Michael Egnor talks with podcaster Lucas Skrobot about how we can know we are not zombies

_{News
July 5, 2020

Mind, Neuroscience

1}_{Categories
Mind
Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Also: Egnor , a neurosurgeon, told Skrobot: “My wife jokes with me that meeting me is always the worst part of a person’s life.”

Comments

*shrug* *sigh* *yawn* *scratch*ET_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

ET, No, I followed your instructions, which were to add the sets "elementwise", by which I understood you to mean this: {2, 4, 6, ...} "added to" {-2, -4, -6, ...} is a new set, whose elements are: 2 + (-2) = 0 4 + (-4) = 0 6 + (-6) = 0 and so forth. (Note that I assumed you meant to pair up the numbers this way, even though sets aren't ordered). In other words, the set whose only element is 0, so {0}. You somehow think 2 + (-2) vanishes in a puff of smoke, and gives you the empty set? Nah. If you disagree, I challenge you to find a reference to a definition of "set addition" which agrees with yours. PS: Your understanding of the set difference is fine.daveS_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Set subtraction is not a procedure supported by any mathematician or textbook on set theory.
Set Subtraction Set Subtraction a Set Operator There are plenty more where those came fromET_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

ET: The empty set, daves. You messed up on the empty set. Your comment had {0} instead of {}. Your comment in 588 betrays you His post was confusing, he used different sets on different lines. Regardless, adding sets, i.e. adding individual elements of sets, is not a set theory procedure. Set union is. Set union NEVER cancels anything out. Set subtraction is not a procedure supported by any mathematician or textbook on set theory. What you mean is the compliment of set intersection. When talking about set A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . . } and B = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10 .. . . } you don't 'subtract' set B from set A, You look at the complement of the intersection. Using the standard nomenclature matters.JVL_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

The empty set, daves. You messed up on the empty set. Your comment had {0} instead of {}. Your comment in 588 betrays youET_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

ET, I understand that braces are sometimes used in set notation. Where did I miss this?daveS_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

daves, if you are familiar with the terminology how did you miss {} ? Your posts betray youET_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Orloog: July 18, 2020 at 7:08 am I don’t get the whole discussion: mathematicians define that two sets have the same size if there is a bijection between them No. Read the Wikipedia article on cardinality: "In mathematics, the cardinality of a set is a measure of the "number of elements" of the set. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality As any definition in mathematics, it is neither wrong nor right, following Hilbert, you can define anything after your liking. It turned out to be an important issue so there came a time when someone had to deal with the situation. So, some terms were picked to represent certain concepts. Consider the term "integral". In mathematics that means a very particular thing whereas in everyday life it means something else entirely. In some sense any definition is just an arbitrary source. In mathematics the definitions are more tightly controlled and utilised and so you should be very, very clear if you are using terms in a non-standard fashion.JVL_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

ET, To the contrary, I am familiar with the terminology of set theory. Your posts, however, make sense under only the most charitable reading.daveS_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Orloog:
mathematicians define that two sets have the same size if there is a bijection between them.
I am disputing that definition
The question is: is it useful? It seems so, as it brought fruit over the last more than hundred years.
No one uses the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is fruitless. If you disagree then please show me the concept being applied to real-world situations.ET_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Whatever daves. You don't even grasp the basic terminology of set theory.
What is the “relative cardinality” of {1, -2, 3, -4, 5, -6, …} in comparison with the natural numbers?
The same. Meaning there isn't any difference
How about {1, -4, 9, -16, 25, …}?
What the bijective function is in absolute form.ET_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

ET,
You don’t have to change the signs if you use the proper tool. Just because I use set subtraction for sets that allow it doesn’t mean I have to use it on sets that do not.
I have a feeling this means you will decide what is the "proper tool" in an ad hoc manner, and will never give a comprehensive description of the procedure that handles all cases. What is the "relative cardinality" of {1, -2, 3, -4, 5, -6, ...} in comparison with the natural numbers? How about {1, -4, 9, -16, 25, ...}?daveS_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

O, it is not what some authority defines so much as what the logic warrants. We know two sets of actual things that can be matched 1:1 share the same number. That concept had to be teased out to ordinal vs cardinal. Then, it had to be realised that cardinality of transfinite sets is significantly different from finite sets. Similarly, that continuum has different cardinality from countable sets and more. People struggle with the transfinite, part of why I think the zoo and taxonomy of numbers should be taught in school. I also believe that the hyperreals are in many ways more relevant than the reals, allowing us to address transfinites and infinitesimals. Paradigms need to shift and that requires conceptual leaps. Too often the new one advances one funeral at a time. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

I don't get the whole discussion: mathematicians define that two sets have the same size if there is a bijection between them. As any definition in mathematics, it is neither wrong nor right, following Hilbert, you can define anything after your liking. The question is: is it useful? It seems so, as it brought fruit over the last more than hundred years. ET, feel free to come up with your own definition of "size of a set" and "equality of set sizes". If it is easier to use than the current one, it will succeed over the long term. The current one has been extremely useful when looking at sequences, sums, and things like filtrations - which is quite helpful for doing analysis. How does your definition do better, ET? And what is actually your definition?Orloog_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

ET, kindly tone down rhetorical voltage. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2020
July
07
Jul
18
18
2020
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

I know where one is. (JVL lives in the UK, though)ET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

And again, if you really want to make this personal…
Perhaps a fistfight in a nondescript parking lot? :PdaveS_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

JVL:
You can’t just use an inappropriate procedure and claim that it is right.
You are not anyone who can say it's an inappropriate procedure.
Which means: there is no reason any of us should argue with this lunatic anymore.
Then stop arguing with yourself. And it isn't up to a dolt like you to say what my system can and cannot handle. And again, if you really want to make this personal...ET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

ET: Set subtraction proves that those “proofs” are nonsense. And you can compare sets that aren’t subsets. All you have to do is have a standard or standards to compare everything to. No, they do not do that. You can't just use an inappropriate procedure and claim that it is right. Bollocks. I don’t care if people don’t respect my system. There is no way I will ever respect a system that is thwarted by set subtraction. People who ignore the implications of set subtraction are willfully ignorant. People who do not understand that infinity is a journey are willfully ignorant. Which means: there is no reason any of us should argue with this lunatic anymore. He's deluded as well as wrong. Again, WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN OVER THAT ON MY BLOG. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? I would use ADDITION in this case you willfully ignorant horse’s butt. Talk about shifting the goalposts. There are still a lot of cases you have clearly avoided even addressing. You run away from anything you can't deal with. Element wise. You would add to get the cancelation of matched elements. Then you can see if there is any remainder. Crap, crap, crap. It isn’t a match if they are not the same. It’s a contrived pairing. (wait for it- “contrived in=s not used in mathematics!!!” what a dolt) The word doesn't matter! The process of linking/pairing/coupling is the point! This is pointless. ET is way beyond any kind of sense. He'd rather deny and lie about a whole field of mathematics than admit he's wrong. He can't find a fault with any theorem anywhere. He can't deal with lots of examples. In fact, he just blatantly ignores anything he can't handle. He can't back up his own claims. Since no one takes him seriously anyway and he will never, ever admits he's wrong (and he's owned up to this) there is no point in arguing with him anymore. He's wrong, we all know it. He won't admit because he's a lunatic and a liar. Time to leave him to his lunacy. At least we know his BS will never make it into any textbook or classroom.JVL_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

daves:
So the operation could be described as “change the signs on elements of the second set, then take the set difference” right?
You don't have to change the signs if you use the proper tool. Just because I use set subtraction for sets that allow it doesn't mean I have to use it on sets that do not. But let me see if I can follow where you are going- a changing of the signs is transforming the elements of one set, which I am against. :roll:ET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

ET, Now that that's out of your system, any response to #601?daveS_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

No jerry. Even discussions are finite. Some just don't seem like it. ;)ET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Retired Physicist is just an ignorant coward. I have explained why I haven’t brought this up to mathematicians and yet RP prattles on like an infant. RP doesn't even understand basic set theory nomenclature. Neither does daves. So why would I listen to them in a discussion involving set theory?ET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Earth to RP- The concept under that I am disputing is USELESS. Apparently the only people who care are the people trying to attack me to try to score interweb points. That said, YOU have to proven to be an ignorant coward. You have no place in this discussion. All you are is like a loser throwing shite from the cheap seats.ET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

The first example I have seen on infinity in the real world is a discussion on infinity. There can always be one more comment no matter how many comments have been made.jerry_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Mac- then please stay out of it because obviously you have reading comprehension issues. Your bias is duly noted.ET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

ET
Mac- tell people to stop attacking me and I will listen to what you say.
I don’t see anyone attacking you. They are disagreeing with you.
But to single me out proves that you are also clueless.
I just made a suggestion. You can ignore it if you like. But insulting others only reflects badly on the person making the insult resulting in nobody taking that person seriously, even on the occasions when they have valid points to make.Mac McTavish_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

ET, the fact that you have avoided talking to any mathematicians about your pseudo-mathematics tells us that you know you’re talking out of your butt. There are people who are good at playing the pseudoscience game, and you’re just not one of them.Retired Physicist_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Empty Set- as in RP's head contains an empty setET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Retired Physicist is just an ignorant coward. I have explained why I haven't brought this up and yet RP prattles on like an infant. No one makes me feel insecure. Especially not the evoTARDs posting here on anywhere.
Nobody could possibly post #597 and think it was an intelligent thing to say.
WOW! You have to be a totally ignorant punk to say that. What I said in 597 is the proper nomenclature with respect to set theory. RP has to be one of the most ignorant and cowardly loser.ET_{July 17, 2020
July
07
Jul
17
17
2020
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply