Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

This has been here for a while now... and I get the feeling that people are getting annoyed with these threads of mine. Is it time to let them die and talk about something more light-hearted?

Naaa, the forum is the right medium for this. Only people who are interested need to read stuff.


Complete reply comming soon.

sarwatcher said:

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

In other words, if all our experiences are different, how can we trust ANY of them? The idea here being exactly that things only exist as we experience them (directly or indirectly), and if nothing experiences them then either they don't exist, or their existance is irrelevant to anything in our world.

This is an extreme point of view in the subjectivity of reality. I just put it here as an example of the possible ultimate subjectivity of everything, including science and mathematics. In the end whether reality truly is subjective or not becomes irrelevant, too. This thought experiment does show us however that every experiment we make is dependent upon certain assumptions. Often many assumptions, but ultimatelly the assumption that our experience of something really represents what this something is.

Quote

Sorry to butt in and be off-topic, but I thought that dilemma had another application originally?

Perhaps it did, ILB, but I'm using it to aid my argument here anyway

here's the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia....lls_in_a_forest

This post has been edited by Migrant: 22 December 2010 - 03:03 PM

This has sure taken an interesting turn - now we're talking about the subjectivity of reality!

Anyway, I find these opinions interesting and all, but there's not really a way to "prove" them or test them. THEN AGAIN... look at the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics - before observation, the system exists as a superposition of all possible states. After observation, it collapses to exactly one state. It looks like this real, physical thing is completely and totally observer dependent! That's a scary thought!

Of course, this is a kind of assumption as well, there are other interpretations of QM that also fit the data.

I guess I have to agree with you Migrant, there will always be an underlying assumption in our scientific discussion, mathematics too.

Here's where I don't buy the whole "tree-falls-in-a-forest" thing though: Science and Mathematics have predictive power. If I solve the differential equation governing the motion of a mass on a spring, or a planet around a star, then I have the position, velocity, acceleration and everything else you can know about its motion for all time. There are many of these hyper-deterministic systems that work this way.

So if science and math can give us such an understanding, it makes sense to me that there's some sort of underlying "programming", some sort of bottom line bare truth that drives them and makes determinism work.

Of course, I'm biased because I'm in physics, and plan to spend my life looking for it.

What do you think?

I'll just drop in here and point out this:

The fact you're discussing subjective reality having strayed from "can we really call people arrogant" simply verifies the fact that no you cannot say someone is arrogant without making a judgement, and said judgement will be different for other people
Whether it's justified, situational, and again based on your own opinions.

Bam.

This post has been edited by Cloud: 22 December 2010 - 07:11 PM

Starwatcher said:

Yes, if you solve it. The problem is that such equations often have so many terms that it becomes impossible to accurately predict the motion of an object more than a short period into the future. Planetary orbits, for example, are chaotic in the very long term, due to the weak gravitational interactions of all the objects contained within the solar system. This is, essentially, the n-body problem.

Yes, but in principle, there is a solution. Existence and uniqueness theorems tell us this.

And in any case, there are systems that are two body.

Or even more simply, the mass on the spring works.

the fact is that some people are better than others

WTF, on 22 December 2010 - 08:21 PM, said:

But why? and How would you measure it? That's the key issue here.

It can not be measured since there really is no such thing as "better" or "worse" but merely "different".

Take the example of a person who has spent 30 years of their life studying mathematics, he is capable to solving some of the most complex mathematical problems known to man. Now compare them to a person who spent those same 30 years working hard but barely earning enough money to surviving day to day living.

It is not possible to define either of these people as better or worse since in a range of infinitely different situations not one of them will be more succesful then the other every single time. Even if somehow they were, "succesful" can not be defined either, i.e some people measure success by wealth, some by happiness, some by the final outcome, some by the the means to how that outcome was reached etc.

oh hey, I remember this.

Still don't have a real opinion on this.
Crap. I need to be more opinionative and angry again, but I've been to melow and kind these last few days.

This post has been edited by kekon: 23 December 2010 - 08:04 AM

doing anything completely objectively is impossible with people.
but, i do feel that i am significantly BETTER than most people at some things
to truly be BETTER overrall is pretty much impossible to measure, but arrogance is seldom someone thinking they are better at everything, it is usually just in certain areas.
i consider myself justifiably arrogant in my volleyball and badminton skills, but nonjustifiably arrogant in my strategy skills.

I was lurking the forum today and saw this and so, in my arrogance, decided to give you all an actual situation to think over. My own.

I am arrogant. I don't deny it. For years I've been told that I'm smart by teachers, parents, students. I've always been very athletic. Most things come easy to me, to the point where I could literally sleep in class and still be able to answer questions the other students couldn't answer.

Because of my intelligence and ability, I think that I am inherently better than most people. I think that I'm better than you until you prove me wrong. I judge based on my sense of logic and common sense. But, those same things cause me to constantly watch myself and keep to realistic standards, which means that I'm not a douche about it. My arrogance simply comes out in the idea that I'm going to do better than you in most given things.

So, others have constantly told me that I was better than others (the ones that told me differently being very, very rare), while others have also told me that I am arrogant. Since both are measured from a variety of subjective viewpoints, and most consider both to be true, is it justified?

Let me guess, bro? You're still in high school?
The sooner you fall from your high horse the better, mate. I learned the hard way that I wasn't any better then the John Doe next to me (even though everyone said so!) and lost many friends and opportunities along the way. It's great that you try not to be a douche and in your environment you might even be justified. Though in the long run these kind of thoughts only harm you. High school is peanuts, but you don't get anywhere in life without real effort


and here i go contradicting all my previous arguments
Not always what I argue agrees 100% with what I stand for, ha ha ha ha ha.

Also to contribute something to the discussion. i remembered from your post, something perhaps we can all agree on, that shouldn't be forgotten in this discussion. Nothing, human, animal, alive or not, has ANY inherent value. The only worth that things have is the worth that we give them. This is something that can be - accuratelly or not - measured and tallied. Another point for the subjectivity of the matter at hand, yet which doesn't take from it's validity.

This post has been edited by Migrant: 25 December 2010 - 04:32 PM

Migrant, on 25 December 2010 - 04:29 PM, said:

Yeah, I agree that the only worth they have is that which we give them. But I don't like using the word "valid" here, it suggests that the measurement would be valid like a scientific experiment, free from contradiction. I mean if you want to take the word valid as meaning "useful to us / our society" that's just fine, I almost think that we should use the word "useful" instead though.

It seems to me that we're all onboard with the "all measurements will be subjective" idea anyway.

Migrant, on 25 December 2010 - 04:29 PM, said:

First year of college brah. So far its the same situation as high school all over again. Then again, I didn't bother trying to get into one of the 'good' colleges either.

Regardless, the question was; is it justified for me to be arrogant, not if it'll survive or be useful in the future. In your opinion since this is subjective like everything else.

This post has been edited by Ammanas: 25 December 2010 - 04:47 PM

Even if it is justified for you to be arrogant, actually being arrogant makes you into a complete fuckwit.
Get over yourself.

(Lol this post is so arrogant I know )

This post has been edited by Cloud: 28 December 2010 - 06:09 PM

Its not arrogant is all of me is better than you.

Apoc, on 28 December 2010 - 06:31 PM, said:

Define better objectively, and then I will believe you. My point is that you can never do it objectively, so you won't be able to justify your arrogance.

Cloud's the only one that even came close to answering me. Anyway, since its all subjective, it is up to each individual's feelings on the matter. This debate will just loop if you keep talking about it, as it already has.

Ammanas, on 28 December 2010 - 07:04 PM, said:

Yes, most people here already agreed that arrogance was not a pleasant personality trait.

Quote

This is, in fact, wrong.

Math, for one, is, in fact, completely, totally, and utterly objective - whether or not something is true is independent of the observer, and indeed, it is verifiable using the rules of math.

Science, likewise, is objective; the observer does not impact what is being described in some magical, external way. We do not know if our observations are absolutely accurate, but we know they are accurate to a certain extent. Science is objective, it is simply there are no absolutes.

Note that objectivity has nothing to do with absolutes, incidentally - a lot of people get confused on this point. Objectivity is simply something which is independent of the observer, as opposed to dependent upon the observer.

Quote

This is, in fact, utterly irrelevant to the argument. We can define "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad", "better" and "worse", and given those definitions, we can define which category something falls under.

Some retards will be like "But what if I don't agree to those definitions?" The answer is obvious - it doesn't matter. For a given definition, it is so. You may disagree on whether that definition is what you would use, but that doesn't change that given a definition, it is possible to define which category things fall into, or where on the scale they fall.

Quote

Yes, it does, actually.

See, the trouble is that idiots posed this question, and the answer is obvious. Our presence is not required for things to go on. The real world is not like a video game, waiting for us to zone in for things to change; they occur independent of our presence.

One can argue that reality itself could potentially be a sham, but:

1) This is very unlikely for reasons of complexity.
2) Even if it is the case, reality exists in some form, so what its "true" form is doesn't change the fact that it exists.

For example, we could be part of a highly sophisticated computer program. However, the mechanics of the world do not change as a result of this fact. Things are still exactly as "real" as they were previously.

Quote

Ah, but is it a useful one? Arrogance can be very helpful in making other people listen to you and follow your directions, if it is properly applied. A lot of people don't believe this, but consider how many leaders have been arrogant; it is obviously a valuable trait in getting others to listen to you, especially in situations where charismatic leadership principles apply.

Nice post, TD. I find it interesting how we agree about the objectivity of science and math now.

Anyway, I can see where you're coming from with the usefulness idea. I guess that in some cases, people would be inclined to follow a really, super confident (or even overly confident) person. This could be either good or bad.

But useful is a long way from true. I think that your post forces us (me?) to a new position: Arrogance is never *justified* in the most general "I'm better than you as a human being" sense, but it can be (and I'm sure it has been) useful to some people at some times.

Of course, it could also be really dangerous, but that's beside the point.

You know there has been one thing annoying me about this thread for a while now, it is asking two completely different questions, one being "Is Arrogance Ever Justified?" and one being "Do you think we can objectively measure human worth?". It has been switching back and forward between the two for a while...so yeah

I think that the two are related, in that in order to be truly arrogant (in the most extreme sense), you have to think you're completely better, in every way, than the other person. This is where that whole objective problem comes in.

Anyway, I'm attacking arrogance as an inflated sense of self-worth. To me, the whole notion of "worth" just doesn't make any sense, because it's subjective.

Arrogance is different from Confidence. You can know you are better than most people at, whatever it is you're thinking of, and sometimes even point that out or make it known, but you do it graciously. Arrogance is the same thing, but where you begin to look down upon others. For instance, I know I am -better- at maths than a lot of people, but I wouldn't look down on anyone for not being as good, although perhaps be mildly exasperated if I were trying to explain something to them ^^.

Hitler is a prime example of arrogance. Anyway, point is, while arrogance can be "justified" because you genuinely are "better" than someone else, it is also completely unjustifiable in that, as I said before, "it makes you a complete fuckwit". There is also a fine line between what one man perceives as arrogant and what another perceives as confident, but quite frankly, that's another person's problem.

Quote

The problem is that the question has been misconstrued, as I mentioned. It is purely philosophical, and also individual - the question is whether reality is defined by observation. It does not ask whether things happen only because we are there to experience them, but (as it were) whether things that we do not experience are part of the reality we live in.