Post history

History for terminator_x

Phoenix v Brisbane Raw. Sunday 21st of Oct

Back to topic

Current version

Posted October 22, 2012 09:44 · last edited October 22, 2012 09:46

asmodeus_82 wrote:

ginger_eejit wrote:

 I very much like the idea of a Schroedinger's Siggie, Sigmund is simultaneously both holding his defensive position and also closing the player down, the impacting random event being the Queensland player running with the ball, his invites the aforementioned Bohr effect of the causality of observation, our role as the observer defines the final observed state as "out of position"

Is this observation an identical shared experience?, as we progress through Descartian metaphysical solipsism, we can only be sure our own experience is true, if we apply the indiscernibility of identicals, you, I,  the rest of the Yellow Fever shared the experience of Sigmund being out of position, this experience being described as identical, but as the experience, although described as shared, is purely a number of self experiences that are identically described, we cannot prove that Sigmund was out of position, as that is beyond the self

Yes epistemologically there is no Truth capital T in the human experience. We only have truth little t. The truth we can gain from our A Priori systems in themselves and how they reflect reality is all we really have for knowledge. By A Priori systems I mean for instance mathematics, linguistics physics to a lesser extent.. By the virtue of the rules it is true that 2+2=4 or that doe is a female deer, that statement is true by virtue of the meaning of the words. But this knowledge is only of systems we create. To gain some credible knowledge of the outside world we construct systems to match our perceptions and then attempt to speculate on further matters beyond our perception by applying the logic of our A Priori systems. Sometimes these assumptions match up sometimes not.
Whether Siggy was out of position is an epistemically complex proposition. Even if our sense data yields the same perception and its not a mass hallucination, "out of position" is a relative term yet to be defined and seemingly related to other variable such as the location of ball and the positioning of the players. Would Siggy have been offside if the ball to Berisha hadn't been played inspite of the identical situations? Would he have been in position if the roar player had ran at him Siggy executed a tackle? Can we rely on our sense data for to judge the distance between the players? Are we referring to the same siggy? I know a ginger cat named siggy who could be out of position. 


So it's possible that the entity we refer to as Siggy was not "out of position", but that everybody and everything else - players, spectators, officials, seagulls, stadium, grass, air, all other life on this planet etc - was "out of position".

Edit: If so, then this is really going to mess with the offside rule.


Previous versions

1 version
terminator_x edited October 22, 2012 09:46
asmodeus_82 wrote:
ginger_eejit wrote:

 I very much like the idea of a Schroedinger's Siggie, Sigmund is simultaneously both holding his defensive position and also closing the player down, the impacting random event being the Queensland player running with the ball, his invites the aforementioned Bohr effect of the causality of observation, our role as the observer defines the final observed state as "out of position"

Is this observation an identical shared experience?, as we progress through Descartian metaphysical solipsism, we can only be sure our own experience is true, if we apply the indiscernibility of identicals, you, I,  the rest of the Yellow Fever shared the experience of Sigmund being out of position, this experience being described as identical, but as the experience, although described as shared, is purely a number of self experiences that are identically described, we cannot prove that Sigmund was out of position, as that is beyond the self

Yes epistemologically there is no Truth capital T in the human experience. We only have truth little t. The truth we can gain from our A Priori systems in themselves and how they reflect reality is all we really have for knowledge. By A Priori systems I mean for instance mathematics, linguistics physics to a lesser extent.. By the virtue of the rules it is true that 2+2=4 or that doe is a female deer, that statement is true by virtue of the meaning of the words. But this knowledge is only of systems we create. To gain some credible knowledge of the outside world we construct systems to match our perceptions and then attempt to speculate on further matters beyond our perception by applying the logic of our A Priori systems. Sometimes these assumptions match up sometimes not.
Whether Siggy was out of position is an epistemically complex proposition. Even if our sense data yields the same perception and its not a mass hallucination, "out of position" is a relative term yet to be defined and seemingly related to other variable such as the location of ball and the positioning of the players. Would Siggy have been offside if the ball to Berisha hadn't been played inspite of the identical situations? Would he have been in position if the roar player had ran at him Siggy executed a tackle? Can we rely on our sense data for to judge the distance between the players? Are we referring to the same siggy? I know a ginger cat named siggy who could be out of position. 


So it's possible that the entity we refer to as Siggy was not "out of position", but that everybody and everything else - players, spectators, officials, seagulls, stadium, grass, air, all other life on this planet etc - was "out of position".