Carnap on ontology: kzread.info/dash/bejne/l2iZsdaGnpXTlZM.html For related ideas in a different context, see "there is no actual world": kzread.info/dash/bejne/l36cvLOOlLrMY7A.html

@ManiH810

2 ай бұрын

I posit that 'Everything' - in the broadest possible sense of the word - is 'entities', or rather the sum of all 'entities', though the latter definition may be slightly misleading for the reasons I will describe in the following passages. I define an entity as that which can possibly be cognized (by a human being) and that which allows for the process of cognition to occur in the first place, and furthermore, that which allows for the process of cognition to occur in this precise manner that it does. Basically, entities are both the unobservable and observable, the knowable and unknowable, things which are responsible for the Universe and all that is in it to operate and exist in this precise way that it does; as opposed to some other way. It is precisely because there are, with almost no doubt, countless entities still unknown to us that are responsible for the Universe being the way that it is, that I am wary of using the phrase 'sum of all entities', for the word 'sum' imposes a sort of finiteness which I believe, especially given the Universe’s constant expansion, is not only misleading, but wholly incorrect.

finally a reason to not do my homework

@attackdog6824

2 ай бұрын

Ditto for me

@mikaelnyberg9637

2 ай бұрын

Nerds! I dont need a reason for NOT doing my homework. Can i copy yours? Anyway im going for a smoke. Later nerds!

@longitudinal_wave324

2 ай бұрын

​@@mikaelnyberg9637 hell yeah

@beangobernador

2 ай бұрын

finally something to do while intentionally rejecting child labour

@ChellTahs

2 ай бұрын

Do your homework! There is no room for dummies in a world ruled by ChatGPT, lol.

We may or may not be able to inquire about everything, but we can and will like and comment on everything.

I discovered your channel today. And i think it's worth to spend my time on watching your videos.

As a kid I was friends with Kit Fine's younger twin brothers, even in those days, Kit was known to be something of a character. On the issue, I think it is more or less self evident that any notion that asserts to be all encompassing has to be self-referential, however any claim that it is impossible to be all encompassing cannot do so with indefinite extension. I am not sure how much this matters though: perhaps we have to accept all systems of classification and logic contain background, presupposed assumptions and that it is more interesting to try to characterise these assumptions.

Hats off!! Best video you have done this far! Highest compliments. Only comment I have on this is about PSR. I don't see PSR leading to determinism. Even if every outcome has a singular reason, that does not imply that every reason has a singular potential outcome. Like, I got to work on time because I took a bus, but taking a bus does not guarantee that I will get to work in time. I might have fallen asleep on the bus. Another way of looking at this is with Markov chains. Markov chains have very good predictive power for time series. The mathematics of Markov chains is basically that causes have a deterministic part and a random part. Anyway, again great video!! Thanks KaneB!!!

@naitsirhc2065

2 ай бұрын

What do you mean by *sufficient* reason?

@InventiveHarvest

2 ай бұрын

@@naitsirhc2065 enough reason

@KaneB

2 ай бұрын

Thank you! About the PSR, I think the standard view here is that, in the case of probabilistic causality, there is still some aspect of the outcome that is unexplained or "brute". Suppose an atom decays at time t. We ask: why did this happen? If this was indeterministic, then we are saying that, though it is not surprising that it decayed at that time, there was no previous event that entails that the atom would decay at exactly that time. Nothing made it decay at exactly that time. So there was no reason that it decayed at exactly that time. Of course, a lot of this is going to depend on how exactly we conceive of "sufficient reason".

What a great quote from Fine.

Fantastic, concise summary!

Took me some time to think about this one. I commented previously, but not about the main topic of the video. And again, I want to say that I really really liked this video. Anyway, on the subject of general or universal domains of discourse - the arguments in this video seem to me to be pragmatic in nature. Restricting the domain of discourse lets us solve some intractable problems like Russel's paradox or PSR. And that's fine. I am after all a Lakatosian pragmatist. But, on the other hand using a general or universal domain of discourse has also allowed us to solve many problems - like logical quantification or generalizing over all of the integers. The issue isn't whether we can use restricted domains to solve problems, of course we can. The issue is whether using general or universal domains is impossible. For one thing, to say that no domain can be generalized would be an act of generalizing all domains, but self refutation is not something I worry too much about as a dialethist. I think I agree that all domains are restricted to the subject of the discourse and that this cannot be wholly universal. Omniscience is impossible. Generalizing requires some degree of induction. To say that "all me are mortal" really only applies to the humans we have seen thus far. We may at some point cure mortality. We may at some point discover numbers so big that the rules of mathematics break down. After all, the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. These anomalies, are black swan events. A black swan event is a term derived from the black swan problem where an anomaly that was previously considered laughably impossible occurs by ordinary means and has large effects. Before the pandemic, no one would have believed that the price of oil could be negative. But, due to decreased demand and high storage costs, the price of oil did indeed go negative during the pandemic. Now, as a Lakatosian, I often come out in support of induction. Of course anomalies are inevitable, even with proven theorems. The trick is how we deal with these anomalies - exclude them by definition and degenerate the research programme or incorporate in anomaly into the theory and progress the research programme. But, this is also a path towards intellectual arrogance. I often scoff at people predicting that we will run out of resources like oil or fresh water. These predictions often seem mathematically sound, but severely underestimate human ingenuity. Every malthusian prediction has been wrong so far - including Malthus' who predicted we would run out of food in 1850. To me, a malthusian prediction coming true would be a black swan. NVDIA just released a computer that can provide the processing to handle the trillions of parameters we are currently for our AI programs - on a single computer. They say they can scale this to handle AI with quadrillions of parameters. But there is a malthusian problem here. Every parameter needs at least one piece of data for training. With less data we would have an under-determined system. It would be like trying to solve a mathematical system of three variables and only two equations. And we don't have the data - it doesn't exist! We are about to "run out" of existing knowledge. This represents a black swan for me who previously scoffed when presented with malthusian predictions. Or does it? While solving a system with more variables than equations seems impossible to me, such a claim would be generalizing over all mathematical systems. This video points out how that can be folly. Perhaps a human will figure out how to do it when the need arises. Maybe a black swan event will be an answer to this black swan problem. Again, great video! Hats off!!

Hey Kane! Would you ever be interested in making some introductory videos on the concepts and arguments that revolve around certain traditional metaphysical debates? (If you haven’t already, and if you feel confident in your knowledge of that specific domain). I’m mainly referring to particular Substances and their relationships to properties (as is more in line with the Aristotelian conception of substance as ontologically primary in some way), both categorical and dispositional, relations and change, etc? As far as I understand, debates on primary substances and the status of properties in this context are not much common anymore among contemporary metaphysical issues like responsibility and determinism, time, dualism vs monistic views in Phil of mind, etc.

@KaneB

2 ай бұрын

I'm mainly interested in contemporary philosophy, so that's kinda outside my wheelhouse.

Everything about this video is pretty good. Are properties concrete? abstract? a third thing? Do they exist? (just to be clear, the first line was meant as a joke, but when I typed it, I realized "pretty good" is a property and then because I had just watched the video, I got distracted thinking about whether properties count as "things" for the topic of the video)

Suggestion: create introductory, intermediate and technical content. Your videos can be quite technical and focussed on topics mostly restricted to professional philosophers. Don’t get me wrong, I love you for this and there is not really many people doing what you do on KZread. However, the audience for this will always be limited. There is a far bigger audience out there for more popular topics among the average person. Perhaps you could start on a broad, popular topic on a beginner level, setting out the history, key questions etc e.g. existence of god and work your way up to technical videos dealing with issues within that topic that professional philosophers are interested in.

@KaneB

2 ай бұрын

It's an interesting idea, and I do try to make all the videos as accessible as possible but some topics are just more technical no matter how you present them. Actually I guess my channel used to work this way when I did series on topics. The trouble with that is that viewership tends to drop off after the first couple of videos. So now I try to make everything self-contained. Which means all the videos get around the same of views but some are less accessible.

Thank you for your videos and work. Greetings from Russia.

The metaphor of framework as social convention correlates to scaffold as in to build the house after which it is taken down. It is noted by builders that not all scaffolds are equal as they are engineered for low set house or high set house and apartments to the highest sky scraper. So ideological scaffolds for capturing everything in that sense is ideological like liberalism capture sentiments of individualism whist the scaffold of anarchism captures another variant of individualism that advocates grass roots movements and no government ought to exist. The scaffold for every thing seems to require non natural language which happens to be mathematics but also symbolic reasoning like formal logic but this too seems not sufficient given paradox. So if all path entail paradox then absolutely everything does, does not exist.

Things like this are pretty much the reason why, as a math major, I find philosophers talking about all objects and absolute truth quite absurd. It really does not take much for a naive view to fall into some Russell-like paradox. All over mathematics, we find that we have to be extremely careful about the "size" of our objects. There can be no set of all sets in standard mathematical set theory, but we may talk about classes, which are objects that are allowed to be "bigger" than sets. We may speak without contradiction of the class of all sets, the class of cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers, and surreal numbers, even if all of these collections would ordinarily be too "big" to count as sets because of Russell's paradox. The thing is that this is still far from absolute generality, as there is again no class of all classes by Russell's paradox. I guess my challenge for any absolutist is how, given that every one of our current mathematical systems has to restrict absolute generality in some meaningful sense to preserve consistency, that they too can find a consistent way to make sense of absolute generality without falling into some kind of Russell's paradox, even if that paradox is not immediately evident.

@ManiH810

2 ай бұрын

I posit that 'Everything' - in the broadest possible sense of the word - is 'entities', or rather the sum of all 'entities', though the latter definition may be slightly misleading for the reasons I will describe in the following passages. I define an entity as that which can possibly be cognized (by a human being) and that which allows for the process of cognition to occur in the first place, and furthermore, that which allows for the process of cognition to occur in this precise manner that it does. Basically, entities are both the unobservable and observable, the knowable and unknowable, things which are responsible for the Universe and all that is in it to operate and exist in this precise way that it does; as opposed to some other way. It is precisely because there are, with almost no doubt, countless entities still unknown to us that are responsible for the Universe being the way that it is, that I am wary of using the phrase 'sum of all entities', for the word 'sum' imposes a sort of finiteness which I believe, especially given the Universe’s constant expansion, is not only misleading, but wholly incorrect.

Kane b can you please tell me the name of the book on shadows that you recommended one time that how shadows are a metaphysical problem for philosophers? I don't remember in which video you said that.

What a good day to be an Aristotelian

Killer video 🎉

I’ve been thinking recently how exaggerative English speakers talk seems to feed into this problem of making things quite literally more than they are.

0.. static.. or roar as in unrefined speech

Does the set of all sets that contain all sets that contain all sets that contain themselves contain itself?

Point of clarification: since it's widely accepted that the all-in-one principle leads to contradiction, many absolute generality theorists deny that there is an absolutely general *domain*. We just don't use domains to interpret the unrestricted quantifier.

@wireless849

2 ай бұрын

How do you interpret the unrestricted quantified?

@eonwe5885

2 ай бұрын

@@wireless849 Williamson proposes adopting a higher-order meta-language

@ManiH810

2 ай бұрын

@@eonwe5885I think it is important for us to define ‘Everything’ first. Can you let me know what you think of this definition? I posit that 'Everything' - in the broadest possible sense of the word - is 'entities', or rather the sum of all 'entities', though the latter definition may be slightly misleading for the reasons I will describe in the following passages. I define an entity as that which can possibly be cognized (by a human being) and that which allows for the process of cognition to occur in the first place, and furthermore, that which allows for the process of cognition to occur in this precise manner that it does. Basically, entities are both the unobservable and observable, the knowable and unknowable, things which are responsible for the Universe and all that is in it to operate and exist in this precise way that it does; as opposed to some other way. It is precisely because there are, with almost no doubt, countless entities still unknown to us that are responsible for the Universe being the way that it is, that I am wary of using the phrase 'sum of all entities', for the word 'sum' imposes a sort of finiteness which I believe, especially given the Universe’s constant expansion, is not only misleading, but wholly incorrect.

if we can't talk about something then we can't talk about being unable to talk about it, but we can, and therefore we can talk about anything and everything

@tobiasyoder

2 ай бұрын

That’s something

yep

Is the absolutely general domain in itself? I hear the halting problem.

U = {x | no contradiction follows from assuming x}. Would not U be the set of everything? It is ad hoc but so what if it works.

@wireless849

2 ай бұрын

I raise you quantum superposition.

@ostihpem

2 ай бұрын

@@wireless849I'd need to check it out again but I still remember once I did and came to the conclusion: it is weird, but not logically false (= contradictory).

@nicemorphism8529

2 ай бұрын

For me, the problem would be a lack of well-definedness. For example, "no contradiction follows from assuming x" seems kind of ambiguous as x is an object not a proposition. Perhaps you mean "no contradiction follows from assuming the existence of x". Nevertheless, that statement still seems hopelessly ill-defined to me. Here is in my view a compelling counterexample to your set U. It falls prey to a particular kind of counterexample. Suppose that there are two distinct (potential) objects x and y, and that the existence of either does not lead to a contradiction, but the existence of both leads to a contradiction. By your definition, both x and y are elements of U, so you have a contradiction. The challenge would be to rule out the existence of such a pair, which seems kind of hard.

@ostihpem

2 ай бұрын

@@nicemorphism8529 First yeah I mean U = {x | assuming x‘ existence leads to a contradiction}. I agree that is still shaky but I think it looks to have the potential as if it could be sufficiently precised. Secondly, x and y would exist under my definition since no contradiction follows from x and neither did some from y. If x & y is contradictory then just this very object x & y does not exist which would be totally fine. But let‘s put it this way: the brute fact no one uses such definition for that old philosophical problem always makes one doubt its legitimacy since those people are plenty and highly educated. I really hope Kane will have a look at it, maybe something jumps right at him to refute it.

@nicemorphism8529

2 ай бұрын

@@ostihpem Yeah I think it wouldn't work as a definition of a universe by any means. For example, it's still possible that U is in U, in which case we probably inevitably run into some contradiction of self-reference by Russell's paradox. Also, I think the predicate "no contradiction follows from assuming the existence of x" is still probably suspect. It's not never the existence of an object itself that leads to a contradiction, but rather an object with its properties. Okay, so we try modifying it to something like "the conjunction of all potential predicates involving x do not lead to a contradiction". Here's a clarification/expansion of my x & y example: Suppose that if we accept the existence of some potential object a, then some predicate P(a) holds for a, and that for some potential object b, a predicate Q(b) holds for b. Suppose that a priori we have (∃x P(x)) -> (∀y ¬Q(x)). Then we cannot consistently hold to the existence of a and b without it leading to a contradiction by straightforward predicate logic. I'm not arguing that assuming the existence of the composite a&b leads to a contradiction, but rather that assuming both the existence of a and the existence of b would lead to a straightforward contradiction by the laws of predicate logic. Either you would have to drop standard predicate logic (an absolutely HUGE cost) or you would have to rule out the existence of such predicates P and Q. Now, here's my reasoning as to why U-like objects are probably always going to be ill-defined. It's because the existence of x leading to a contradiction does not only depend on the statements involving the predicates of x, but it's also contingent on whether certain predicates are instantiated by other objects, as outlined by my example above. Thus, we'd need to modify U with an infinite number of exceptions, for example, it would need to choose whether to include a, b or neither from the paragraph above. Hopefully that made enough sense as to why it's hard to define sets like these in a way that preserves consistency.

that was beautiful

Physicalism does not contain the unrestricted assertion that everything is physical. A more accurate phrasing would be there is no competing substantial domain that interacts with us.

@KaneB

2 ай бұрын

There are different conceptions of physicalism. If we say something like, "the physical world is casually closed" then yeah, this might capture the spirit of physicalism without running into any trouble with unrestricted quantification. Still, there are at least some folks who go for the more naive "everything is physical".

@warrendriscoll350

2 ай бұрын

@@KaneB Oh yeah, there will be different definitions. But I don't know of very many naive physicalists who call themselves physicalists. Historically, either, though I didn't do a full search.

@KaneB

2 ай бұрын

@@warrendriscoll350 This is the "first pass" definition given on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on physicalism, for example. Though of course, probably most philosophers would want to say more than that.

@warrendriscoll350

2 ай бұрын

@@KaneB Physicalism is defined in opposition to dualism. Within its universe of discourse is the physical and the spiritual. Coincidentally, some physicalists don't believe anything other than the physical exists. For all of them, they are making no claim about mathematics.

❤

"being a blue object" is not a well defined property. Most "things" can be blue under blue light and blue is not really well defined either. On the other hand, nothing is blue under red light, green light or no light. Also, can sky can be considered a "thing"? Atmosphere is definitely a thing, but i am not sure if sky is. It is like saying horizon is a thing. Horizon doesn't exists as a tangible thing, such as sky.

The idea that "contingent" truths need explanation is suspicious. If I look at two world, one with a potato in it, and one with a potato shaped void in it, and I take both worlds as possible, then the truth (of the potato existing) is clearly contingent. But, it's contingent on which world you happen to be in. The explanation is, "I am in the universe with the potato shaped void in it."

Are you a necessitarianist?

I posit that 'Everything' - in the broadest possible sense of the word - is 'entities', or rather the sum of all 'entities', though the latter definition may be slightly misleading for the reasons I will describe in the following passages. I define an entity as that which can possibly be cognized (by a human being) and that which allows for the process of cognition to occur in the first place, and furthermore, that which allows for the process of cognition to occur in this precise manner that it does. Basically, entities are both the unobservable and observable, the knowable and unknowable, things which are responsible for the Universe and all that is in it to operate and exist in this precise way that it does; as opposed to some other way. It is precisely because there are, with almost no doubt, countless entities still unknown to us that are responsible for the Universe being the way that it is, that I am wary of using the phrase 'sum of all entities', for the word 'sum' imposes a sort of finiteness which I believe, especially given the Universe’s constant expansion, is not only misleading, but wholly incorrect.

what field of philosophy is this?

@SumNutOnU2b

2 ай бұрын

The glib answer would be that it is in the field of "sophistry". The slightly less accurate but more intellectually honest answer would be that it is actually several types. Partly he touched on "metaphysics", some of it was set theory (which properly is mathematics, not pure philosophy). And the majority of it was "Analytic Philosophy".

@dummyaccount.k

2 ай бұрын

@@SumNutOnU2b tyvm

@wireless849

2 ай бұрын

Analytical metaphysics.

urine

@nuclearglue4286

2 ай бұрын

very insightful

I'm just writing to complain about how annoying it is to be asked to leave a comment to help with engagement. I would never stoop so low...

First

absolutely everything more like absolute nothingness ami right lol

Those contradictions and paradoxes are so lame and nonexistent. With a basic semantic adjustment to the words and actually clarifying what you mean and all those paradoxes disappear.

@wireless849

2 ай бұрын

By doing that you are restricting the domain, making the relativist’s point for her.

@youtubehatesfreespeech2555

2 ай бұрын

@@wireless849 No, adjustment doesn't mean restriction

@wireless849

2 ай бұрын

Care to give an example of a “semantic adjustment” which is not a restriction of the domain?

@youtubehatesfreespeech2555

2 ай бұрын

@@wireless849 The polar opposite idea of the absolute zero. That's "everything" everything, you can't get beyond that.

@wireless849

2 ай бұрын

By the opposite of “absolute zero” I assume you either mean the number or the temperature. Both of those are specific domains of quantification.

At the start here, we seem to be playing fast and loose with the concept of existence. Asking "are there non-existent things" is begging the question - unless you assume that "are" and other uses of the verb "to be" are not always references to existence proper. The set of all things can never include non-existent things because those things don't exist. When you say frameworks can't be true or false you commit an offense to reason. There is a framework of coincidence with actual reality. All other frameworks are either subsets of that, outside of that, or unrelated to that. Which corresponds to being true, false, or undefined.

Parallel.ForEach