Choice is not universal.

[elzoog]

I would argue that choice is not universal.   The argument goes as follows.

 

 

Principle 1)  Something is universal if it is true for all time and places.

 

Category 1)  A specific choice is not universal.   For example, "What will I have for lunch tomorrow Monday, October 16, 2016?" is a choice now, but will not be a choice a few days from now.  In November 2016, I will not be able to change whatever my choice will be on that day.  Since the ability to make a specific choice isn't true for all time and places, it can't be universal.

 

Category 2)  That I will always get to choose things is also not universal.   After I die, I won't be choosing anything anymore and ALL of my choices will then fall into category 1.

 

Category 3)  The idea that everybody can choose things can't be universal because the argument against category 2 would also apply to everybody.   Everybody will eventually die and therefore, will not be able to choose anything anymore.  Since there will come a time when everybody won't be able to make a choice, the idea "everybody can make a choice" is not universal.

 

Category 4)  Some immortal being (IB) can make choices.  

  a)  There is no evidence for IB.

  b)  Even if there were an IB who will never die and can therefore make choices for all time, that clearly isn't any of us.  

  c)  Given a and b, if category 4 is true, it is not useful.  

  d)  Even if you posit an IB that will let you into heaven if you are nice to him, he would have to retain the ability to change his mind later.   Otherwise, he has no choice.   Once he decides to let you into heaven, he can't choose to kick you out, should you decide to become an asshole.

 

It looks like you would have to posit the existence of God if you want to make choice universal.  However, since there are good reasons to believe God doesn't exist, I say that choice is not universal.

[dsayers]

It's a trap! If y'all will kindly focus your attention to this topic, you will see that it has been explained to elzoog what universality is and what its value is.

 

For those who cannot be bothered to partake of that link, universality is a requisite for objective claims to be true. In order for "theft is immoral" to be true, it must be true of all people in all places at all times.

 

Choices by definition are temporal. Saying that which is temporal is not universal is like saying an hour is not eternity. No proof should be required as it is baked right into the definitions of the words.

[Boss]

Im not sure if I am following correctly. As you say, "For example, "What will I have for lunch tomorrow Monday, October 16, 2016?" is a choice now, but will not be a choice a few days from now." So, you made a choice now, and in a few days from now it will not be a choice? because you dont have the choice to change an old choice you made? well choice involves making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities, and changing a choice in the past is not a possibility therefore not a choice. 'In November 2016, I will not be able to change whatever my choice will be on that day.  Since the ability to make a specific choice isn't true for all time and places, it can't be universal.' So you want to change your choices in november 2016 today? well again, a choice is making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities and changing the future is not a possibility therefore not a choice. You can wait for November 2016 and do what you did before "For example, "What will I have for lunch tomorrow Monday, October 16, 2016?" is a choice now" ie make a choice

"Category 2)  That I will always get to choose things is also not universal.   After I die, I won't be choosing anything anymore and ALL of my choices will then fall into category 1."

Yes after you die you wont be choosing anything as that is not a possibility, therefore not a choice. 

The definition of choice is "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."
 

 

Can you give me an example of what you believe is universal? 

And if you dont mind me asking, are you a determinist?

 

 

[elzoog]

It's a trap! If y'all will kindly focus your attention to this topic, you will see that it has been explained to elzoog what universality is and what its value is.

 

For those who cannot be bothered to partake of that link, universality is a requisite for objective claims to be true. In order for "theft is immoral" to be true, it must be true of all people in all places at all times.

 

Choices by definition are temporal. Saying that which is temporal is not universal is like saying an hour is not eternity. No proof should be required as it is baked right into the definitions of the words.

 

 

Okay, are these two things universal?

 

1)  7 + 8 = 15

2)  Square circles don't exist.

 

Also, if choice is not universal as you admit, then it can be ignored IF your philosophy only concerns itself with universals.  

 

Im not sure if I am following correctly. As you say, "For example, "What will I have for lunch tomorrow Monday, October 16, 2016?" is a choice now, but will not be a choice a few days from now." So, you made a choice now, and in a few days from now it will not be a choice? because you dont have the choice to change an old choice you made? well choice involves making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities, and changing a choice in the past is not a possibility therefore not a choice. 'In November 2016, I will not be able to change whatever my choice will be on that day.  Since the ability to make a specific choice isn't true for all time and places, it can't be universal.' So you want to change your choices in november 2016 today? well again, a choice is making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities and changing the future is not a possibility therefore not a choice. You can wait for November 2016 and do what you did before "For example, "What will I have for lunch tomorrow Monday, October 16, 2016?" is a choice now" ie make a choice

"Category 2)  That I will always get to choose things is also not universal.   After I die, I won't be choosing anything anymore and ALL of my choices will then fall into category 1."

 

Yes after you die you wont be choosing anything as that is not a possibility, therefore not a choice. 

 

The definition of choice is "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."

 

 

Can you give me an example of what you believe is universal? 

 

And if you dont mind me asking, are you a determinist?

 

 

 

 

 

1)  After October 16, 2016 has past I can no longer choose what I have for lunch on that day.

 

2)  I don't know what is universal, but none of you have given me any example of a universal X where X is actionable.  

 

3)  What does being a "determinist" entail?   If things are determined by X, then is that X universal?

[Boss]

Okay, are these two things universal?

 

1)  7 + 8 = 15

2)  Square circles don't exist.

 

Also, if choice is not universal as you admit, then it can be ignored IF your philosophy only concerns itself with universals.  

 

1)  After October 16, 2016 has past I can no longer choose what I have for lunch on that day.

 

2)  I don't know what is universal, but none of you have given me any example of a universal X where X is actionable.  

 

3)  What does being a "determinist" entail?   If things are determined by X, then is that X universal?

1) yes, you no longer can choose what you have for lunch on that day in the past because its impossible and a choice involves making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities so what you are proposing is not a choice. 

 

2)If you dont know what is universal, how do you know choice is not universal?

 

3)If you dont know what a determinist entails, then you can google some theories on it.

[Luisa]

Do you include the choice of a bird to fly north, or when a certain lottery number is chosen in your definition of choice? Then you would be describing cause and effect, which is universal. Or if you only mean a conscious choice, then the universal is that all conscious beings make conscious choices. The universal only applies to the principle, not a singular event which is expressing that principle, would it not?

[elzoog]

1) yes, you no longer can choose what you have for lunch on that day in the past because its impossible and a choice involves making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities so what you are proposing is not a choice. 

 

2)If you dont know what is universal, how do you know choice is not universal?

 

3)If you dont know what a determinist entails, then you can google some theories on it.

 

1)  Since it is no longer a choice, it can't be universal.

 

2)  Although I don't know what IS universal, I can still say what is NOT universal by showing that it isn't true for all times and places.

 

3)  I'm more interested in your explanation of what determinism entails.

Do you include the choice of a bird to fly north, or when a certain lottery number is chosen in your definition of choice? Then you would be describing cause and effect, which is universal. Or if you only mean a conscious choice, then the universal is that all conscious beings make conscious choices. The universal only applies to the principle, not a singular event which is expressing that principle, would it not?

 

 

If a bird chooses to fly north in 2016, it can't change that choice in 2017.  So I don't think what you added changes my argument.

 

"conscious beings make conscious choices"  This can't be universal because a "conscious being" is dependent.   A rather mundane way to show this is, if you didn't have a brain, you would not be conscious.  So, in order for you to be conscious, you would have to be in a situation where you can have a functioning brain (i.e. reasonably decent food, atmosphere to breath, etc.).  Given that you are dependent, you can't legitimately consider yourself separate from those things you are dependent on.  (If there was no atmosphere, you wouldn't exist).

 

So, other things that are NOT "you" have to exist for "you" to exist.   This shows that you don't have absolute existence.   But something that is not absolute, can't be universal.  

 

Or another way to put it would be, you are dependent on an atmosphere.  Therefore, if an atmosphere didn't exist, you wouldn't exist and then you wouldn't be making any choices.

[Luisa]

Or another way to put it would be, you are dependent on an atmosphere.  Therefore, if an atmosphere didn't exist, you wouldn't exist and then you wouldn't be making any choices.

Yes, that is my point. When do we know we are no longer conscious - when we can no longer make choices. And so when do stop making choices - when we are no longer conscious.

 

But going back to you initial argument. So I believe you are saying that because a specific choice cannot be made in "all places and times" that choice in and of itself is not universal? Pls correct me if this is not the case.

 

So if we use your example of choosing a specific meal - if we were to extrapolate a principle from this it would be: a being can make the exact same choice, causing a multitude of effects within a specific time and place, for eternity. If we were to universalise this then all beings would be practically omnipotent and the rules of space/time would be violated. So no - you cannot make the same choice twice.

[Boss]

1)  Since it is no longer a choice, it can't be universal.

 

2)  Although I don't know what IS universal, I can still say what is NOT universal by showing that it isn't true for all times and places.

 

3)  I'm more interested in your explanation of what determinism entails.

 

You're trying to give choice a wrong definition, then saying it doesnt do what your wrong definition does therefore saying its not universal. You then admit you dont know what is universal but know what it is not so even if choice was universal you still wouldnt know.

 

For example, If I ask you "do you know what is a Aardvark?" and you say "no, but I know what it is not" then you see a Aardvark, you still wouldnt know you saw a Aardvark or if its NOT a Aardvark because you must know what something is before you can know what you seen.

 

 

you're not addressing these facts. You presented wrong definitions and trying to equate it to something you cant define.

 

[elzoog]

You're trying to give choice a wrong definition, then saying it doesnt do what your wrong definition does therefore saying its not universal. You then admit you dont know what is universal but know what it is not so even if choice was universal you still wouldnt know.

 

For example, If I ask you "do you know what is a Aardvark?" and you say "no, but I know what it is not" then you see a Aardvark, you still wouldnt know you saw a Aardvark or if its NOT a Aardvark because you must know what something is before you can know what you seen.

 

 

you're not addressing these facts. You presented wrong definitions and trying to equate it to something you cant define.

 

 

1)  If the choice is not universal, that says nothing regarding what is definitely universal.

2)  "do you know what is a (sic) Aardvark?"  According to the dictionary, it is "a large, nocturnal, burrowing mammal, Orycteropus afer, of central and southern Africa, feeding on ants and termites and having a long, extensile tongue, strong claws, and long ears."

 

So my question for you is, what if you cut the tongue off?   Is it still an aardvark?   What if you cut an ear off so that it only has one ear?

 

My contention is that "aardvark" has a relative definition but not an absolute one.

 

3)  "you're not addressing these facts"  I think you simply don't understand my argument.

 

4)  If you think there is something X that is universal, then present it and let's test to see if it is universal.

 

 

 

[Kikker]

I would argue that choice is not universal.   The argument goes as follows.

 

 

Principle 1)  Something is universal if it is true for all time and places.

 

Category 1)  A specific choice is not universal.   For example, "What will I have for lunch tomorrow Monday, October 16, 2016?" is a choice now, but will not be a choice a few days from now.  In November 2016, I will not be able to change whatever my choice will be on that day.  Since the ability to make a specific choice isn't true for all time and places, it can't be universal.

 

Category 2)  That I will always get to choose things is also not universal.   After I die, I won't be choosing anything anymore and ALL of my choices will then fall into category 1.

 

Category 3)  The idea that everybody can choose things can't be universal because the argument against category 2 would also apply to everybody.   Everybody will eventually die and therefore, will not be able to choose anything anymore.  Since there will come a time when everybody won't be able to make a choice, the idea "everybody can make a choice" is not universal.

 

Category 4)  Some immortal being (IB) can make choices.  

  a)  There is no evidence for IB.

  b)  Even if there were an IB who will never die and can therefore make choices for all time, that clearly isn't any of us.  

  c)  Given a and b, if category 4 is true, it is not useful.  

  d)  Even if you posit an IB that will let you into heaven if you are nice to him, he would have to retain the ability to change his mind later.   Otherwise, he has no choice.   Once he decides to let you into heaven, he can't choose to kick you out, should you decide to become an asshole.

 

It looks like you would have to posit the existence of God if you want to make choice universal.  However, since there are good reasons to believe God doesn't exist, I say that choice is not universal.

How is this definition of "universal" useful in any way?

[shirgall]

"universal", as an adjective, means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to all cases.

 

"universal", as a noun, means a term or concept of general application (or relevance).

 

"universal", as a car part, means is a joint or coupling in a rigid rod that allows the rod to 'bend' in any direction, and is commonly used in shafts that transmit rotary motion.

[elzoog]

"universal", as an adjective, means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to all cases.

 

 

 

Ok. are these two things universal?

 

1)  7 + 8 = 15

 

2)  There are no square circles.

[shirgall]

Ok. are these two things universal?

 

1)  7 + 8 = 15

 

2)  There are no square circles.

 

If you are explicit with definitions they can be. Plenty of people love to play word games.

[elzoog]

If you are explicit with definitions they can be. Plenty of people love to play word games.

 

I can give you examples where both of those are NOT true.

 

For example, a "circle" in Taxicab geometry looks like a square.

 

 

"You will experience on this page that this t-square is also a t-circle. This is strange."

 

http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/taxicabgeometry.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry

 

 

In YOUR definition of universal, YOU say it "means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to ALL cases." (emphasis mine)

 

Since taxicab geometry is at least ONE case where you do have a "square circle", the theory that "square circles don't exist" can't be universal according to YOUR definition.

 

7 + 8 = 15 is ALSO not true in ALL cases (there is more than one case where 7 + 8 doesn't equal 15).   Therefore, it too can't be universal.

 

[Kikker]

Ok. are these two things universal?

 

1)  7 + 8 = 15

 

2)  There are no square circles.

according to your begin post there only has to be a time and place where 7+8 isn't 15 or when a square is a circle. But 7+8=15 isn't coupled with a time and space as well as a square circle. Your definition of universal doesn't apply to things which aren't situated in time and space.

 

When you assign those statements to a certain time and space however, you can easily imagine a situation where it isn't true, a student might write 7+8=16 on a piece of paper and a object may look like a square from one angle but a circle form another angle.

[elzoog]

according to your begin post there only has to be a time and place where 7+8 isn't 15 or when a square is a circle. But 7+8=15 isn't coupled with a time and space as well as a square circle. Your definition of universal doesn't apply to things which aren't situated in time and space.

 

When you assign those statements to a certain time and space however, you can easily imagine a situation where it isn't true, a student might write 7+8=16 on a piece of paper and a object may look like a square from one angle but a circle form another angle.

 

But there IS a time and place where 7 + 8 isn't 15.   So it can't be universal.

 

Also, there IS a time and place where a circle can be a square.

 

See for example, taxicab geometry.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry

 

As to 7 + 8 not being 15, if the numbers represent hours on a clock, then 7 + 8 would be 3  (i.e. 7 o'clock + 8 hours later is 3 o'clock, not 15 o'clock).  

 

See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

 

 

[shirgall]

But there IS a time and place where 7 + 8 isn't 15.   So it can't be universal.

 

Also, there IS a time and place where a circle can be a square.

 

See for example, taxicab geometry.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry

 

As to 7 + 8 not being 15, if the numbers represent hours on a clock, then 7 + 8 would be 3  (i.e. 7 o'clock + 8 hours later is 3 o'clock, not 15 o'clock).  

 

See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

 

I think you just proved my point--you have to be explicit with definitions (the most boring part of philosophy, but, as illustrated, rather critical).

[Kikker]

But there IS a time and place where 7 + 8 isn't 15.   So it can't be universal.

 

Also, there IS a time and place where a circle can be a square.

 

See for example, taxicab geometry.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry

 

As to 7 + 8 not being 15, if the numbers represent hours on a clock, then 7 + 8 would be 3  (i.e. 7 o'clock + 8 hours later is 3 o'clock, not 15 o'clock).  

 

See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

 

 

If you're using a universal quantifier and your domain is all the things that can exist in space and time with the possibility to interchange every definition ever conceived you're bound to find out that most things (if not everything) can't be universal in that particular way.

 

And you didn't answer before but I will ask again anyways: what is the point of such statements?

 

To clarify: I could devise a concept called "sheep" that additional to it's current definition(s) also can be defined as every object containing the letter "a" in a physical form, made from pure gold and is exactly 1000 atoms in diameter.

 

What is the purpose of such a definition? It's a useless definition which has no practical value nor can it help people to understand the world they perceive and should, rightly so, not be used.

[elzoog]

I think you just proved my point--you have to be explicit with definitions (the most boring part of philosophy, but, as illustrated, rather critical).

 

 

Well, YOU said that universal "means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to ALL cases."

 

Since there exists a case where 7 + 8 is not 15, the statement "7 + 8 = 15" is not applicable to ALL cases.  Therefore, it is not universal according to YOUR definition.

 

If not, why not?

[shirgall]

Well, YOU said that universal "means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to ALL cases."

 

Since there exists a case where 7 + 8 is not 15, the statement "7 + 8 = 15" is not applicable to ALL cases.  Therefore, it is not universal according to YOUR definition.

 

If not, why not?

 

It's not the definition of universal at fault here, but the definition of "7" and "8" that's vague and therefore malleable into a terminology trap. This is not a problem with the concept of universality, but with your candidate statements for testing universality.

[Kikker]

Well, YOU said that universal "means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to ALL cases."

 

Since there exists a case where 7 + 8 is not 15, the statement "7 + 8 = 15" is not applicable to ALL cases.  Therefore, it is not universal according to YOUR definition.

 

If not, why not?

7+8 = 15 is not a logical sentence  it is a arithmetic expression. 7+8 doesn't imply 15 like in a natural sentence. 7+8=15 is a statement where you say 7+8 is arithmetically the same as 15.

 

7+8 is always arithmetically the same as 15. You can check this by applying the + operation in the expression 7+8 which becomes 15 and then check whether 15 has the same arithmetic value as 15, which is obviously the case. There is only one case to check because there are no other interpretations of this expressions so for all cases of 7+8 = 15 is true. Or in other words: 7+8=15 is universally true.

 

How someone who says to be interested in mathematics and computer science can misunderstand the foundations is beyond me.

[elzoog]

What is the purpose of such a definition? It's a useless definition which has no practical value nor can it help people to understand the world they perceive and should, rightly so, not be used.

I agree that universal statements are generally meaningless.

7+8 = 15 is not a logical sentence  it is a arithmetic expression. 7+8 doesn't imply 15 like in a natural sentence. 7+8=15 is a statement where you say 7+8 is arithmetically the same as 15.

 

7+8 is always arithmetically the same as 15. You can check this by applying the + operation in the expression 7+8 which becomes 15 and then check whether 15 has the same arithmetic value as 15, which is obviously the case. There is only one case to check because there are no other interpretations of this expressions so for all cases of 7+8 = 15 is true. Or in other words: 7+8=15 is universally true.

 

How someone who says to be interested in mathematics and computer science can misunderstand the foundations is beyond me.

How someone who actually doesn't understand the foundations of mathematics can tell me that I don't understand the foundations is beyond me.

 

An example of where 7 + 8 = 3 is explicitly explained here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

 

"A familiar use of modular arithmetic is in the 12-hour clock, in which the day is divided into two 12-hour periods. If the time is 7:00 now, then 8 hours later it will be 3:00. Usual addition would suggest that the later time should be 7 + 8 = 15, but this is not the answer because clock time "wraps around" every 12 hours; in 12-hour time, there is no "15 o'clock". Likewise, if the clock starts at 12:00 (noon) and 21 hours elapse, then the time will be 9:00 the next day, rather than 33:00. Because the hour number starts over after it reaches 12, this is arithmetic modulo 12. According to the definition below, 12 is congruent not only to 12 itself, but also to 0, so the time called "12:00" could also be called "0:00", since 12 is congruent to 0 modulo 12."

 

And later

 

"Modular arithmetic is referenced in number theory, group theory, ring theory, knot theory, abstract algebra, computer algebra, cryptography, computer science, chemistry and the visual and musical arts."

 

[Kikker]

I agree that universal statements are generally meaningless.

How someone who actually doesn't understand the foundations of mathematics can tell me that I don't understand the foundations is beyond me.

 

An example of where 7 + 8 = 3 is explicitly explained here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

 

"A familiar use of modular arithmetic is in the 12-hour clock, in which the day is divided into two 12-hour periods. If the time is 7:00 now, then 8 hours later it will be 3:00. Usual addition would suggest that the later time should be 7 + 8 = 15, but this is not the answer because clock time "wraps around" every 12 hours; in 12-hour time, there is no "15 o'clock". Likewise, if the clock starts at 12:00 (noon) and 21 hours elapse, then the time will be 9:00 the next day, rather than 33:00. Because the hour number starts over after it reaches 12, this is arithmetic modulo 12. According to the definition below, 12 is congruent not only to 12 itself, but also to 0, so the time called "12:00" could also be called "0:00", since 12 is congruent to 0 modulo 12."

 

And later

 

"Modular arithmetic is referenced in number theory, group theory, ring theory, knot theory, abstract algebra, computer algebra, cryptography, computer science, chemistry and the visual and musical arts."

 

The article uses the expression "7+8 = 3 (mod 12)" or in order of operations "(7+8) mod 12 = 3" You maybe didn't notice it but that's a mod operation, right there. "7 + 8" isn't equivalent to "(7+8) mod 12", also, those two expression aren't arithmetically the same.

[elzoog]

The article uses the expression "7+8 = 3 (mod 12)" or in order of operations "(7+8) mod 12 = 3" You maybe didn't notice it but that's a mod operation, right there. "7 + 8" isn't equivalent to "(7+8) mod 12", also, those two expression aren't arithmetically the same.

An example of a UNIVERSITY MATHEMATICS web site that will say for example, 7 + 6 = 1 WITHOUT the mod, is here.

 

http://www-math.ucdenver.edu/~wcherowi/clockar.html#ans1

 

Also, I could argue that 7 + 8 = 13 without any mod.

 

Your response?

[Kikker]

An example of a UNIVERSITY MATHEMATICS web site that will say for example, 7 + 6 = 1 WITHOUT the mod, is here.

 

http://www-math.ucdenver.edu/~wcherowi/clockar.html#ans1

 

Are you serious? They literally explain why you should use the mod symbol to prevent confusion:

 

"we write clock arithmetic expressions in a special way. If we wanted to write that 4 + 3 = 1 on a 6 hour clock, we would write (4 + 3) mod 6 = 1."

 

Before that they were drawing an entire clock to make clear what the operation should be.

Also, I could argue that 7 + 8 = 13 without any mod.

 

Your response?

Of course you could argue that and I am interested to see how you would argue that. But just so I'm very, very clear: you need to prove that  7 + 8 =13 without changing the formula or ,alternatively, that we can't possibly know what N is in the expression " 7 + 8 = N" also without changing the formula.