Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 220 of 302 (643160)
12-05-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by NoNukes
12-05-2011 11:11 AM


Re: Ideas
NN writes:
Actually you said that ideas don't exist outside of the brain.
Then you misunderstood. I have never stipulated that human brains are the only possible material basis. However you have asserted that ideas exist in the absence of any physical medium at all.
NN Previously writes:
What I believe ideas to be are abstract concepts that are separate from the thoughts, writings, and objects that express them. For example, the story of Goldilocks and the three bears is independent from any medium or thought that contains that story.
Does the above remain your position?
NN writes:
To respond to that assertion, I don't need to address the more difficult task of showing that ideas can be immaterial.
Given that I never made the assertion that you are attributing to me maybe a focus on your own assertions would be of more merit. Why won't you answer direct questions about your own example?
  • Did the story of Goldilocks and the three bears exist before there were any people to think of it?
  • If all humans and all record of human civilisation is wiped out will the idea of Goldilocks still exist?
  • Has Goldilocks and the three bears existed since the beginning of the universe?
  • Did we discover or invent the idea of Goldilocks?
    NN writes:
    I don't believe the concept four is tied to a human mind.
    I'm not sure I do either. I think it can be argued that the concept four is an aspect of logic and thus objective realiy. But I don't think the same can be said of Goldilocks and the three bears. Or my idea for a novel. Or indeed the vast majority of ideas which are subjective rather than objective.
    Objective mathematical concepts and stories like Goldilocks are inherently different in this respect. No?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 219 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2011 11:11 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 223 of 302 (643238)
    12-05-2011 5:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 221 by Rahvin
    12-05-2011 2:33 PM


    Re: Ideas
    Rahvin writes:
    "Four" is still a subjective concept, it only exists in your head, it's a symbol that represents something in reality.
    OK. Can you give an example of a concept that is objective rather than subjective? And explain in what sense it is objective in a way that "four" is not?
    Rahvin writes:
    Objective reality is that which exists regardless of whether anyone, human or alien, believes it does.
    I would suggest that mathematical concepts such as 4 and Pi arguably meet that criteria at least as well as any other concepts you can name.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 221 by Rahvin, posted 12-05-2011 2:33 PM Rahvin has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 225 by Rahvin, posted 12-05-2011 8:29 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 226 of 302 (643308)
    12-06-2011 9:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 225 by Rahvin
    12-05-2011 8:29 PM


    Re: Ideas
    Well I don't really disagree with any of that. But to nitpick.
    Rahvin writes:
    I don't think there's any such thing as an "objective concept." A "concept" by definition can exist only within the confines of an intelligent mind. It's an abstract representation of something else, which may or may not actually exist in objective reality.
    OK. But that doesn't mean that all concepts are equally subjective does it? You can see what is meant when I describe the concept of 4 as having objective existence in a way that my as yet unwritten or unstated idea for a novel does not - Right? The concept of an apple has an objective basis in a way that the concept of the Easter Bunny or Goldilocks doesn't.
    Rahvin writes:
    I would argue that the parts of reality represented by "4" and "Pi" are objective, but that the words and concepts themselves are our own invention.
    Well obviously the words, symbols and exact conception are human inventions. But let me ask you this: Do you think that reality is innately logical? Do you think that a concept like pi is arguably an aspect of objective reality and thus can meaningfully be said to have been discovered rather than invented? We would presumably agree that any suitably advanced civilisation would be aware of this relationship
    The symbols used are indisputably just human conventions. But the relationship being expressed is arguably a property of objective reality. No?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 225 by Rahvin, posted 12-05-2011 8:29 PM Rahvin has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 228 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2011 12:48 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 229 of 302 (643533)
    12-07-2011 5:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 228 by Rahvin
    12-07-2011 12:48 PM


    Re: Ideas
    Last questions:
    Do apples objectively exist?
    Does pi objectively exist?
    Does the Easter Bunny objectively exist?
    Are mathematical concepts like pi closer in nature to empirical things like apples than they are to wholly subjective notions such as the Easter Bunny?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 228 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2011 12:48 PM Rahvin has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 230 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2011 6:22 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 231 of 302 (643601)
    12-09-2011 12:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 230 by Rahvin
    12-07-2011 6:22 PM


    Objective/Subjective
    Whatever objectively exists can only ever be experienced and conceived of subjectively. This seems to be your main point. And I couldn’t agree with it more. This much is essentially inarguable. But I still take issue with one key thing that you have said.
    Rahvin writes:
    "Four" is still a subjective concept, it only exists in your head, it's a symbol that represents something in reality.
    I would suggest that mathematical entities such as 4 and Pi can be said to exist objectively. In fact I would suggest that they arguably have a greater claim to objective existence than things like apples.
    Now of course there are all sorts of provisos to this. Of course we take linguistic shortcuts regarding the necessarily subjective nature of ALL experience and ALL concepts. But it would be taking things to the absurd to conclude that apples don’t objectively exist because of these limitations wouldn’t it? We can hopefully both agree that apples do indeed exist (aforementioned provisos implicit). So the question is — Does Pi exist? It obviously doesn’t exist in the same physical sense that apples do. But I think you can very meaningfully say it exists as a property of reality. I think to say that 4 or Pi only exist subjectively is no more sensible than saying that my conviction in the existence of apples is a subjective belief.
    Straggler writes:
    We would presumably agree that any suitably advanced civilisation would be aware of this relationship
    Rahvin writes:
    Agreed
    I put it to you that this relationship is therefore not something that we (or any other suitably advanced alien civilisation that may be out there) have invented. I put it to you that this relationship is instead an aspect of objective reality that we have discovered.
    In short I put it to you that this relationship objectively exists in some sense that is independent of the minds conceiving it. What do you think?
    Rahvin writes:
    You're taking this as part of the never-ending idiocy of "subjectivity vs. objectivity." But I'm not RAZD.
    I think the sort of subjective-objective shenanigans we have both engaged in with RAZD elsewhere are different and not overly relevant to anything being discussed here. I think the link between reality and maths as the language of logic is fascinating and very possibly tells us something rather deep about the nature of reality itself.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 230 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2011 6:22 PM Rahvin has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 232 by Rahvin, posted 12-09-2011 2:26 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 233 of 302 (643837)
    12-12-2011 10:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 232 by Rahvin
    12-09-2011 2:26 PM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    Good post. The disagreement is getting smaller. But it hasn’t vanished yet
    Straggler writes:
    I put it to you that this relationship is therefore not something that we (or any other suitably advanced alien civilisation that may be out there) have invented. I put it to you that this relationship is instead an aspect of objective reality that we have discovered. In short I put it to you that this relationship objectively exists in some sense that is independent of the minds conceiving it. What do you think?
    Rahvin writes:
    We invented the mathematical symbols and even the relationship to represent something we observe that we did not invent.
    The reason I chose that relationship is that I don’t see how it can possibly be derived from empirical observation. It is a mathematical relationship. So what observations are you suggesting it is based on?
    Rahvin writes:
    Assuming our measurement of that real relationship is accurate , any independent observer capable of taking similarly accurate measurements would arrive at the same representative relationship expressed in the equation, even if the symbols used were different.
    What accurate measurements are you suggesting are required in order to derive that particular relationship? Whether Pi has been calculated to 10 decimal places or 10 million decimal places doesn’t make any real difference to the truth of this relationship does it?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 232 by Rahvin, posted 12-09-2011 2:26 PM Rahvin has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 237 by Rahvin, posted 12-13-2011 12:05 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 238 of 302 (643961)
    12-13-2011 1:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 237 by Rahvin
    12-13-2011 12:05 PM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    Rahvin writes:
    That's basically my point. If we can only calculate pi to 10 decimals, we're less accurate than if we can calculate it to 100, or 1000.
    Pi is a geometric entity relating to perfect circles. Perfect circles don't physically exist. The value of pi to 39 decimal places will tell you the radius of the circumference of the known universe to an accuracy of the radius of a hydrogen atom. Try empirically measuring that.
    The last time I looked we had calculated pi to about 5 trillion decimal places. And yet any similarly advanced alien civilisation unencumbered by human cultural or psychological baggage but with comparable computational power at their disposal could agree this same entity to this same degree of astonishing accuracy (differences in nomenclature implicit)
    The idea that Pi objectively exists is not limited to what can be physically/empirically observed or measured. In fact it has little to do with physical measurements or observations at all.
    Rahvin writes:
    Mathematics is essentially a language of symbols that represent observations in the "real" world.
    But that's the question here. Is that true?
    Both the value of Pi beyond measurable accuracy and the relationship are objectively true. Yet these things cannot be derived empirically from the physical world.
    Wiki on philosophy of mathematics writes:
    Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same.
    You seem to disagree. You seem to be taking a much more empirical approach. But are you simply assuming that anything which can be called "real" (i.e. actually exist) must be exist in some physical sense or is there some definite reason to take the empirical stance that you seem to be advocating?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 237 by Rahvin, posted 12-13-2011 12:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 240 of 302 (644140)
    12-15-2011 1:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 239 by NoNukes
    12-13-2011 2:47 PM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    NN writes:
    As for the rest of your comment, I'm still on the fence about whether numbers exist outside of the mind, but I'm leaning towards believing that they do.
    I think a lot of people will intuitively go along with the idea that numbers objectively exist in some sense because numbers do relate so well to the physical world. But the notion that the objectivity of mathematical entities is necessarily dependent on aspects of physical reality is rather limiting and leads to some strange conclusions . For example we all seem to agree that 4 can be said to exist independently of conceiving minds. But what about infinity? Many would be less willing to conclude that infinity exists in the same sense that 4 does because it seems to lack any similar physical basis.
    But if 4 does objectively exist because it has a physical basis but infinity doesn’t then logically there must be some integer that is the largest number to have a physical basis (i.e. the total number of elementary particles in the universe or something like that).
    But It seems a bit absurd to suggest that some integers do objectively exist whilst others don’t..
    Anyway - I am sort of arguing the mathematical realist case in this thread but in truth I don't know what I think either.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2011 2:47 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 241 by Chuck77, posted 12-15-2011 11:51 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 242 of 302 (644214)
    12-16-2011 7:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 241 by Chuck77
    12-15-2011 11:51 PM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    Chuck writes:
    Are you guys trying to figure out if math is objective/subjective?
    Not really. I think the three of us agree that maths is objective.
    So then it becomes an exercise in philosophical navel gazing about the nature of existence and whether the objectivity of maths means that mathematical entities can be said to "exist" in some sense that is independent of minds. Are mathematical entities aspects of objective reality - That sort of thing.
    Or - To put it another way - Do we invent or discover maths?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 241 by Chuck77, posted 12-15-2011 11:51 PM Chuck77 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 243 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 5:09 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 244 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:53 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 249 of 302 (644334)
    12-17-2011 8:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 244 by Dr Adequate
    12-17-2011 6:53 AM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    Dr A writes:
    Hmm ... I'd say that we discover math and that mathematical entities don't exist. We are not discovering things, which exist, but facts, which are true.
    If these facts are properties of reality then they are "things". Not physical "things". But "things" which can meaningfully be said to "exist" and thus be discovered.
    But the fact that I feel the need to splatter inverted commas all over the place when writing that should tell you that I am not entirely convinced of that myself.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 244 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 8:46 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 250 of 302 (644337)
    12-17-2011 8:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 243 by Chuck77
    12-17-2011 5:09 AM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    Chuck writes:
    If no one is around to observe it does math still exist? Or is it soley a human invention?
    Chuck writes:
    ....is math a product of our environment.
    Chuck writes:
    Am I anywhere in the ballpark of what you guys are talking about?
    Yeah - Sort of.
    Rahvin was making the case for maths having a purely empirical basis. I am sort of putting forward the case for mathematical realism.
    Wiki on mathematical realism writes:
    Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same.
    Dr A is making a distinction between facts that can be discovered and things which can be discovered. I suspect the difference between him and I is a semantic one based on whether or not facts are "things" that can be said to "exist".
    Unfortunately the philosophical area of ontology is fraught with such distinctions and as a result is mostly navel gazing nonsense. But it can still be "fun"......

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 243 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 5:09 AM Chuck77 has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 252 of 302 (644345)
    12-17-2011 8:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 251 by Dr Adequate
    12-17-2011 8:46 AM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    Dr A writes:
    This is a fact (which is true). Is there a thing (which exists) corresponding to the fact?
    Yes. Logic.
    Does logic exist? Is logic a property of reality?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 8:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 253 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 9:55 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 254 of 302 (644371)
    12-17-2011 10:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 253 by Dr Adequate
    12-17-2011 9:55 AM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    Dr A writes:
    Well, that's a bit broad.
    Maybe so. But that, I suspect, is what all this boils down to. If we discover rather than invent maths then it is because ultimately maths is our method of exploring the logic innate in reality. Or something like that.
    Dr A writes:
    Would you say that the "thing" corresponding to Pythagoras' theorem was math?
    To Pythagoras theorem specifically I guess the "thing" we are specifically applying logic to is the geometric form known as a triangle.
    But in your Snufflepuff example there was nothing that makes it specific to Snufflepuffs. In fact you would be better off generalising your statement to something like:
    If ALL X are Y and ALL Y are Z Then ALL X are Z
    A simple and generic statement of pure logic that applies to the frungibleness of snufflepuffs or anything else which meets the same logical criteria.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 253 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 9:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 10:40 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 256 of 302 (644385)
    12-17-2011 11:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 255 by Dr Adequate
    12-17-2011 10:40 AM


    Re: Objective/Subjective
    2 snufflepuffs + 2 snufflepuffs equals 4 snufflepuffs.
    The truth of this isn't dependent on snufflepuffs existing in any sense whatsoever. Nor is the logic in your example dependent on the existence of snufflepuffs.
    So I think we can meaningfully say that these logical relationships (2+2=4 and "If ALL X are Y and ALL Y are Z Then ALL X are Z") exist without invoking any Platonic snufflepuffs.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 10:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024