01.25.09
Posted in fun at 9:57 pm by nogre
For all of you out there who, if you aren’t beating someone up with your oversized brains and education, appreciate a good physical put down too, there really isn’t a better fighter in the world then Fedor Emelianenko.
Fedor fights MMA, for those of you who don’t know, stands for Mixed Martial Arts. MMA is well named: the fighting ranges from boxing to grappling, and just about everything in between. This means that not only do you have be an excellent boxer, but skilled in kickboxing, Judo, Ju Jitsu, and a variety of other fighting styles if you want to be successful. It sometimes gets a bad reputation because of the no-holds-barred attitude, but all the top fighters are incredibly skilled at martial arts.
Fedor is the best in the entire world. Bar none. There isn’t anyone in the entire world who would likely win in a fight against this man; there is no strategy, there is no size differential, there isn’t anything short of having a gun or a posse than would give you an advantage if he were standing in your way. His nickname is The Last Emperor.
The NY Times just (Jan 20) had a whole piece on him as a lead up to his most recent fight (last night). And the LA Times has the follow up to last night’s fight (spoiler alert, if you can’t guess who won already by my beaming praise).
But the best thing to do is to just watch videos of him in action. If you know something about martial arts and fighting, he is something to behold; if you don’t, then there is none more exciting or better to learn from.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.23.09
Posted in argumentation, epistemology, logic, philosophy at 1:19 pm by nogre
Basic argument structure goes like this:
- Premise 1
- Premise 2
———————–
- Conclusion
Knowing how to argue is great, except when someone you disagree with is proving things you don’t like. In that case you have to know how to break your opponent’s argument or provide an argument that they cannot break.
First thing that most people do to break an argument is to attack premises (assuming no fallacies are present). To avoid accepting your opponent’s conclusion in line 3, if you can cast doubt on the truth of premise 1, then your opponent will never get to line 3.
Personally I think this sucks. I hate arguing about the truth of premises because many times people have no idea what the truth is and hold unbelievably stupid positions.
G. E. Moore argued that if the conclusion is more certain than the premises, then you can flip the argument:
- Conclusion
- Premise 2
———————–
- Premise 1
Instead of arguing about the truth of the premises, this strategy pits the premises against the conclusion by arguing that while the premises imply the conclusion, the conclusion also implies the premises. Hence there is a question about which should be used to prove the other, and, as long as this question remains, nothing is proved.
This leads to a kind of argument holism. An argument must first be judged on the relative certainties of its premises and conclusion before the premises can even be considered to be used to derive the conclusion.
Personally I think this is great. It is possible to just ignore whole arguments on the grounds that the person arguing hasn’t taken into account the relative certainties involved. If you haven’t ensured that your premises are more certain than your conclusion, then you can’t expect anyone to accept your conclusion based upon those premises.
However this leads to a nasty problem. If all arguments are subject to this sort of holism, then arguments can be reduced to their conclusions: if the whole argument is of equal certainty, i.e. the conclusion is just as certain as a premise, then there is no reason to bother with the premises. If we just deal with conclusions, and everyone is certain of their own conclusions, then arguing is useless.
(In practice, of course, only mostly useless. You can (try to) undermine someone’s argument by finding something more certain and incompatible with the conclusion in question (premises are always a good place to start looking). For better or worse, though, even when people’s premises have been destroyed, all too often they still are certain of their conclusions.)
Moreover, if everyone is certain of their conclusions, then no conclusion is any more certain than another. If everything has equal certainty, then nothing is certain.
How to get around this problem of equal certainty?
First let me mention that this is a strictly philosophical problem: in daily life we have greater certainty in some things than we do in others. For instance I trust certain people, and hence if they say something is true then I will be more certain of it’s truth than if someone else were to say the same thing. So fair warning: what comes next is a philosophical solution to a philosophical problem.
If something and its opposite are equally certain, then, generally, there is nothing more that we can know about it. For example if we know that it is either raining or not raining, then we really don’t know much about the weather. This applies in all cases, except for paradoxes. In a paradox something and its opposite imply each other. Hence, in a paradox, there is only one thing, not a thing and it’s negation.
Most the time paradoxes only shows us things that cannot exist. However, if what caused the paradox was the negation of something, then we can have certainty in that thing: it’s negation cannot exist on pain of paradox.
Therefore, to provided a rock solid foundation for an argument, a paradox must be appealed to such that the paradox must have been generated from the negation of the thing to be used as a premise.
As far as I can tell, this is the only argument structure that yields absolutely certain results. All other arguments styles are subject to questions about the truth of premises and the legitimacy of using those premises (even if true) for proving a particular conclusion.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.21.09
Posted in metaphysics, ontology, philosophy, science at 5:27 pm by nogre
Two posts ago I claimed that
The goal of science is, therefore, to separate the settled from the anomalous.
So what is the settled? What is the anomalous? How are they separated?
If we take these concepts to be fundamental then we are unable to analyze the concepts of settled, anomalous and separation scientifically: if they are at the bottom of all science, then everything within science depends upon them.
How then to understand?
At the bottom of it all is our ability to understand. We learn and we understand. With this comes the ability to determine what we believe we understand and what we do not: For certain things we have reasons that explain those phenomena and for other things we will not have reasons nor explanations.
These abilities are not based in science; they are metaphysical and logical. Claiming that you cannot understand (in general) is paradoxical. If you claim to not understand what it is to understand, then you must understand what it is not to understand. But if you understand what it is not to understand, then you must know what it is to understand not understanding. So you must understand what it to understand. But then you are denying being able to understand… Hence it is nonsensical to deny understanding understanding.
Therefore we get understanding, not understanding and the difference on non-scientific grounds. Insofar as reasons and explanations are part of understanding, we get them too.
How do we understand what is settled and what is anomalous?
Again paradox:
If you claim that it is not settled what it means to be settled then you must have known what it is to be not settled, that is, it is settled what it is to be not settled. Then you must know what it is to be settled, i.e. it is settled. But then you claim that it is not settled… Therefore you cannot claim that what it means for something to be settled is not settled.
If we assume that not settled and anomalous are identical in meaning (not settled = anomalous; not anomalous = settled) then we have nearly all the concepts we need.
But here comes the hard part: how do we separate the settled from the not settled?
Well, since we already have understanding, this requires doing actual science, as in creating a theory and then going and seeing if that theory actually makes something that was anomalous no longer so by predicting it accurately. This isn’t the post for me to get down off my metaphysical cloud, so Good Luck, you’re on your own (for now at least).
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.20.09
Posted in fun, internet at 10:10 pm by nogre
Animal of the Month: The French (no insult intended). Anyone who would even consider having this as their national tourism logo is deserving of praise:
I don’t normally post anything that I’ve seen on Digg or Reddit, but this turns jaw dropping at around 1:28 [3:45]: moogaloop.swf
Industrial design:
-
- Orbita Mouse Is One Big Scroll Wheel | Technomix | Fast Company
- “Over its forty year life the mouse has seen some interesting re-inventions, and the new Orbita mouse is one that’s eye-catching. Its designers have taken the idea of a scroll wheel and inverted it, making the entire top surface of the mouse into a scroll dial.”
- FORA.tv – MythBusters Co-Host Adam Savage on Obsession[16:54]
- MythBusters co-host Adam Savage presents a glimpse into the mind of the obsessed and the motivation that drives their obsessions.
- Industrial version of the Angel of Death shreds much more than paper – Core77 [multiple videos]
- What “Will it Blend?” wants to be when it grows up.
Art:
- YouTube – larytta – souvenir de chine – video directed by koerner union[3:13]
- Really cool, like a kaleidoscope of animals.
-
-
- Varini’s Trompe L’oeil | Trend.Land
- “I am totally fascinated by Swiss Trompe L’oeil artist Felice Varini whom I just discovered.Dont be fooled by your first percetion of this work. These are not photo rendered images, it is master craft! He has worked on many interior spaces and exterior spaces which are even harder to believe. Varini’s work is comes together in full in only one exact point where the entire geometric calculation is percieved. From anywhere else it looks like some graphic design made of lines, concentric circles, and triangles of color. Here a gallery of some of his works.”
————-
Graphical Art:
-
- Weeping Willow: Mood-Driven Data Sculptures – information aesthetics
- .
- swissmiss: Typographic study of a-holes
- .
- Dark Roasted Blend: What Kids Wish For
- … A hat that would make everyone fall in love with you
Fun:
- Human Wrecking Balls [via Core77]
- “The stupidest show on TV.”
- Welcome to 3EyedBear
- I love these things: You print them, cut the piece of paper and glue, and you have a brand new toy in less that 10 minutes! I think this is one of the great successes of modern technology.
Best for last: I watched this thing over and over.[1m] via
I’m not sure if it is the gorgeous priest (this is the first time I’ve had that thought), the overall beauty of it, or the love on their faces. check out this live performance of the song and realize how amazing a singer she is.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.18.09
Posted in ontology, philosophy, science at 11:32 pm by nogre
I’m starting to think that ’structural’ in ‘structural realism‘ is vacuous.
Before getting to the meaning of structural we have to know what we mean by real. In this instance we are specifically concerned with science so what we are looking for is the goal of science, i.e. what is scientifically real. This is a meta-scientific question, and the best I can do here is to quote what Darwin quoted at the start of the Origin of Species:
“The only distinct meaning of the word ‘natural’ is stated, fixed or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to affect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to affect it for once.”
Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion
The goal of science is, therefore, to separate the settled from the anomalous. We do this by crafting a theory and testing its predictions: Since we have some fixed part of our theory that consistently predicts some phenomenon, there must also be something fixed in nature that is causing the consistent behavior.
This leaves us to consider the meanings of stated, fixed and settled in order to understand ‘natural’ or ’scientifically real.’ However, for my current interests, all I need to point out is that if everything we must do to call something ’scientifically real’ is also sufficient for calling something a structure, then structure is doing no work.
Now we have to identify the structures that we are referring to in structural realism: these structures are the mathematical and logical relations that still apply even if other parts of the theory are modified. Since some mathematical and logical relations can be retained even as the overall theory changes, these structures the ones that structural realists want to save in order to maintain continuity across theory and paradigm.
But what are the settle or fixed parts of a theory? First and foremost it will be the part that is making the consistently correct predictions, which includes the math and logical relations that determine how to formulate the predictions. Therefore determining something to be real is to already determine everything that the structural realist was trying to gain by using the concept of structure. This is to say that calling something real is to already attribute all the properties that we were hoping to gain by calling the thing structural, making the term structural vacuous.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.09.09
Posted in ethics, language, logic, metaphysics, ontology, philosophy, science at 1:04 pm by nogre
Truth is whatever you are willing to wager your sanity on. This works because sanity is relative to people, so if you are willing to wager your sanity on something, so should other people.
Deontology has a problem because no one can definitively tell you what it is to follow a rule. So deontologists can’t fault others for appealing to unexplained concepts without undermining their own argument.
Whereas the meanings of particular words may be conventional and subject to historical accident, there are distinctions that the words create that are not conventional. If logical operators are conventional, but must exist is every possible world (you must define the world using such operators), then conventional loses its meaning: it ceases to be a convention and is instead a necessity of the universe.
The concept of structure in ’structural realism’ is ontological, causing problems for ontic structural realists. By calling the theory structural, structural realists are attempting to exploit the concepts associated with ’structure’ from areas other than philosophy of science. This means that the term is not being used ontically because the concept of structure is taken to have real properties. So at every turn ontic structural realists are appealing to an ontological concept.
—–
oh and information aesthetics is back from break! woohoo!
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.05.09
Posted in Uncategorized at 5:43 pm by nogre
If anyone has used my contact form or sent me an email at noahgreenstein.com in the last few months, I am sorry to say that I may not have received it. I just tested it and the thing didn’t work- I contacted my hosting service and it was fixed, but since I primarily use Gmail and the emails get forwarded along I didn’t notice.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
01.01.09
Posted in Relativity, economics, philosophy, science at 10:59 pm by nogre
Readers of this blog may have noticed a lack of updates recently. I can’t apologize: I’ve been eating, breathing and drinking philosophy for so long, that now that I have written everything I wanted to write, I feel free. I wish it on all of you. [Happy New Year Everyone!]
But this doesn’t stop me from thinking. I was at a Christmas party and got talking with an Indonesian economics grad student. He was researching economic methods Indonesia could use to become treated as a major world power, such as investing in ports with international business significance. Interesting stuff.
Unfortunately my knowledge of economics is woeful. However, when I pressed him to explain exactly how his economics works, he used ethical terms. This gave me the idea that economics is fundamentally based in ethics. When economists speak of value, this use of value is not different than the value we use in ethics, only a bit more abstracted.
Money used to represent a commitment of the issuing institution to having a certain amount of a precious metal on hand. The cash was a proxy for that metal. Metal, of course, has no inherent value: it is just a lump of metal. What gives a lump of metal value is its properties that people use for specific purposes, and these purposes are fulfilling the commitments we have in daily life. Hence money is an eventual proxy for commitments.
Now, commitments are a relativistic metaphysical substance, something I have much more experience with (man that’s a funny thing to say). Relativistic metaphysical substances can be analyzed along the general guidelines of physical relativity: there is a general theory, there is a special theory, and then there is quantum.
The forces of macroeconomics can be conceptually aligned with a general relativistic theory, and microeconomics with special relativity. Unfortunately everyone already understands these things so there is little hope of finding some inefficiency to exploit.
What people don’t get is quantum mechanics: it is just accepted that things are weird in the quantum world. My view is that quantum phenomena are a highly sophisticated relativistic measurement issue (yes, I have seen all the data against this view and I am still convinced). This allows me to look in the world of economics for similar relations and, lo and behold, impulse buying fits the schema.
Impulse buying appears to unbelievably unstudied: it has 4 whole paragraphs dedicated to it in Wikipedia. I know this isn’t the best judge of research, but other economic topics in Wikipedia seem to have textbooks written about them and impulse buying has 1 academic journal reference (about how distraction affects brand selection during an impulse buy, not exactly the underlying theory) and a reference to a ‘Natural Parenting’ magazine article. I feel like I can declare myself an expert right now: I am the foremost leader in the economic theory of impulse buying.
I guess now that I am done with philosophy I can start a business to see if my theories are correct…. never thought I’d end up in experimental philosophy, but it just goes to show that you can never say never.
Permalink
Digg it
¨
del.icio.us
¨
Sympoze
¨
Email
¨
Google
¨
reddit
¨
StumbleUpon
