US Politics: Mark your calendars

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

Again, I disagree. The reality is indpendent of defintion. It is language that is insufficent to properly describe it. Not that reality varies based upon cultural context and independent understanding. A prime number is prime in every culture.

[lokisnow]

who can recall the world with the perfection of God? who can so describe it?

[Jaxom 1974]

By the way, have you ever fired a gun? Apparently it isn't true for everyone, but I've seen a lot of people reverse the common tendency to anthropomorphisize the object once they have.

I have forgone the opportunity. I've had plenty. Obviously with one brother an officer, I have access. My other brother insists on keeping shot guns just to go "shooting at the range", which I just find needless, but then I don't require that kind of stress relief. I guess I'm simply wired different.

[Guest Raidne]

Raidne,

Again, I disagree. The reality is indpendent of defintion. It is language that is insufficent to properly describe it. Not that reality varies based upon cultural context and independent understanding. A prime number is prime in every culture.

Imagine an advanced alien race. Did you ever watch Babylon 5? Imagine what understanding the Vorlon would have of "prime numbers." Would they even think natural numbers with no divisors is an important concept? Does the fact that the definition of a prime number requires that little "other than 1" caveat at the end mean that it's not really the truest (the HTW) version of the concept that we are trying to get at with puny human (mis)understanding of the importance of indivisibility? I mean, I have 7 bananas. I can split that seven ways and have one banana in seven separate places. Is this really universal stuff here? Or is it just a very useful for concept that humans understand really well that we've been using to do stuff for a really long time now?

Say we take it all the way to just two universal concepts, the Parmenidean ones - the one, and the many (i.e. more than one). That seems pretty fundamental, I guess, but what about the Borg. Would they understand that the same - the distinction between one, and many? Would that be a concept with meaning to them? Or how about something, and it's opposite. Duality. Seems, again, fundamental, but is that because we have two halves of a brain, connected by a corpus collosum? As Plato has Socrates say in the Theatetus, what's the opposite of something other than the negation of itself? Not really some other thing. Is the opposite of "happy" "sad," or is it just "non-happiness." I mean, I'm not super happy-seeming when I'm really irritable, either, and I'm surely not sad at those times. Okay, what about being and not being? Square that with multiverse. There's a certain very old gentleman in one of our mutually favorite books. Is he being, or not being, when? Did your understanding of that change when you read that book? But it's fiction - made up. If it's wrong, your understanding is "wrong." And if there is some superior alien race that can handle concepts that our little human brains can't, we'll always be wrong. And same for them, and them, and them, until you either (1) need God to be able to state that there are any universal truths, because you need someone to be able to perfectly perceive them (the Berkeley problem) or (2) it's fucking turtles all the way down, man.

ETA: Or, what lockesnow said. LOL. Nicely done, locke.

[Guest Raidne]

I have forgone the opportunity. I've had plenty. Obviously with one brother an officer, I have access. My other brother insists on keeping shot guns just to go "shooting at the range", which I just find needless, but then I don't require that kind of stress relief. I guess I'm simply wired different.

I cannot say that I find shooting guns to be a stress reliever either. In a country where there are 300 million guns though, I do feel somewhat less helpless knowing how to use one (though I'm still working on that in many, many ways), kind of like knowing how to do your own laundry vs. sending it out, or bake your own loaf of bread. They're here, they're not going anywhere, and people use them, so someday knowing how to use one or not may be of critical importance.

Because, you know, zombies.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Why is God necessary for Universality to exist?

[lokisnow]

I'm just fascinated that Ser Scot is arguing that a thing is a thing when almost all his legal posts seem to me to hinge upon the argument that a thing is not a thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lockesnow,

Law is an abstration. Hard to pin down. Things are things regardless of how they are defined or described. Why is God necessary for universality to exist?

[lokisnow]

What do you see, Scot? Tell Me...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Locksnow,

Shouldn't you be speaking in ALL CAPS?

[Guest Raidne]

Scot, see turtles, supra.

[Galactus]

Lockesnow,

Law is an abstration. Hard to pin down. Things are things regardless of how they are defined or described. Why is God necessary for universality to exist?

But words aren't things. Words are words trying to describe things. Which they have a hard time doing, and only do even remotely in similar contexts.

Wittgenstein would argue that sure, the law is an abstraction, but what is language but an abstraction? And a conditonal one at that. And how do we communicate anything without language? (Can we even *think* without language?)

[IheartTesla]

Imagine an advanced alien race. Did you ever watch Babylon 5? Imagine what understanding the Vorlon would have of "prime numbers." Would they even think natural numbers with no divisors is an important concept? Does the fact that the definition of a prime number requires that little "other than 1" caveat at the end mean that it's not really the truest (the HTW) version of the concept that we are trying to get at with puny human (mis)understanding of the importance of indivisibility? I mean, I have 7 bananas. I can split that seven ways and have one banana in seven separate places. Is this really universal stuff here? Or is it just a very useful for concept that humans understand really well that we've been using to do stuff for a really long time now?

I understand Ser Scot brought up prime numbers, and I have never read Wittgenstein myself. However, I think if we leave aside mathematical numbers for a second and turn to physical phenomena, then there are absolutely universal phenomena that should exist outside of cultural or even planetary contexts.

Now, based on say the fact that many physical properties are quantized, even alien cultures would have to use some sort of number system or analogous system, correct? I can't think of how they would look at the energy levels of a hydrogen atom (or the elements themselves) otherwise. And once you have a number system and properties like addition etc....the rest of the properties of numbers become universal - including prime numbers..

On a more abstract level, if you go outside the context of the physical universe,,,,then yes, maybe 7 bananas can be divided any ways to Sunday.

[Galactus]

Now, based on say the fact that many physical properties are quantized, even alien cultures would have to use some sort of number system or analogous system, correct? I can't think of how they would look at the energy levels of a hydrogen atom (or the elements themselves) otherwise. And once you have a number system and properties like addition etc....the rest of the properties of numbers become universal - including prime numbers..

Well, Wittgenstein would argue that you can't concieve of any other way of describing these phenomena because you don't have the language to do so :P

[IheartTesla]

Well, Wittgenstein would argue that you can't concieve of any other way of describing these phenomena because you don't have the language to do so :P

I guess this is one of those cases in philosophy where stating a thing is easier than proving a thing. I mean, it should be easy to provide a counterexample by coming up with a language that describes the natural phenomena of the universe in a manner that is different from our understanding.

It is an interesting concept to be sure, but my own opinion is there are some universals independent of the language used to describe them.

I havent actually looked back to see why we are debating this in the politics thread. Is the fiscal cliff not a fiscal cliff to a Vorlon?

[TerraPrime]

Is the fiscal cliff not a fiscal cliff to a Vorlon?

*mumblemumble static noise* Kosh *static static mumble*

[Galactus]

I guess this is one of those cases in philosophy where stating a thing is easier than proving a thing. I mean, it should be easy to provide a counterexample by coming up with a language that describes the natural phenomena of the universe in a manner that is different from our understanding.

It should, except that we use language to describe things. We might try to come up with a different language, but in some sense we're stil using human language as a base. If we were to come up with a language that is so alien to use that we could describe math in a completely different way we'd almost by definition not be able to understand it.

[Shryke]

I guess this is one of those cases in philosophy where stating a thing is easier than proving a thing. I mean, it should be easy to provide a counterexample by coming up with a language that describes the natural phenomena of the universe in a manner that is different from our understanding.

It is an interesting concept to be sure, but my own opinion is there are some universals independent of the language used to describe them.

I havent actually looked back to see why we are debating this in the politics thread. Is the fiscal cliff not a fiscal cliff to a Vorlon?

It's not a fiscal cliff to anyone.

The Beltway still thinks it's all gonna end in a grand deal that fucks the poor and middle class, as is right and proper.

I don't buy it. Obama and the Dems have too good a position to let that happen imo.

[Cuellar]

I'm starting to conceive of a scenario in which no deal is reached. It's unlikely, but I don't think the Republican fever has really broken, so -to-speak.

No doubt it has broken with a lot of people on the other side, but has it broken with enough House members? I wonder if there are so many gerrymandered House district Republicans who believe that Obama is the great Satan and no deal with him must be done. Perhaps they need their constituents to actually see their paychecks shrink in order for this to change?

Obama does have a lot of leverage. The Republicans baby is the taxes on the top bracket. Their baby gets eaten without a deal. But they may be also realizing that Obama, while he is willing to compromise on a lot of things, may not be willing to compromise on not eating their baby. Their baby must be eaten, and Obama will compromise on everything but that. If the baby is getting eaten no matter what, maybe daddy no longer has any incentive to make deals or act rationally?

True, but from a voting standpoint it is going to piss off all of the poor Republicans. No amount of damage control will help them then. You can get republicans to buy into trickle down economics if their paychecks don't actually change. There is also enough support from business leaders that know that we have to pay higher taxes, and Republicans politicians can't go against both their poor members AND business leaders.

[Shryke]

I'm starting to conceive of a scenario in which no deal is reached. It's unlikely, but I don't think the Republican fever has really broken, so -to-speak.

No doubt it has broken with a lot of people on the other side, but has it broken with enough House members? I wonder if there are so many gerrymandered House district Republicans who believe that Obama is the great Satan and no deal with him must be done. Perhaps they need their constituents to actually see their paychecks shrink in order for this to change?

Obama does have a lot of leverage. The Republicans baby is the taxes on the top bracket. Their baby gets eaten without a deal. But they may be also realizing that Obama, while he is willing to compromise on a lot of things, may not be willing to compromise on not eating their baby. Their baby must be eaten, and Obama will compromise on everything but that. If the baby is getting eaten no matter what, maybe daddy no longer has any incentive to make deals or act rationally?

Nothing about the GOP has broken. The crazies in the House are still crazy, Boehner is still useless and the admin apparently has no faith in his ability to secure the votes for any deal he cuts. I don't think Boehner thinks he can secure the votes for any deal he cuts.

So at this point they are trying a strategy of making Obama propose cuts ... because something and/or going off the cliff and then holding the debt ceiling hostage again.

The GOP is shit-fucking mad but they've secured themselves enough districts that for the near future, they aren't in danger of losing the House. So limp, flacid little Boehner is stuck with a group at his back that won't back anything but armageddon.