seek what was taken from them in childhood and excluding and isolating them DOES NOT HELP. 

Everyone should read this book. 

Until you've read it, don't talk about logic. You don't know what you're talking about.

On 10/8/2020 at 8:26 PM, MSC said:

Why is there no forum for Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics or Phenomenology in the philosophy section?

Trying to drum up interest in these fields.

Focussing on Logic.

Is there a good reason why Logic should NOT be added to the forum? One that isn't based on whether or not people show an interest. Lot's of people have no interest in mathematics in their daily lives yet it's still important. Same is true of logic, especially when there are clear misunderstandings of what logic is and how it is used, being shared on the forum. Which makes it impossible for logicians to take things seriously.