Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

A Philosophical Standpoint on Philosophy: The Binary System


Forums Forums Philosophy A Philosophical Standpoint on Philosophy: The Binary System

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #314947
    @tonnysmith
    Participant

    I’ve spent a decent bit of time understanding the mind-body problem, and generally the issues surrounding how we view the mind and view the world in general. Philosophers that are currently on my mind are Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Nietzche, Hobbes, Humes etc. Generally speaking, when philosophers tackle lifes problems, they are trying to add a purpose or lack there of. Descartes spouted that the meaning of life is God itself, and only God allows for clear and distinct understanding of the world, Hobbes stated that the only way for a functioning political system to work is based on social contract theory in order for a sovereign just ruler who acts FOR the people. But I would say I’m like 60% nihilist, because in a general sense I believe that whatever these philosophers state, is never the truth. The only truth in life is we cannot bottle down life to one truth, and because of that any actions we say or do are inconsequential to the world as a whole. Hence, we live in a zero sum world where everything stabilizes itself to nothing, and doesn’t really follow a purpose but does follow a pattern. Understanding the difference between the two ways of thinking, I propose a model of understanding philosophical enlightenment, in a way that sounds less obnoxious than the Allegory of the Cage.

    #314966
    @lausten
    Keymaster
    #315251
    @write4u
    Participant

    IMO, the binary system is absolutely fundamental for an abstraction to become Reality.

    True/False is an essential determination for any calculation to yield a usable result.

    The actual mechanism for determining what is True or False is Mathematics.

    Mathematics is always around us, everywhere we go.

    And this is because Maths is so broad, covering addition and subtraction, dividing, fractions, graphs, rounding, solving equations, algebra, inequalities, variables, statistics, substitution, trig, computation, distributive property, symmetry, whole numbers, prime numbers, probability, value, vectors, shapes, sequence, proportion and more!

    https://www.superprof.com.au/blog/revolutionary-maths-equations/

    Max Tegmark has proposed a hypothesis for a “Mathematical Universe”.

    He posits that the Universe does not have “some” mathematical properties, but that it has “only” mathematical properties.

    He argues that “consciousness” itself is a mathematical pattern.

     

    #318066
    @write4u
    Participant

    In furtherance of the concept of quantum theory (discussed in another thread) the binary system is perfectly suited to quantum functions and the concept of superposition, until the system has to make a true/false selection.

    Modern quantum computers are more verstile because they make use of superposition to make multiple quantum based calculations and are refinements of the binary system.

    In any case the concepts of binary functions in quantum processes seem compatible.

    #322532
    @halster
    Participant

    During the magnetic media age information was stored on a tape or disk by polarizing nano magnets. Binary was the first read or write to the media.

    #322708
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    The only truth in life is we cannot bottle down life to one truth

    The name of my ship in my bottle is: Truth is what has happened.

    Mathematically speaking: T + (ruth) = Sum [(delta state) / t]

    Or for the less mathematically inclined:  History has had only one course.

    #322709
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    everything [action] … doesn’t really follow a purpose but  does follow a pattern

    I suggest that “everything following a pattern” suggests a purpose.

    I prefer the notion that a pattern can only be subsequent to action.

    #322745
    @write4u
    Participant

    Bob said; I suggest that “everything following a pattern” suggests a purpose. I prefer the notion that a pattern can only be subsequent to action.

    I agree with that, with one caveat. Purpose does not need be an intelligent motivation and can be a result of  “necessity and sufficiency”.

    Necessity and sufficiency

    In general, a necessary condition is one which must be present in order for another condition to occur, while a sufficient condition is one which produces the said condition.[4] The assertion that a statement is a “necessary and sufficient” condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true.[5] That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true, or simultaneously false

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

    #322765
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    Purpose does not need be an intelligent motivation and can be a result of  “necessity and sufficiency”.

    Sorry, but what you are doing is called Anthropomorphism.  Purpose, any way you cut it, means intention and that does not come without consciousness or intelligence.

    “necessary and sufficient” may produce what may be regarded as a pattern, but will not cause purpose.

    TonySmith was getting a bit too close to intelligent design for you, wasn’t he?

    #324040
    @pianowan
    Participant

    OK. Let’s put Fred Hoyle in there. The smoking gun of the triple alpha process which produces the ‘right amount not only of carbon but of oxygen within stars – then we can say, Hey water is densest at four degrees so ice floats – and black holes are just the dandiest at galaxy formation. Good job with lightspeed, we cain’t gun down another system. There are a hell of a lot of things.  Erm. Never mind intelligent design – this fine tuning will do for me. Hoyle was an atheist, as I am, but these things have to be said, ‘Nature’ seems to have done a good number, here.

    #324443
    @write4u
    Participant

    ibil said: TonySmith was getting a bit too close to intelligent design for you, wasn’t he?

    Well,  “irreducible complexity” has been debunked over and over again, whereas mathematical self-0rganization has been proven over and over again.

    1 + 1 = 2  is not intelligent design. It is a mathematical function. It really is as simple as that. No magic.

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by Write4U.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.