Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

1,525 thoughts on “Sandbox (4)

  1. fifthmonarchyman: Yep mostly reliable is just a little unreliable. LOL

    By definition. “usually; generally. as regards the greater part or number.“

    My car is mostly reliable about starting but every once in a long while it won’t start. It is just a little unreliable at times.

  2. from the paper

    quote:
    Accordingly, we define as observer any physical system that can extract information from another system by means of some interaction, and store that information in a physical memory. Such an observer can establish “facts”, to which we assign the value recorded in their memory. Notably, the formalism of quantum mechanics does not make a distinction between large (even conscious) and small physical system, which is sometimes referred to as universality. Hence, our definition covers human observers, as well as more commonly used nonconscious observers such as (classical or quantum) computers and other measurement devices—even the simplest possible ones, as long as they satisfy the above requirements

    end quote:

    Interesting, so a BB could in fact be an observer in this scenario?

    Peace

  3. newton: My car is mostly reliable about starting but every once in a long while it won’t start. It is just a little unreliable at times.

    Right so I can’t say for sure it started on Monday.

    Therfore I have no reason absent other information to claim your car started on Monday. I can say it starts most days but I can’t say it started on any particular day.

    Newton: I know my car started on Monday
    FMM: How do you know that?
    Newton: Well, it starts most days and only fails to start once and awhile
    FMM: I don’t think you understand how this works 😉

    peace

  4. newton: If you view it as not literature, so do you.

    I don’t like the “so” there, which suggests you’re both reading it wrong. You should have said,

    If you view it as not literature, you do.

  5. fifthmonarchyman: Right so I can’t say for sure it started on Monday.

    If it is Tuesday and it started yesterday, I can say it started on Monday.

    I can’t say it will start on next Monday.

    Therfore I have no reason absent other information to claim your car started on Monday. I can say it starts most days but I can’t say it started on any particular day.

    No matter if my car is mostly reliable or always reliable, things break. There is no guarantees what happened in the past will happen in the future. One can extrapolate and predict. A car that didn’t start yesterday or the day before is less likely from experience to start than one that started yesterday and the day before.

    The lattter has gone to mostly unreliable.

    Newton: I know my car started on Monday
    FMM: How do you know that?

    Newton : my car started, it was Monday.

    Newton: Well, it starts most days and only fails to start once and awhile
    FMM: I don’t think you understan

    Newton: Well enough to understand there are different levels of uncertainty, sweetness, cold ,reliability, knowledge, lack of knowledge, unreliability of a vehicle.

  6. newton: If it is Tuesday and it started yesterday, I can say it started on Monday.

    The point is you can’t say it started Monday because it’s mostly reliable. You need other reasons

    newton: Newton : my car started, it was Monday.

    Notice that the fact that you car is mostly reliable is totally irrelevant to that claim.

    newton: Well enough to understand there are different levels of uncertainty, sweetness, cold ,reliability, knowledge, lack of knowledge, unreliability of a vehicle.

    I don’t disagree with any of this.
    Of course none of it was ever at issue in the first place.

    What was at issue is your justification for knowledge and mostly reliable senses can’t get you there.

    peace

  7. fifth:

    If you view the Bible as merely literature you are missing the point.

    newton:

    If you view it as not literature, so do you.

    walto:

    I don’t like the “so” there, which suggests you’re both reading it wrong. You should have said,

    If you view it as not literature, you do.

    I think “so are you” would be a better phrasing, given the context:

    fifth: If you view the Bible as merely literature you are missing the point.

    newton: If you view it as not literature, so are you.

    In any case, it’s amusing that fifth says:

    I would certainly agree with that.

  8. keiths:
    fifth:

    newton:

    walto:

    I think “so are you” would be a better phrasing, given the context:

    fifth: If you view the Bible as merely literature you are missing the point.

    newton: If you view it as not literature, so are you.

    In any case, it’s amusing that fifth says:

    Exascerbating place.

  9. newton: If you view it as not literature, so do you.

    Take no notice of the pedants! 🙂 It’s perfectly clear what you meant. The “so do you…” assume the unnecessary “…miss the point”. Sure FFM used the continuous “are missing” but for FS; 🙂

    ETA clear

  10. Alan, to walto:

    It’s perfectly clear what you meant.

    Not to fifth. Otherwise he wouldn’t have agreed with it.

  11. Upon re-reading the entire exchange, I think that fifth actually was technically agreeing with newton’s statement, as reworded by walto. My mistake.

    But newton’s actual point seems to have been that fifth’s earlier statement could be seen as excluding the Bible from the ‘literature’ category

    I’m not too interested in the “literature”. I’m interested in what people actually believe.

    …which prompted newton to ask:

    Bible included?

    Fifth should have just said “no”, but instead he wrote this:

    If you view the Bible as merely literature you are missing the point.

    That was a non-sequitur, because newton’s question did not imply that the Bible was “merely literature”.

  12. fifth, yesterday:

    “mostly reliable” is like sorta pregnant

    keiths:

    Nah. For instance, a test with an accuracy of 98% is mostly reliable, and there’s nothing oxymoronic about that. It’s not completely reliable, but it is mostly reliable.

    fifth:

    Yep mostly reliable is just a little unreliable. LOL

    fifth, today:

    Notice that the fact that you car is mostly reliable is totally irrelevant to that claim.

  13. keiths: That was a non-sequitur, because newton’s question did not imply that the Bible was “merely literature”.

    Of course I did not say he implied that the Bible was merely literature.

    I said that if he thought that he would be missing the point.

    The whole exercise was just a little dance.

    We went from talking about scientific literature to talking about ancient literature to talking about reading comprehension then finally to talking about pedantics.

    This sort of thing is just what passes for entertainment here 😉

    That is why it’s called the sandbox

    peace

  14. fifth:

    Of course I did not say he implied that the Bible was merely literature.

    I said that if he thought that he would be missing the point.

    Which was a non-sequitur. Better to answer the question he had asked you.

  15. keiths,

    I’m not sure what your point is? Just to be clear.

    If your senses and reason were 100% reliable then you could justify your claim to know your car started on Monday by appealing to your senses and reason.

    Since your senses and reason are not 100% reliable you need another reason to justify your claim to know your car started on Monday.

    Get it?

    peace

  16. fifth:

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    Here’s the point: Yesterday you were treating ‘mostly reliable’ as if it were an oxymoron…

    “mostly reliable” is like sorta pregnant

    …and after I explained why it isn’t an oxymoron, you continued to treat it as if it were:

    Yep mostly reliable is just a little unreliable. LOL

    But today you (perhaps inadvertently) showed that it isn’t an oxymoron, by using it in a sentence:

    Notice that the fact that you car is mostly reliable is totally irrelevant to that claim.

    There is nothing oxymoronic or nonsensical about describing a car as ‘mostly reliable’.

    To borrow your phrase: Get it??

  17. keiths: Yesterday you were treating ‘mostly reliable’ as if it were an oxymoron…

    I’m sorry but that is not what I intended to convey.

    Mostly reliable is not an oxymoron, It’s just not the same thing as reliable and should not be treated as such.

    Just as sorta pregnant is not an oxymoron it’s just not the same thing as not pregnant

    peace

  18. walto: I don’t like the “so” there, which suggests you’re both reading it wrong. You should have said,

    Thing

    walto: I don’t like the “so” there, which suggests you’re both reading it wrong. You should have said,
    If you view it as not literature, you do.

    Would that mean reading the Bible as other than merely literature would be reading it wrong?

  19. Would that mean reading the Bible as other than merely literature would be reading it wrong?

    Apologies, it won’t let me edit

  20. fifthmonarchyman: I would certainly agree with that. That is why you are (at times) my favorite.

    Is “at times” less or more often than “mostly”?

    The Bible is literature of course but it is much more. If you are interested in the Bible as literature. I would suggest.

    “I’m not too interested in the “literature”. I’m interested in what people actually believe” , includes the Bible in the literary category, that was my question.

    peace

  21. Come on, fifth. It’s obvious that you were trying to mock ‘mostly reliable’ as if ‘reliable’ were an all-or-nothing thing, and as if ‘mostly reliable’ were analogous to ‘mostly pregnant’ or ‘sort of pregnant’.

    Neil:

    I disagree with that. Observation is unreliable, but perception is mostly reliable.

    fifth:

    “mostly reliable” is like sorta pregnant

    keiths:

    Nah. For instance, a test with an accuracy of 98% is mostly reliable, and there’s nothing oxymoronic about that. It’s not completely reliable, but it is mostly reliable.

    fifth:

    Yep mostly reliable is just a little unreliable. LOL

  22. keiths: Come on, fifth. It’s obvious that you were trying to mock ‘mostly reliable’ as if ‘reliable’ were an all-or-nothing thing, and as if ‘mostly reliable’ were analogous to ‘mostly pregnant’ or ‘sort of pregnant’.

    I mostly agree.

  23. newton: “I’m not too interested in the “literature”. I’m interested in what people actually believe” , includes the Bible in the literary category, that was my question.

    I need some help parsing that one.

    Are you saying that some people believe the Bible is not literature? Or are you saying that some people believe the Bible is a literary category? Or are you saying that you believe the Bible is one of the people who are actually literary categories? Or are you saying the literary category that is the Bible also includes people who believe the Bible is a literary category?

    😉

    And what exactly does any of this have to do with the empiricist philosophical literature that you so wanted to be on record as very much disagreeing with?

    peace

  24. newton: I mostly agree.

    I mostly agree as well.

    Saying I mostly agree with you is like saying I mostly spell things correctly.

    See I can mock things with out implying that they are oxymoronic.
    😉
    peace

  25. PeterP: but they are the ‘observers’ in this experiment. At least they are the system which records in memory what the sensors detect.

    I’m really interested in this now. I think you might have hit on something here.

    So apparently we now know that there is no objective reality if we understand observers in the way a physicalist would.

    It seems like we have the makings for another “Cognitive instability” argument AKA Carroll this time against physicalism itself.

    I need to think about it.

    peace

  26. fifth,

    It seems like we have the makings for another “Cognitive instability” argument AKA Carroll this time against physicalism itself.

    Another usage heads-up: “AKA” stands for “also known as” and makes no sense in your sentence.

    This is what you’re looking for:

    It seems like we have the makings for another “cognitive instability” argument à la Carroll, this time against physicalism itself.

  27. Regarding 49 people being shot to death in New Zealand (New Zealand of all places “Britain on a Sunday afternoon”) can there be any doubt that unfettered free speech does not extend to racism and gun control is not infringement of personal liberty?

  28. We went from talking about scientific literature to talking about ancient literature

    Just to clarify , Neil was talking about the literature concerning Empiricist viewpoint and last I checked lot of philosophy in the Bible. They seemed comparable in that aspect as literature.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: I mostly agree as well.

    Saying I mostly agree with you is like saying I mostly spell things correctly.

    I would think your ratio of correct to incorrect spelling would be much higher than agreeing to disagreeing, but I get the point.

    See I can mock things with out implying that they are oxymoronic.

    Never doubted you could. You are a dual threat.

    peace

  30. Alan Fox:
    Regarding 49 people being shot to death in New Zealand (New Zealand of all places “Britain on a Sunday afternoon”) can there be any doubt that unfettered free speech does not extend to racism and gun control is not infringement of personal liberty?

    And hatred of religion is not a good thing?

  31. fifthmonarchyman: Are you saying that some people believe the Bible is not literature?

    Of no interest , what “literature” entailed was. I can see the possible confusion, “literature” may not be a literary category.

  32. Swamidass has asked that we post something about an upcoming debate.

    Here’s the link to the PS announcement. It’s a debate between McClatchie (an ID proponent) and Swamidass (an evolutionist), this afternoon 3pm Eastern time, March 16.

  33. The 737’s have computerized flight control compensation based on sensors? You mean if a sensor is faulty, we have gargbage going into the flight control computer — garbage in, garbage out — THEN CRASH!!! CRAP! Freaking risky engineering.

    That mindset ok for a fighter plane like an F-16 since the prioty is to kill more of the enemy than possibly kill your own pilots because of a faulty sensor. Not passenger planes.

  34. Regarding the 737, found out an Airbus crashed because an Angle-of-Attack sensor went screwy and the airplane went right into the ocean. Mercifully it the only casualties were the aircrew on a training/test flight, it was a full passenger load.

    When I heard about all this fly by wire stuff going into the airlines, I thought to myself, “this is asking for trouble.”

  35. Sal,

    The 737’s have computerized flight control compensation based on sensors? You mean if a sensor is faulty, we have gargbage going into the flight control computer — garbage in, garbage out — THEN CRASH!!! CRAP! Freaking risky engineering.

    Every autopilot and flight control computer relies on sensors. That, by itself, isn’t a design flaw at all.

    The 737 Max may have design flaws, but the decision to use sensors isn’t one of them.

  36. One way to punish someone is to make them moderator of TSZ and then let them deal with a steady stream of complaints!

    Alan lobbied for Mung to become a mod. Hmm…

    Alan you Fox.

  37. fifthmonarchyman: Are you sure?

    Yes.

    I read it as Alice and Bob are the observers and Alice and Bob’s friends are computers.

    As witnessed by the decision to perform a Bell-state measurement and establish her (his) own fact, or remove the BS to to infer the fact recorded by their respective friend;

    peace

    I contacted the first author of the paper and apparently your reading does not align with the authors intended message conveyed in the paper.

    Thanks for your email. As you can read from our paper an observer is defined as:

    An observer is any physical system that can extract information from another physical system by means of some interaction, and store that information in a physical memory.

    Therefore, using such definition to identify Alice and Bob, it follows that most generally Alice and Bob are all the environment interacting with the pair of photons coming from the closed lab, where the other two observers (Alice’s and Bob’s friends) performed a measurement.

    Humans could be part of that environment, but is not necessary to satisfy the definition of observer.

    Is there a reason why you are interested in Alice and Bob to be humans?

    Best,
    Massimiliano.

    I appears that Neil had it nailed at the outset that it was all a thought experiment albeit with a few new embellishments.

  38. stcordova:
    One way to punish someone is to make them moderator of TSZ and then let them deal with a steady stream of complaints!

    Alan lobbied for Mung to become a mod.Hmm…

    Alan you Fox.

    Mung had been volunteering for a longtime.

  39. Sal,

    One way to punish someone is to make them moderator of TSZ and then let them deal with a steady stream of complaints!

    Alan lobbied for Mung to become a mod. Hmm…

    Are you kidding? Alan loves being a moderator and the opportunities for abuse it affords him.

    Remember, he’s the one who forced himself back on us after resigning.

  40. Sal,

    I was never a commercial or airline pilot, but I can say, when I was doing spin training, it was reassuring that a Cessna 172 had nice spin recovery characteristics. When I put the plane into a spin, all I had to do was to level my ailerons, full opposite rudder, elevator forward and in some cases let the plane head straight toward the ground and gain airspeed.

    You forgot the very important step of reducing the power to idle.

  41. PeterP:

    I appears that Neil had it nailed at the outset that it was all a thought experiment albeit with a few new embellishments.

    No, they actually ran the experiment. This is stated both by the articles and by the arXiv paper itself.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.