Lessons on Causality

  • You broke my heart, James.
  • No, I didn’t. Stop playing language games with me, you liberal nihilist.

The problem with James is that he’s accusing people of violating WORDS rather than REALITY itself. In other words, he’s accusing people of deviating from the norm regardless of whether their deviation is for the better or for the worse. He didn’t say “yes, that’s one way to define circles, and a pretty decent one at that, but it is less precise than the popular definition that involves the concept of equidistance”. What he said is “you don’t agree with the way Google defines circles”. That’s all. Note that I don’t know whether UrWrong’s definition of circles is less precise than the popular definition. I didn’t do the analysis. Though it does appear to be so, given that it relies on the concept of side which represents a linear pattern of points in space, I am not sure. And even if it is less precise, I don’t know by how much, so I can’t tell whether such an imprecision is significant or insignificant.

There are many reasons why people violate established definitions. It might be because they want to find better definitions. This is what I do. I want to understand things better, in a more detailed, and thus precise, manner. Or maybe it’s because their circumstances are such that a different definition is more effective at helping them achieve their ends.

You can say that a square has 8 sides. You can also say it has an infinite number of sides. But noone does so because there is no reason to. This is different with circles.

Those who have no respect for language, have no respect for thought, which means that they have no respect for truth.

You have no respect for truth DESPITE your obsession with Google definitions. If I explained to you what circles are without resorting to the popular opinion of what they are (i.e. a set of points in a plane that are equidistant from some fixed point) you would not accept it even if my definition was superior to – more precise than – the popular one. Why? Because it is not conventional. From your point of view, tradition is something that is infallible and therefore unquestionable.

The purpose of language is to COMMUNICATE and not to THINK. Thinking and talking are two different, separate, processes. You can think without talking and you can talk without thinking. Thinking is about analyzing similarities and differences between observations in order to choose the best possible assumption regarding some unknown state of the universe. In plain terms, thinking is about making decisions. No language is necessary.

What’s so wrong with saying that circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides? Is it perhaps the fact that it is not the official definition? Seriously? You say that circles have no sides, not because it’s true, but because the official definition does not define circles in terms of sides?

You think that language precedes circles? Circles came into existence the first time we defined them? Is that how things come into existence? You define them and then they come into existence? Circles are merely words, right? Not phenomena or objects of our experience? We do not experience circles before we describe them using words? We describe them using words and then we experience them? Is that how things work?

Reality should bend to fit how you describe it using words?

Yeah, yeah, “I’m rubber. You’re glue…”

Logic is more important than language.

I claimed in this thread “as a shape increases its sides, hypothetically to infinity, it becomes a circle”.

James claimed “a circle has no sides”.

This shape has 1,000,000 sides.

So to James, by language, by his own words, the shape is not a circle.

He is wrong. And Arcturus is wrong. I could provide a shape with 1 billion sides but most here will accept my position as more reasonable by now.

Semantics, arguing over definitions, doesn’t affect the underlying logic. If you make a claim then won’t you stick by it?

Since this matter is done, let’s return to the topic of causes.

There is no point in arguing, or even speaking, to people in a foreign language to theirs.

Saying a circle has infinite sides simply means that no matter how many times its circumference is divided up there will be no sides
You could divide it up as many times as were mathematically or logically or physically possible and there would be none. You could
divide it up an infinite number of times and there would still be none. Which is exactly the same as saying it has no sides. Because
if it did then it could not be a circle as it is defined. Which is that every point on the circumference is equidistant from the centre

It depends on what it refers to. If it refers to education in general, then the non-logical part of language can (but mostly does not) be more important than the logical part of language. The cohesion of the language (mostly called “text”) is always important.

Semantics is a subdiscipline of the disciplines (1) semiotics, (2) linguistics, (3) logic, (4) mathematics. It can only deal with meanings and definitions. Each linguistic lexem (word) that can be find in a encyclopedia, a dictionary, a lexicon can only be described by its meaning and defintion, perhaps supported by other language forms (see: (1), (2), (3), (4) and the chart below), but not by more.

So if you want to know what, for example, a “circle” is, then you have to refer to (a) the meaning and definition of the word “circle” and to (b) the history of its meaning and definition, which means that they can change over time. But the result of this change (caused e.g. by an experiment) is always either a new or a renewed kind of meaning and definition.

And mathematics is a subset of logic, logic is a subset of linguistics, linguistics is a subset of semiotics, and they all are language.

The smaller the subset is or the more properly, coherently, consistently the subsets and sets are connected, the more exact is the information.

Don’t worry about it. If you need my support, you have it.
You are the most intelligent person on this forum.
And not only on this forum, you’re the most intelligent person on Earth.
And not only on Earth, you’re the most intelligent Homo Sapian of all times.
There never was a Homo Sapian of your caliber.
Your are simply too good to interact with any of us here.
That’s why you keep your comments short.
You are right and everyone else is wrong.
You are humble and everyone else is arrogant.
There is simply no point discussing anything with people who are wrong and arrogant.
You’re a misunderstood genius.
You are way ahead of your time.
You have no choice but to wait – to be patient – and ignore all of the detractors.
Deep down you know that one day you will be the face of humanity.

Well thanks. I’m glad to see that even though denied it, at least you can vaguely recognize it.

It is a fact that most of us already know what the word “circle” means i.e. what phenomenon it refers to. And if someone does not then we can help them understand what we mean by the word “circle” by using non-verbal communication. Remember that non-verbal communication precedes – it is more fundamental than – verbal communication. All you need is a finger with which you can point at things that are associated with the word and things that are NOT associated with the word. This is one of the simplest ways to learn the meaning of words. There are even simpler approaches than that and they involve the use of some kind of force. Violence is a form of communication. You can also use verbal communication in order to explain what your words mean but this involves describing what you mean by your words using some other words – those that are familiar to the other side. This helps you get your point across quicker but the risk that you will be misunderstood is higher.

I am pretty sure that all participants in this threads share the same exact understanding of what circles are. There is thus no need to explain what they are. The disagreement is regarding MATHEMATICAL or LOGICAL MODELS of circles. For example, James models circles in terms of radius whereas UrWrong models them in terms of sides. What they are doing is they are taking one object (circles) and bringing them into relation with another object (radius, sides.) James says that UrWrong’s approach is wrong because it is not how Google describes circles. If that’s not autistic then I don’t know what is.

I think that people who place too much emphasis on language are people who are too socially dependent.
Very feminine.

Google’s definition is thousands of years old, not in dispute, and taught throughout the world. The version that involves sides, is, as far as I know, taught no where. It is Urwrong’s fallacious invention.

Such words are not up for you or he to redefine and expect to be respected for it.

Yes, but “most of us”, obviously doesn’t include you or Urwrong.

You over credit yourself.

You pay too much attention to irrelevant things and make too much fuss about nothing.
That’s the problem I have with you.
In other words, you suffer from autism.

When someone says something like “circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides” they are not “redefining” circles but merely providing an alternative logical model of them.
Most importantly, they are NOT rejecting – or at least it is nowhere implied that they are rejecting – the standard model of circles (which involves the concept of equidistance.)

You’re too rigid.
Of course you are too rigid, you are autistic.

And this is not the first I come across such a way of conceptualizing circles.
Maybe it’s not taught in schools, I don’t know, but so what?
What exactly is your point?
Oh right, you have no point, you’re simply autistic.

You ruined this discussion – you reduced it to petty arguments – thanks to your pedantry.
There’s absolutely NOTHING that you are adding to the discussion (whether it is that concerning causality or the tangential discussion concerning circles.)
If you were at least telling us that UrWrong’s model of circles is less precise than the standard model, then at least there would be some substance to what you’re saying.
But as it is, your posts are without any substance.
Waste of fucking time.

“Fallacious invention”.
Holy fucking shit.
You think that people who described circles the first OWN these circles?
Is that the severity of your retardation?

See how stupid you are?
You don’t even UNDERSTAND what I said.

Moron, people understood what circles are long before there was anyone to describe them in terms of equidistance.
Not all life is verbal.

Language and what makes it work is hardly “nothing” when communicating over the Internet is all you have.

Your attempts to corrupt and destroy the only language you have is more than a little self defeating, naive, and stupid - a child starting a fire in his own bed.

Noone is destroying language, moron.
When you say something like “circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides” you are not corrupting language but merely using it to express your logical model of circles.
The problem is you are AUTISTIC which means you take words TOO LITERALLY.
And when you cannot understand them literally you scream LANGUAGE GAMES.
You are embarassing yourself, James.
I am serious.

And there I was thinking that at least you had looked up what “autism” means.
But then for people who invent their own definition of words, I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised by anything they state.

We both know that autists have a problem with colloquial language.
They take words too literally.
Don’t play dumb.
You are textbook autistic.

They don’t “take words too literally” in the sense that you are thinking (using the word loosely). They miscomprehended. Their lack of ability to attend to their surroundings causes them to not pickup on common social behaviors and implications. As a result, they find themselves desperately trying to communicate and making excuses for their misuse of words. One of their primary excuses is "But it is all relative. It could be true. Words can mean different things to different people. What is true for one isn’t true for everyone. Everyone has their own reality…"

And you really shouldn’t reference textbooks until you bother to actually read and comprehend one. Of course the problem is that you will never know whether you comprehended it or not. You will just desperately try to make sense out of the words, come up with some guess, and then insist that you have perfectly understood the true meaning (all of which will be BS).

The point is that you focus on insignificant details.
Your criticisms are pointless. They are utterly moronic. There is nothing anyone can possibly learn from them. They merely irritate.
You said absolutely nothing of value in this thread.
You merely spam.

First, you really should refrain from typing while looking in the mirror.

But more importantly, the issue of what “a circle” means was an argument going on long before I interjected. I quoted a dictionary. From that You and UrWrong chose to argue endlessly, ignoring the very definition of the word, later excusing yourselves by claiming that definitions are irrelevant. :icon-rolleyes:

Of course, if you were capable of thinking before declaring truth, you might have noticed that before focusing on your last ad hom, irrelevant, and “moronic”, derailing diatribe.