[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Yigal Chripun]

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Yigal,
> 
>> So we agree to disagree. As you said, I still think you are wrong, and
>> while as you say the /concept/ of god should be something everyone can
>> agree on, in reality this just isn't so. our own debate here is proof.
> 
> I think people should be actual be able to agree on what mutually
> contradictory concepts are. For example, we can agree on what your
> concept of god is and also agree on what my concept of god is. That is
> not to say that we should agree that bot are valid, but only what each
> would entail and /that they exist/.

let's hypothetically debate "apples" for a second. how is your sentence
above applies? we now have two different concepts of an apple; let's say
that you define a concept of a blue apple while I define a concept of a
green apple. according to you we don't have to agree that both concepts
of apples are valid (the definitions are contradictory) but you also say
that we should agree on what that concept would entail [so far, I'm with
you on this] I can think of what would it mean to have blue apples. but
than you add we should also agree that they exist. Now I lost you.
certainly apples cannot be blue and green in the same time (unless you
provide a /new/ definition of a blue-and-green colored apple). do you
mean that we should agree that both /concepts/ of blue apples and green
apples exist? if you only mean that, than sure, you can define such a
concept and since you just defined it, that /definition/ exists.
if you mean that I should also accept the existence of blue apples since
you defined them, well, that's not possible since I just defined apples
to be green!

one last example - Americans define temperature in terms of Fahrenheit
while the rest of the world uses Celsius. I agree that the other
American /definition/ exists but my world view is based on my definition
of Celsius. I know that below 20 degrees I start to feel cold, I know
that when I'm healthy my body would measure 36.6-37 degrees. I know that
above 40 degrees of body heat I can die. etc.. if the other definition
would be defined differently or not at all, this would not affect me
since I /think/ in Celsius. in the same way, my world view is not
affected by your definition of god since your definition simply does not
apply to me.

> 
> I saying that, I noticed that I was forced to use the phrasing like
> "what a concept IS"; that 'is' may make an important difference but
> until now I was mentally omitting it. If that changes your understanding
> of my view, it might be interesting to revisit some of the past points.

well, as I previously stated, I personally do not have a distinct
definition of the concept since my world view does not require it.
My nation does however define that concept, but even the bible does not
provide one absolute definition and there are different views of what
god is in different streams of Judaism, based on interpretations of the
bible. those definitions are not mutually exclusive but rather entwined
together. I can't debate these subtleties since I'm an atheist and not a
Rabbi But I'm sure google will help find the info.

you now accept the fact that the definition of a concept may vary. If
you'd further accept that I can have a void definition of the concept
(i.e. I choose not to define/use the concept at all) than you'll be able
to understand my world view, if you wish. I'm glad that you are now
aware of that mental omission.

Your world view does not change for me. you have some definition of
"god" (most likely a Christian one, which even if I was a theist as a
Jewish person I'd disagree on the definition) which you choose to
believe in since by your definition itself god is outside logic and
cannot be proved to exist or proved to not exist. (that's the whole
point of faith)

> 
>> and I think that not only there are different views based on culture
>> but even two individuals within the same cultural framework would have
>> slightly different views of what that concept means.
>>
>> the link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis
> 
> neat! I had no idea that that concept has a formalization. I have run
> into it in a number of different forms. Actually I have played around
> with (as part of a fiction) a somewhat reverse idea that by examining
> the language of a group you can deduce some facts about them. The
> example that I was playing with involved the assumption that humans have
> telepathy based on the fact that we have a word for it.
> 
>>
>> English related question: are "conjecture" and "Hypothesis" synonyms?
>>
> 
> No, a "conjecture" is generally thought to be true (or probable) but a
> "hypothesis" is just an idea to be tested. It kind of a flavor thing
> more than a hard distinction.
> 
>> --Yigal
>>

regarding the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, it is called a "Hypothesis" by the
linguists that do not want to accept this since it was until recently a
very controversial concept. In reality it really is a conjecture since
there is experimental evidence that supports it.
Also the links in the bottom of the wikipedia article are very
interesting. But I'm sure you will probably read them anyway if you
haven't already since it seems it interests you as much as it interests me.

--Yigal