View Single Post
Old 1st January 2018, 07:13 PM   #192
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No you can't. Suppose we let go off an object (L) and observe it to fall down (F) then some data we could have would be: LFLFLFLF. We get a law of gravity: L -> LF and can compress the data to:
"L -> LF, LLLL"
Yes. For me, this is actualism.

I see the object fall
I understand why it falls.

This is all that is relevant.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
So far for the science. Now any ontology you're going to assert here is going to make this compressed data larger, such as:
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a really real thing" (ie materialism)

but also
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a simulated thing" (ie matrixism)
or
"L -> LF, LLLL, and L is a product of my mind" (ie solipsism)
and so on
This is philosobabble, and I cannot even begin to parse it, let alone understand how any of it has relevance to actualism.
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top