Ah, yes. Is anything objective?
RE: I DESTROYED GPT4 and SOLVED PHILOSOFY
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I DESTROYED GPT4 and SOLVED PHILOSOFY
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
physicists have this thing they call sigma
to quantify confidence
anything below a three sigma should not be considered reliable
Quantification is not verification
everything verifiable must be first quantifiable
You suggest that logical necessity depends on a sigma value, a confidence, a feeling.
or
also, sigma is not a feeling
sigma is a rigorous and quantifiable measure of replicability
how many times have you conducted this experiment ?
and how many times did you receive anomalous results ?
and calculating the vector
confidence is a feeling
sure, but in the context of sigma "confidence" is a colloquial term that simply describes the most common interpretation of the quantifiable statistical data
LOGICZOMBIE — Today at 1:29 PM
please explain sigma as a measure of confidence
clyde
AI
— Today at 1:29 PM
Sigma is a statistical term used to describe the level of confidence in a particular result or finding. In many cases it is used to describe the degree of certainty that an experimental result or statistical claim is not simply due to random chance.
In the case of a scientific experiment, sigma is often used to describe the likelihood that a particular result is not simply due to chance. A high sigma value indicates a high degree of confidence in the result, while a low sigma value suggests that the result may be due to random variation or other factors that are not under the experimenter’s control.
For example, scientists might perform a statistical analysis of their data and determine that their results are significant at the 5 sigma level. This would indicate that there is only a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the result is due to random chance, and thus provide a high degree of confidence in the conclusions drawn from the experiment.
Overall, the concept of sigma is an important one in scientific research and data analysis, as it provides a way to quantitatively evaluate the strength and significance of experimental data and statistical claims.
lol our buddy clyde!
Any statistical analysis is predicated on the statistician's choice of data. Just as any scientific experiment can be structured to produce the desired result.
I'm too much a mathematician to accept quantification as verification. If it ain't perfectly true, it ain't true.
quantification is a prerequisite to verification, they are not the same thing
please provide an example of something you believe qualifies as "perfectly true"
so i have some idea what you're talking about
Nothing is perfectly true, except in math. We are trying to use the techniques of math to verify aspects of life. Descartes tried and failed. This is why the laws are not just - they are based on qualia/assumptions and result in illogical deductions.
But the converse is not necessarily true, and so logically is considered to be untrue until proven otherwise.
there are three distinct categories
provably true
provably false
the rest is qualia
for example
just because something may NOT be provably true, does not make it "untrue" or "false"
most claims simply have no truth-value at all, neither positive or negative
What you can prove, or not, depends on your assumptions. Since we all have varying assumptions, nothing can be proven absolutely true or false. All is qualia. Morality is qualia. This is why freedom (free will?) is so crucially important. If it even exists.
This has been great. I feel like I have a young and agile brain again. Thanks for shaving fifty years off my age.
except when i design a computer chip
it's pretty easy to verify
engineering
🤬
🥓
objects
specifically objects are objective
verifiable empirical observations are objective
OK so solipsism is not a valid premise?
We can't even agree on what red is.
To verify, logically, we have to start with axioms. What are yours?
dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
I love that!
I was going to bring up descartes and his failure to prove all things from one axiom.
So that's it? One (great) innovation on a washed up philosopher's most famous statement?
well, there are a lot more on top of that one
my own thoughts and senses are generally but not 100% reliable
it is often useful to imagine naive realism is valid, in order to reduce social friction
etcetera
idk what naive realism is, but I think I can see it all around me. And yes, those of us who do not engage in naive realism are seen as threats to the social order.
naive realism is the philosophy of people who say they don't have a philosophy
Trivium 🤬
and Quadrivium 🥓
i can see where you think you're going with this,
engineering is validation of objects
EVEN IFF you are currently hallucinating some sort of solipsistic fever dream
lol I hardly ever think I know where he is going, but I am always entertained.