The Tru7h

Chat and discussion not related to either Marathon or Aleph One. Please keep things at least mildly interesting, though.

Post Aug 5th '09, 10:45

First draft of a paper I'm working on, I know it sucks


Declaration of the Truth
An Act of Phobosophy


Can something really be true? That is the question. After all, the truth regarding the Earth?s position in the Solar System used to be that it was at the center of it, is it still so? No, it is not. However, it was considered genuine because there was nothing with merit enough to dispute it. Was it actually true though? No. And if it was only ?the truth? because there was not yet something to dispute it then can any theory really be considered ?proven? or ?true? and not just the most factually supported theory to date? Because of this, as the title states, declaring something to be the truth must be an act of phobosophy, after all, if a theory is declared true and genuine then the discovery of one more so will not be pursued. Is this to say that there is no truth? No, the inverse is also an act of phobosophy, after all, the truth will not be pursued if it is declared not to exist at all. There is a truth, some astral body is at the center of the universe, but any theory dictating which, no matter what amount of ?proof? it is attributed, can not be considered genuine, only the most evidenced yet. If this is so then indeed the actual discovery of the truth is a Catch 22, after all for something to be the truth it must have sufficient evidence to support it and that evidence must itself be considered true but if any theory is to be inherently considered not to be the truth, only as of yet undisputed, then in turn all evidence must be considered inherently flawed, rendering the truth un-attainable. This is not to be taken for a statement that all knowledge is pointless however, far from it, the conclusion is that for the search for knowledge to be at all successful all knowledge must be thought of as only the most refined to be aquired so far and that the search must go on so that some more refined, more ?true? may be found.
Last edited by SpamBot1 on Aug 5th '09, 11:11, edited 1 time in total.
SpamBot1

Post Aug 5th '09, 13:10

SpamBot1 wrote:First draft of a paper I'm working on, I know it sucks
Declaration of the Truth
An Act of Phobosophy
Can something really be true? That is the question. After all, the truth regarding the Earth?s position in the Solar System used to be that it was at the center of it, is it still so? No, it is not. However, it was considered genuine because there was nothing with merit enough to dispute it. Was it actually true though? No. And if it was only ?the truth? because there was not yet something to dispute it then can any theory really be considered ?proven? or ?true? and not just the most factually supported theory to date? Because of this, as the title states, declaring something to be the truth must be an act of phobosophy, after all, if a theory is declared true and genuine then the discovery of one more so will not be pursued. Is this to say that there is no truth? No, the inverse is also an act of phobosophy, after all, the truth will not be pursued if it is declared not to exist at all. There is a truth, some astral body is at the center of the universe, but any theory dictating which, no matter what amount of ?proof? it is attributed, can not be considered genuine, only the most evidenced yet. If this is so then indeed the actual discovery of the truth is a Catch 22, after all for something to be the truth it must have sufficient evidence to support it and that evidence must itself be considered true but if any theory is to be inherently considered not to be the truth, only as of yet undisputed, then in turn all evidence must be considered inherently flawed, rendering the truth un-attainable. This is not to be taken for a statement that all knowledge is pointless however, far from it, the conclusion is that for the search for knowledge to be at all successful all knowledge must be thought of as only the most refined to be aquired so far and that the search must go on so that some more refined, more ?true? may be found.


0
Last edited by Kurinn on Aug 5th '09, 18:01, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Kurinn

Post Aug 5th '09, 13:13

Quote is not Edit.
Last edited by Kurinn on Aug 5th '09, 13:14, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Kurinn

Post Aug 5th '09, 13:16

You're thinking too hard (or not at all). Imagine you're an AI. Truth is 1.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Aug 5th '09, 13:21

Treellama wrote:You're thinking too hard (or not at all). Imagine you're an AI. Truth is 1.


I miss my formal logic seminars... everything was so much more elegant.
Image
Kurinn

Post Aug 5th '09, 13:43

I started writing a nice Prolog program that would determine the truth of how bad this guy's paper is, but I too am a victim of laziness. It turned out to be easier (if much less esoteric) to go down the Marathon AI route.
Last edited by treellama on Aug 5th '09, 13:43, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

treellama
Pittsburgh

Post Aug 5th '09, 13:45

Treellama wrote:I started writing a nice Prolog program that would determine the truth of how bad this guy's paper is, but I too am a victim of laziness. It turned out to be easier (if much less esoteric) to go down the Marathon AI route.


1
Image
Kurinn

Post Aug 5th '09, 13:48

Truth is a convention, that is, most people agree what it is. And there's a saying that goes something like this: "each head is a world". It means that MY truth is not exactly like yours, even if we seem to agree.

Now, why am I replying if I didn't really read the first post carefully?

And, why are you posting your homework here?

You want to find the truth? I've heard it is "out there".
User avatar

ukimalefu

Post Aug 5th '09, 15:54

We call upon the mighty Forrest. Bless us with your philosophical wisdom and make a long reply to this thread.
User avatar

goran

Post Aug 5th '09, 16:27

Summoning is complete.
Last edited by CryoS on Aug 5th '09, 22:58, edited 1 time in total.
What are you, if not seven different shades of stupid?
User avatar

CryoS
The Dungeon

Post Aug 5th '09, 17:29

This thread is awful.
User avatar

$lave

Post Aug 5th '09, 17:32

Stop deleting your replies. What do you think you are, admin?
underworld : simple fun netmaps // prahblum peack : simple rejected netmaps
azure dreams : simple horrible netmaps // v6.0!!!: thomas mann's greatest hits : simple simple netmaps
User avatar

irons
(.Y.)

Post Aug 5th '09, 21:13

My first suspicion was that the OP of this thread was supposed to be a parody of me, but I'll oblige you all with a wall of text when I get home tonight...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
Director of the Xeventh Project, the team behind Eternal
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
User avatar

Pfhorrest
California

Post Aug 5th '09, 21:19

ukimalefu wrote:You want to find the truth? I've heard it is "out there".

I sincerely doubt you can handle it, though.

$lave wrote:This thread is awful.

Wow, I actually thought you were ryoko.
Eternal - Xmas I - Xmas II - Xmas III - Victory Dance IV - Winter I: The Venom - KTA III - Phoenix - somewhere in the heavens, waiting: The Syndicate
User avatar

Drictelt
Belgium

Post Aug 5th '09, 22:23

yeah, he changed to his old avie so he looks moar like ryoko. And just when i was getting used to the other one.
D?rovací tvá?í.

Fobo: I find it hard to keep a sentence down under two paragraphs.
User avatar

tehWastedJamacan
SuFu, SD

Post Aug 5th '09, 23:22

Drictelt wrote:Wow, I actually thought you were ryoko.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.
I have been wading in a long river and my feet are wet.
User avatar

L'howon
Somewhere outside the Citadel Of Antiquity

Post Aug 6th '09, 01:08

Meh, this thread isn't worth a wall of text for.

The guy's basically just expressing falliblist realism: the position that there is something objectively true out there (realism); but that no finite being like us humans can ever rightly claim to know everything about all of it, so we've always got to keep in mind that we might be wrong (falliblism), no matter how well tested our theories may be. This does not however entail Cartesian skepticism, as he points out; just because any belief might turn out to be false doesn't mean we should automatically reject all beliefs as false until proven otherwise, which may be an impossible task.

On which subject, there's also some stuff in there about the problem of infinite regress which seems to be hinting at a pancritical rationalist solution. That is, the idea that you can never finish a chain of justification for your beliefs, and thus you can never fully and concretely justify your beliefs, Thus that we shouldn't bother demanding justification of beliefs; we should instead believe, and let others believe, whatever seems right to them, so long as we can offer no valid criticism of their beliefs. Putting the burden of proof on the nay-sayers rather than the earnest believers, in a sense, and agreeing to disagree when neither side can disprove the other, even if neither side can prove itself.

Oh and phobosophy means fear of wisdom, and is the opposite of philosophy, though I'm not sure how this guy's "paper" is supposed to be an act thereof. Also, 'phobosophy' is not a standard word, though it is etymologically well-formed, and honestly I thought I had made it up until now, which is why I suspected this was a parody of me. That, and that I basically agree with this guy, however poorly worded he may be.

Except for that weirdness about some astral body at the center of the universe. Dunno what's going on there...
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Aug 6th '09, 01:22, edited 1 time in total.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
Director of the Xeventh Project, the team behind Eternal
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
User avatar

Pfhorrest
California

Post Aug 6th '09, 01:29

Pfhorrest wrote:Except for that weirdness about some astral body at the center of the universe. Dunno what's going on there...

Maybe I'm just misinterpreting your sarcasm, but I think he was trying to make an oblique reference to the fact that the majority of scholars during the time period of geocentric astronomy accepted that theory as the model of the universe. Of course, Copernicus came along and math'd everyone causing every geocentric astronomer to crap several bricks. The point being that what we define as truth even in our modern age is dependent upon a agreed consensus of people, knowledgeable or not - which Copernicus proved can be very wrong sometimes, and therefore not truth.

Or maybe you were just making a lame joke about you still believing in geocentric theory.
I have been wading in a long river and my feet are wet.
User avatar

L'howon
Somewhere outside the Citadel Of Antiquity

Post Aug 6th '09, 01:34

Lh wrote:Maybe I'm just misinterpreting your sarcasm, but I think he was trying to make an oblique reference to the fact that the majority of scholars during the time period of geocentric astronomy accepted that theory as the model of the universe. Of course, Copernicus came along and math'd everyone causing every geocentric astronomer to crap several bricks. The point being that what we define as truth even in our modern age is dependent upon a agreed consensus of people, knowledgeable or not - which Copernicus proved can be very wrong sometimes, and therefore not truth.

Or maybe you were just making a lame joke about you still believing in geocentric theory.

Oh, I was reading "astral" in the common new-agey sense of "spiritual", not in the etymologically literal sense of "stellar". Thought he was saying something about there being some spiritual being, god or some such, in the 'center of the universe' (the latter itself a nonsense concept in modern cosmology). Maybe he's smarter than I gave him credit for and was making the reference you thought he was making...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
Director of the Xeventh Project, the team behind Eternal
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
User avatar

Pfhorrest
California

Post Aug 6th '09, 02:39

Pfhorrest wrote:Oh, I was reading "astral" in the common new-agey sense of "spiritual", not in the etymologically literal sense of "stellar". Thought he was saying something about there being some spiritual being, god or some such, in the 'center of the universe' (the latter itself a nonsense concept in modern cosmology). Maybe he's smarter than I gave him credit for and was making the reference you thought he was making...

Some clarification from him would help, but I read it more as an actual astronomical body (I.E., star, blackhole) at the center of the universe on a second read. It's very muddled, and he's trying to prove something that's already been proven many times over by people far more intelligent than you or I, but all the same it's an interesting philosophical debate. For instance, what is the truth here? Is W'rk irons? All contact is made through the internet, a vague and impersonal media. W'rk could be irons, irons could be trying to undermine all that is Marathon separately from W'rk, etc.
I have been wading in a long river and my feet are wet.
User avatar

L'howon
Somewhere outside the Citadel Of Antiquity

Post Aug 6th '09, 02:49

Neither W'rk nor Irons are either each other or even themselves. They are both other people entirely.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
Director of the Xeventh Project, the team behind Eternal
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
User avatar

Pfhorrest
California

Post Aug 6th '09, 16:21

Pfhorrest wrote:Neither W'rk nor Irons are either each other or even themselves. They are both other people entirely.

Ah, my bad, I forgot.
I have been wading in a long river and my feet are wet.
User avatar

L'howon
Somewhere outside the Citadel Of Antiquity

Post Aug 6th '09, 18:55

Think about it, he/she is posting an incomplete philosophical paper which has yet to have the ideas it comprises completely fleshed out on the internet for anyone one to read or steal. It's a joke at Forrest's expense, which is terrible... Here's a thought, we should lock Moppy in here, he can debate issues he does not even understand with some idiot who posts his homework on obscure internet discussion boards/some weird troll-ish thingamaBoB, the entertainment value would be through the /!\Roof/!\
Last edited by Meta on Aug 6th '09, 18:57, edited 1 time in total.
Meta


Return to Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users