Wittgenstein and Games.

[Byzantine Prince]

Ok I'll give you a proposition and you have to use logic to refute it. Everytime someone is successful I'll add another one, and so the game will move on.

This is for the backroom since the ideas that are being talked about are too deep for the people that roam the frontroom.

1.1 "The world is a totallity of facts, not of things."

Refute.

[Zalmoxis]

I'm not good at this, but I want to increase posts/day so I'll say facts are based on things.

[Beirut]

This is for the backroom since the ideas that are being talked about are too deep for the people that roam the frontroom.


Indeed.

And doubtlessly those warnings and bans you wear so proudly beneath your avatar are testament to a higher intellectual pedigree and proof of good grammar. :scholar:

[Adrian II]

1.1 "The world is a totallity of facts, not of things."

Refute.This is part of Wittgenstein's two-tier definition of 'the world' and definitions can not be refuted.

[Skomatth]

This is part of Wittgenstein's two-tier definition of 'the world' and definitions can not be refuted.
Stipulative definitions cannot, but lexical definitions and definitions in use (I'm using A.J. Ayer's term here) can. I'm not smart enough or familar enough with LW's work to know whether this is stipulative or not, but doesn't he even say later in the Tractatus that this is nonsense?

[Adrian II]

Stipulative definitions cannot, but lexical definitions and definitions in use (I'm using A.J. Ayer's term here) can. I'm not smart enough or familar enough with LW's work to know whether this is stipulative or not, but doesn't he even say later in the Tractatus that this is nonsense?He did not call it Tractatus Lexico-Philosophicus for a reason. ~:cool:

[Skomatth]

I see :book:

[Papewaio]

This is part of Wittgenstein's two-tier definition of 'the world' and definitions can not be refuted.

So that idealology is closer to Fundamentalism then Science?

[Adrian II]

So that idealology is closer to Fundamentalism then Science?What fundament did you have in mind?

[Papewaio]

Most religion fundamentalists which have a non-movable static view of the world.

[Adrian II]

Most religion fundamentalists which have a non-movable static view of the world.Would the fundamentalist be Wittgenstein or err.. you know, the original poster.. who seems a bit lost in his own thread..

:dunce2: :wink3::gossip:

[Papewaio]

This statement: definitions can not be refuted.

Also didn't Wittgenstein change his definitions later?

Only skimed over philosophy at Uni... methinks perhaps I should go and sharpen up on some of it as the moment I feel like a complete pleb.

[Tribesman]

Also didn't Wittgenstein change his definitions later?

So he refuted his own irrefutable definition ?

I thought Wittgenstein was a beer . ~:cheers:

[Adrian II]

Also didn't Wittgenstein change his definitions later?

So he refuted his own irrefutable definition ?

I thought Wittgenstein was a beer . ~:cheers:
:dunce2: :wink3: ~:cheers: :gossip:

[Adrian II]

This statement: definitions can not be refuted.

Also didn't Wittgenstein change his definitions later?He changed his views some ten years later in a new book. Wittgenstein is all about language and its limitations, really. Ordinary language is fine as long as you don't take it our of context and inquire about the 'real' meaning of words, because they have no meaning devoid of their (linguistic) context. Hence his attempts at definition, starting with everyday words.

[Byzantine Prince]

No he did not change his defintions. He changed his mind about them being correct and that's why he wrote Philosophical Investigations. There are a lot foundametal flaws in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that I won't get into because it would take forever to explain properly.

For now here's another quote that I find important:


"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be
expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all,
then it can also be answered."

I think this is correct. ~:cheers:

[Adrian II]

For now here's another quote that I find important:

"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be
expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all,
then it can also be answered."

I think this is correct. ~:cheers:Here is another one:


Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all.

How appropriate at this hour, eh?

[Aenlic]

In my opinion, Chomsky did a good job of refuting Wittgenstein in his response to the critiques of Kripke. But I might be biased, since I'm a fan of Chomsky on political grounds. ~D

[Skomatth]

Do not eff the ineffable.

[Adrian II]

Do not eff the ineffable.The unspeakable truth is Wittgenstein did have a private life...

[Papewaio]

"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be
expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all,
then it can also be answered."


Is there a God?

[Byzantine Prince]

No. ~:handball:

[Papewaio]

What created the Big Bang?

[Byzantine Prince]

Theoretical Scientists. I don't [personally] believe the bing bang existed. It's like asking me what created dgfsdagdfsagsdfasfdasfsdafasdfdsfsdafdsa?

[Papewaio]

So what is your explanation for the 3 Kelvin background radiation?

Or the way galaxies are going apart from each other?

Or the ratio of neutrons to protons?

[bmolsson]

So what is your explanation for the 3 Kelvin background radiation?

Or the way galaxies are going apart from each other?

Or the ratio of neutrons to protons?

God's will ?? ~D

[Byzantine Prince]

You already know the answers to those questions. I'm not a scientist nor am I that interested in the broader universe. I know that it is infinite. That's it.

[Papewaio]

I posed a question, according to your quote there should be an answer.

No answer... so the quote is false?

[ICantSpellDawg]

You already know the answers to those questions. I'm not a scientist nor am I that interested in the broader universe. I know that it is infinite. That's it.

you know that it is infinite?
how?

[Byzantine Prince]

I posed a question, according to your quote there should be an answer.

No answer... so the quote is false?
If you can make a proper question that is specific and not based on crazy theories, then that means there is answer to it. You can have many answers for the same question. They're not all right, they're not all wrong, but they exist.

[Papewaio]

The Big Bang is not a crazy theory.

It is one of the most respected theories in Astrophysics.

However the crux is no scientist can know what occured before the Big Bang.

[Kanamori]

There is something I've never found quite clear w/ the Big Bang Theory: when they say all the matter was in a singularity, do they simply mean very, very, very small, or do they mean that all of the protons and what-not had been crunched into a literal single-point? If the latter is the case, how did protons, electrons, and neutrons come to be? Perhaps, understanding the math of it very well would give more insight.

[Papewaio]

Short version:
It was energy...as it cooled protons and neutrons condensed... and for the time that it was too hot for atoms to condense the protons and neutrons decayed at different rates creating the ratio of protons to neutrons.

[Aenlic]

I'm not sure that condensed is the word you want to use, Papewaio. Perhaps changed state is a better phrase to describe it.

And to answer Kanamori, yes singularity does indeed refer to a single point. The process of expanding from that single point is the "cooling down" which Papewaio mentioned. It's the same principle as suddenly expanding a volume of gas. It cools down. That's how air conditioners work, essentially. As the temperature/pressure of the universe decreased, it allowed the energy to change state into the form of energy we think of as matter. First quantum particles, then more complex particles as the temperature/pressure decreased. Some observable evidence supports this basic theory of the Big Bang, thing such as those Papewaio mentioned like the background radiation at 3º K and the rest. It's is still only a theory that is being tested to the best of our abilities of observation.

As our ability to observe improves; our ability to test the theory improves. We've only recently had confirmation that the universe is not only expanding, but expanding at an increasing rate. This is the new conundrum. One would expect the universe to either be collapsing back as gravity exerted a pull upon the mass of the universe, or for it to be expanding still from the initial force of the Big Bang. But accelerating expansion? That calls for some force acting upon the universe which is increasing as the universe spreads out. It is currently called dark energy. You can expect many new theories or revisions of old theories as new methods of observation are found. The recently completed VLT at Paranal is providing exciting data constantly. The EVLA project in New Mexico will have a resolution down to tens of degrees Kelvin. Other projects, such as the James Webb Space Telescope p[lanned for launch in 2011 will also do much to expand our abilities to observe. Observation is the key.

[Sjakihata]

I posed a question, according to your quote there should be an answer.

No answer... so the quote is false?

Just because we, petty humanbeings, have not discovered the answer yet, doesnt equal it isnt there.

[Papewaio]

I'm not sure that condensed is the word you want to use, Papewaio. Perhaps changed state is a better phrase to describe it.


Well my version is short...

[Aenlic]

Heh. True. I don't do short. I'm verbose and pedantic. Luckily for students the world over, I never wanted to teach.

[bmolsson]

The Big Bang is not a crazy theory.

It is one of the most respected theories in Astrophysics.

However the crux is no scientist can know what occured before the Big Bang.


Even if it's respected, it can still be crazy. Just look at creationism through history..... ~;)

[Ja'chyra]

"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be
expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all,
then it can also be answered."

I think this is correct. ~:cheers:

I think it's bull, he is saying that we know the answers to every question we could ever think of.

Unless, of course, he is simply talking about language, not the question itself, and means that if we can express the question then we can express the answer, but even then to talk in such definites implies that he has thought of all such instances and they comply to his rules, which seems a tad arrogant to me.

Anyway, philosophy bores me, reading Plato was such a chore.

[Bartix]

"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be
expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all,
then it can also be answered."

I think this is correct. ~:cheers:

Depends on understanding? ~:confused:
Answer can be expressed, but is it truth? ~:confused:
Is something wrong with question? ~:confused:

But some questions are not good enough, also.
"Is there a God?" What is exact meaning of that question?
And there are answers: "Yes", "No", "We do not know".

I probably am far from Wittgenstein meaning with quote, so I should not be pressing "Submit Reply", instead should go get books by and about Wittgenstein. :book:

[Papewaio]

If it is just the language then that is also wrong as we create words all the time to make new questions and answers... Bling Bling

[Adrian II]

If it is just the language then that is also wrong as we create words all the time to make new questions and answers... Bling BlingWittgenstein would answer that those words are not truly new. And he would counter your question about God by declaring that the notion of God can not be spoken about, unless in the form of sheer wordplay. Which it usually is, at least on this forum...

As a matter of fact, I think Wittgenstein would agree that the only answer to your question 'Is there is God?' would probably be 'Bling bling'.
~:cool:

[Ja'chyra]

Wittgenstein would answer that those words are not truly new. And he would counter your question about God by declaring that the notion of God can not be spoken about, unless in the form of sheer wordplay. Which it usually is, at least on this forum...

But the words are new, although the concepts may not be. Also the notion of God can be spoken about or why else would we have words like omnipotent and deity? Anything you can possibly think of can be spoken about if you are articulate enough.


As a matter of fact, I think Wittgenstein would agree that the only answer to your question 'Is there is God?' would probably be 'Bling bling'.
~:cool:

Then he's a fool ~;)

[Adrian II]

Anything you can possibly think of can be spoken about if you are articulate enough.Hence Wittgenstein's notion of logical space. People had better read some more of (or about) Wittgenstein before calling him a fool.
:sleepy:

[Papewaio]

Wittgenstein wasn't one for absolutes was he though?

If we are not capable of any new concepts why bother with any questions... if we are already at the maximum level of concepts?

"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be
expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all,
then it can also be answered."

I don't think he is limiting the creation of new concepts or language... it IMDHO states that in the process of being able to express the question in language then we will have the language set to express the answer.

I'm not sure if this is true if you count mathematics... sometimes we have to create new fields of maths to solve old questions... Hercules and the Tortise was a question without an answer within the language set that it was asked in. Later with the addition of Calculas it became answerable... Well I'm confused.

[Ja'chyra]

Hence Wittgenstein's notion of logical space. People had better read some more of (or about) Wittgenstein before calling him a fool.
:sleepy:

Can't be bothered and to be perfectly honest I'm reasonably certain it would bore me, but, if, as you said, he answered the question 'Is there is God? with 'Bling bling' then who could doubt that he's a fool?

[English assassin]

"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be
expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all,
then it can also be answered."

Hmm. There is a phrase for this, isn't there? Damn, what was it. The more extreme logical positivists took a similar view, IIRC, dismissing propositions that could not be falsified as meaningless.

Of course they were talking about proof and as I understand it Wittgenstein was talking about language, which is an important difference. To the logical positivist the statement "At 10.30 on the morning of November 23, in the year 519, in London, it was sunny" would be literally meaningless. I've always thought that goes too far, after all, presumably there WAS some weather in London at that date and time, even if it is now impossible to know what it was. Wittgenstein would I think feel that the question "At 10.30 on the morning of November 23, in the year 519, in London, what was the weather like" is perfectly well formulated and meaningful, albeit not one we can now ever answer.

Isn't this too in effect a definition:


If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered

This is seems to me is the same as saying that a question is a thing that has an answer (in principle). If so it seems to me a sensible statement, not least because it enables us to dismiss things like koans as literally meaningless, and continue on our rational way rejoicing. Whether it is a profound and helpful insight or sleight of hand to get out of considering tricky paradoxes I am not not at all well enough read to know.

Edit: Sorry, the connection with logical positivism came to me over lunch. The whole thing is meaningless unless you have a way to identify when a "question" has been "correctly" linked to its "answer". After all, we need a way to identify that the answer to Does God Exist is not Bling Bling fftang. Presumably Wittgenstein covers this, what does he say?

[Paul Peru]

if, as you said, he answered the question 'Is there is God? with 'Bling bling' then who could doubt that he's a fool?
I could. ~:cheers:
It's a silly question!

What we can't say we can't say, and we can't whistle it either.

[A.Saturnus]

You already know the answers to those questions. I'm not a scientist nor am I that interested in the broader universe. I know that it is infinite. That's it.

The universe is not infinite. It is boundless, but not infinite.

[Papewaio]

Edit: Sorry, the connection with logical positivism came to me over lunch. The whole thing is meaningless unless you have a way to identify when a "question" has been "correctly" linked to its "answer". After all, we need a way to identify that the answer to Does God Exist is not Bling Bling fftang. Presumably Wittgenstein covers this, what does he say?

I mentioned Bling Bling as an invented word. See post #41.

Not all my statements are obvious nor do I agree with all that I state. I am more interested in increasing my understanding then have a solid position that I can defend. So I will be quarrelsome if it will extract more information on someones position... people tend to say more when they are passionate... either happy or angry.

[Soulforged]

The universe is not infinite. It is boundless, but not infinite.

How do you know this? Specially when looking with an hipotetical microscope we could see more and more little things, thus making the Universe infinite in deepness, and in longitude too, why not altitude, and of course the last dimenssion...time.

Pape.: What word wasn't invented? :confused:

[Papewaio]

All, just pointing out that we haven't stopped inventing them... so that implies we have more questions to ask...

[Byzantine Prince]

Yes the formation of the question and the words being used are very important when considering any truism about the world. If the question is being put, it's being put for a reason, and therefore the answer should also exist. There is no solid argument that can be made against this.



not least because it enables us to dismiss things like koans as literally meaningless

Yes koans are pretty meaningless. Fro example, if the tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? Well the answer is YES, it makes a sound in the form of waves, the fact that no one is there to hear it is irrelevent. So yeah it's pretty easy. ~D

[Roark]

The purpose of a koan is to stimulate lateral thought to a satisfactory conclusion within the minds of those worthy of its fullest challenge.

Looks like the inbuilt "defence mechanism" of that one actually worked... ~D

[Papewaio]

I can actually clap with one hand (flexible fingers) ... wonder if that disrupts any koans?

[A.Saturnus]

How do you know this? Specially when looking with an hipotetical microscope we could see more and more little things, thus making the Universe infinite in deepness, and in longitude too, why not altitude, and of course the last dimenssion...time.


The matter in the universe is finite. Also, if there an infinite number of stars, the night sky could be black.
"Deepness" is theoretically "infinite". But that wasn´t the question. A meter is still a meter, even under a microscope. Though, in fact, due to the quantum, there is a boundary to how little things can be. The universe may be infinite in time. I´m not sure but it would seem to me that enthropy may come to a maximum and time therefore to a halt.

[Byzantine Prince]

I don't even believe time exists, that makes me smarter then you. ~;)

Seriously though if you consider how we percieve time, it's pretty much all in our head. Things just hapen to move from place to place, that's how we can tell "time" has progressed. The watch's time is just a repeated mechanical movement.


The universe itself is infinite, Sat. I never said that stars are in infinite numbers, GAH!!! SO frustrating. Everything is infinitely small and infinitly complex, and we are incapable of understanding the universe because of that fact.

[Papewaio]

Byz your understanding of the world around you seems limited to judging semantics.

Time is a dimension just like height, width and depth.

When you say time is just a watch's mechanical movement you are mistaking the measuring device to that which is measured.

Nor is your statement:


The universe itself is infinite, Sat. I never said that stars are in infinite numbers, GAH!!! SO frustrating. Everything is infinitely small and infinitly complex, and we are incapable of understanding the universe because of that fact.

The Universe is not infinite as we understand it (expanding outwards yes, infinite not necessarily) , nor are things infinitely small as we understand it. Everything infinitely small... your point is just like a Euclidian Point.