The Liars' Paradox and the Alteration of Reality

The Liars' Paradox and the Alteration of Reality | Dark Hacker News

mreiland 11 years ago |

That's a terrible terrible way to look at those sorts of statements.

petermelias 11 years ago | |

I am thrilled that the first comment is a moral value judgement assignment to a way of looking at alternate realities without assigning moral value judgements :)

mreiland 11 years ago | | |

No idea since I didn't finish the article. When I read the following:

"The Tesla Model S will be self-steering."

1. The Tesla Model S does not yet self-steer.

2. Nobody, including Musk, has the ability to say with certainty that the Model S will self-steer.

I was done.

I have no interest in made up bullshit. Context exists in the English language, and no reasonable person would take that sentence in the manner the article writer took it.

Too many of these blogs want to pontificate about stupid shit.

petermelias 11 years ago | | |

That is too bad since the point of the article is actually in favor of the Musk, the Model S and innovators like Musk. The introductory example is a beginning of a very same "context" you speak of intended to set the stage for the point of the comparison.

You are correct that without the rest of the context of the article, no reasonable person would have cause to think about those things. Hence the writing of the article.

The "made up bullshit" you're referring to is actually a concept studied by man since 600 b.c. This article is merely an examination of its principles as applied to inventors such as Galileo and the like using Tesla as the present example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)

While it still may be of no interest to you, I would venture to guess that perhaps the philosophy is of little interest to you; not so much the state of blogs whose topics may vary.

The author is me if that was not already evident, and I appreciate your criticisms regardless of their polarity.

mreiland 11 years ago | | |

You wrote the article because you feel others can somehow benefit from your glorious observations.

But then you went off and created a strawman example that no reasonable person would agree with. Namely that somehow the person who claims they're going to do something in the future is "lying" because there are no guarantees.

Rewrite the article without the horseshit and maybe you'll get a better reaction.

petermelias 11 years ago | | |

I wrote the article because I find the manner in which humans alter their reality to be fascinating and I wanted to create a basis for a discussion. Thanks to you and others, I am achieving that goal. As far as the reaction goes, I do not consider any one reaction "better" or "worse", they are all different and interesting to me.

The "strawman" example was actually just a timely (today) inspiration for framing an idea I've held for a while; there are other examples of similar ilk. I just thought Tesla was a nice modern one because they accomplish things that are beyond the average person's sense of what is possible similiar to the great minds of the past.

The notion that someone who claims they are going to do something in the future is lying in the traditional sense-- is indeed horseshit. However, that was not the point of the example or the article.

The purpose of the article (and all examples) was to show that it is not possible to make provably true or false statements about the past and future.

The use of the terms "liar" and "lying" throughout the article are used in an attempt to show how the value judgements we associate with "lying" are somewhat generalized considering that Galileo and the like are obviously NOT liars, but were made out to be so at the time.

I felt it was necessary to examine this aspect of something that otherwise would be looked it in a purely logical (and therefore somewhat impractical) manner.

The purpose was not to call innovators liars. The purpose was to illustrate how the process of factual dispute and reconciliation of past events is the same as the process of the creation of new events (innovation).

A truly strawman example would disintegrate when debated in the context of the principles it was representing. Yet, the principle it represents in this case is that we must use our actions to make the statements about the future or the past reflect reality.

Tesla declaring their intention and then successfully turning the Model S into a self-steering car is a perfect example of just that.

Do I take it then that you have since read the rest of it? :)

petermelias 11 years ago | | |

You are correct that without the rest of the context of the article, no reasonable person would have cause to think about those things. Hence the writing of the article.

While it still may be of no interest to you, I would venture to guess that perhaps the philosophy is of little interest to you; not so much the state of blogs whose topics may vary.

The author is me if that was not already evident, and I appreciate your criticisms regardless of their polarity.

mreiland 11 years ago | | |

You wrote the article because you feel others can somehow benefit from your glorious observations.

Rewrite the article without the horseshit and maybe you'll get a better reaction.

petermelias 11 years ago | | |

The notion that someone who claims they are going to do something in the future is lying in the traditional sense-- is indeed horseshit. However, that was not the point of the example or the article.

The purpose of the article (and all examples) was to show that it is not possible to make provably true or false statements about the past and future.

I felt it was necessary to examine this aspect of something that otherwise would be looked it in a purely logical (and therefore somewhat impractical) manner.

Tesla declaring their intention and then successfully turning the Model S into a self-steering car is a perfect example of just that.

Do I take it then that you have since read the rest of it? :)