|
Tripsten
Stranger

Registered: 10/23/17
Posts: 1,104
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Mathematical Philosophies ? 1
#26189546 - 09/15/19 10:55 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So I’ve been reading random bits of random subjects daily to attempt and keep my mind sharp and learn good new stuff Just become over all more knowledgeable
So in this reading I came across art history And in studying the cycle of human social change from patterns I noticed I came across mathematical philosophies One being mathematical realism And it’s such an interesting idea But I must say I’m not completely sure what exactly it means
It states “mathematical entities” and “mathematical objects” exist in their own real and separate dimension I’m not sure what this exactly means I liked the bit in it stating math exists outside the human mind and therefore could be found by any intelligent beings That seems sensical to me But no natter what I search to find this answer I can’t seem to find a clear consensus on what a “mathematical entity” or object or space or whatever would be exactly
Roger Peneose says good things sometimes , but other times some of it is pretty nonsensical
Anyone have answers ? Perhaps your own philosophy in mathematics that you subscribe to ?
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 30 days
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten]
#26189562 - 09/15/19 11:05 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Order amongst chaos creates "things" or "entities".
Just gimmicks really. People trying to solve a higher order to find sone sort of sense or power to understand.
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten] 2
#26189690 - 09/15/19 12:11 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Your comments remind me of Plato's ideas about the realm of forms, in which perfect truths exist objectively in some higher dimension, and that whenever they intersect with human works, be they epistemological, existential, mathematical, philosophical, cultural, etc., we have accessed divine truth and brought a measure of balance and integrity into the world. I think he further theorizes that all existence evolves toward this primeval realm of forms, i.e. that existence tends to come ever closer to perfection, which it will reach in the end.
Mathematics could be said to come from this Platonic realm of forms, because mathematical truths are objectively true and represent perfect order. For example, alien beings would certainly have some idea of what pi is, and moreover, would presumably have discovered mathematical systems that, if one could translate them, would be equivalent to some of the mathematical theorems and proofs that humans have devised.
As far as where this world of forms resides, or what its precise nature is, is totally unknown and perhaps unknowable to humans as currently constituted. It is essentially the difference between logical positivism and realism. Positivism stipulates that nothing exists except that which can be observed and measured by instruments. This is similar to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It has been thoroughly disproven, which I will not take the time to discuss. Positivism would thoroughly deny the possibility of forms, or any kind of higher dimension at all. Realism states that these things can have an existence independent of human perception, and that if they exist, they exist. Realism has gained strong support in the philosophical community over the last thirty years or so.
Anyway, there's some food for thought.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Tripsten
Stranger

Registered: 10/23/17
Posts: 1,104
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Interesting and well put both of you When you put it like that tho Positivism seems to be a premature stopping of realism in philosophical context For the fact that we constantly discover more which we thought to previously be fantasy or never even imagined to begin with, no one can say for sure that all that exists is what we can perceive because we never know when we reach the limit of our perception as it’s always growing That seems real narrow minded and almost foolish and arrogant, if that isn’t too rude of me to say , not to offend anyone who thinks that way but when put like that I don’t see how anyone. Could
|
Tripsten
Stranger

Registered: 10/23/17
Posts: 1,104
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten]
#26190598 - 09/15/19 09:08 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
( that wasn’t specifically directed at anyone btw sorry I got a little ranting there that was just general statement
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten]
#26190673 - 09/15/19 09:56 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with you.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 27 days, 21 hours
|
|
Though I recognize the controversial nature of the following statement, it must be made regardless: Mathematics has absolutely nothing to do with reality or the universe as it exists materially and actually so.
It is neither a product/extension of the objects and agents in existence nor is it a governing force of them.
On the contrary, it is purely a product of human cognition.
It is the apogee of human conceptual abstraction…it is abstraction in its purest form.
It bears little resemblance as a field of study to philosophy even though some of the earliest philosophers where also some of the earliest physicists and mathematicians. I assert that this tradition of merging what I consider to be mutually exclusive studies is the seed of all manner of human destruction, war, bloodshed, paranoia, and political madness. Ever since the earliest philosophers attempted to make mathematical law a causal force of universal and human existence, human beings have been relegated to the status of “by-product”. An unfortunate blight upon an otherwise perfectly ordered reality.
Humanity’s free will, instead of being considered an act of natural perfection in and of itself, has been seen as an offense to truth and morality.
And ever since the causal force of mathematical law was thrust upon us in an act of pure insanity, man has been paying for it in blood ever since. His free will is either punished relentlessly by becoming the very source of immorality itself, or it is tortured without mercy in an attempt to exorcise it from the human body so that the “laws of nature” may regain control of man…to stifle his wicked rebellion of SELF and to help him once again take his rightful place amongst the perfect order of the universe’s immaculate proofs.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
pineninja
Dream Weaver



Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South
|
|
And humans have nothing to.do with the universe or reality?
-------------------- Just a fool on the hill.
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 27 days, 21 hours
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: pineninja]
#26190877 - 09/16/19 01:55 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Reality is derived from your consciousness. Your ability to know YOU from NOT YOU. Existence is NOT a metaphysical primary. Consciousness and existence are corollaries. They are inseparable. There is no beginning and end. Your empirical body might end, but your consciousness has always been, and will always be. You are a metaphysical singularity.
The human mind doesn't like this because we're brainwashed into believing reality and truth are a function of cause and effect.
They are not. Cause and effect is the illusion. Where does the chain start? The big bang, right? What was before that? Where was time before the big bang? How old is time?
You cannot define time without circular reasoning (referring to time as time), which is a non-answer and literally the most unscientific bullshit that passes as reason. A convenient metaphysical floor sweep under the rug; the lump left for any fucking reasonable person to ask "Why the fuck is this there?" The fact people accept this is madness and proves how broken institutional "science" (scientism/materialist determinism disguises as "free inquiry") is in terms of an accurate cosmological model.
The more you look the more you realize we are just arbitrating infinity with mental models. And they are just that; mental models. They absolutely work and are convenient for everyday life and activity and technology, yes, but, as my signature says - physics is not a recipe for ontological causality (I.E. the entire materialist determinist paradigm is absolutely false). But again - they are mental models.
There is no "inner and outer" reality. It's all connected at the "highest levels". No matter how we dice it up, no matter how dense the math, we are arbitrating an absolute infinity.
Have you not tripped before...? If so, what were your experiences?
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
pineninja
Dream Weaver



Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South
|
|
You're contradicting yourself.
All nice rehashed lines but they arent cohesive.
One day I hope to have tripped as much as you.
-------------------- Just a fool on the hill.
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 27 days, 21 hours
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: pineninja]
#26190895 - 09/16/19 02:14 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pineninja said: You're contradicting yourself.
All nice rehashed lines but they arent cohesive.
One day I hope to have tripped as much as you.
Please show me where my contradictions are and I will gladly explain them in detail to present my point accurately. This shit is very dense I won't argue that. I will gladly suss this out for you and anyone else.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
pineninja
Dream Weaver



Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South
|
|
"You are a metaphysical singularity." "On the contrary, it is purely a product of human cognition." If these are true.
Then this cannot be. "Mathematics has absolutely nothing to do with reality or the universe. " ....
I agree with quite a bit of what you're saying but baulk at the point of it not existing. Fundamentally this thread proves it wrong.
I believe math is way of understanding something that contains no math. But we as the singularity with no end and no beggining have most certainly created math.
Its as much a part of the universe as the thing it does not explain.
-------------------- Just a fool on the hill.
|
Tripsten
Stranger

Registered: 10/23/17
Posts: 1,104
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: pineninja] 1
#26191046 - 09/16/19 06:18 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Indeed If one believes consciousness and reality to be linked or even one in the same , one must find things which come from the consciousness , like thought, emotion and systems like mathematics to be relevant to at least something
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 30 days
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten]
#26191069 - 09/16/19 06:40 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Reality is ambiguous. The reality of what? Existence?
All we know is that consciousness is a product of existence. Because we are conscious enough to have that thought. It may be no more magical than we exist consciously at the levels we do. But our level has a very complicated imagination very capable of deception.
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 27 days, 21 hours
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten]
#26191221 - 09/16/19 08:43 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I can understand how what I just said sounds contradictory, but I assure you my entire stance is rooted in conceptual consistency, I.E. reason. My entire goal is to construct a philosophy rooted in reason. Conceptual consistency is my entire point. Which, is precisely why I'm asking:
IF time and space were created at the Big Bang, then it would be impossible to assign a “where” and a “when” to that event, right? Therefore, how do you define its beginning? You can’t really say it happened however many billions of years ago, because, by definition there can be no WHEN (and by extension no WHERE) to its “beginning” since time and space didn’t exist until AFTER the big bang, which is what everyone is claiming, correct? And so, it is impossible to tell ultimately then how old the universe is…indeed, you can't say it had a beginning, because something that is absent a time or place cannot be said to have a beginning.
I've been around this discussion enough times now to know that if we don't all establish our metaphysic, we're never going to see eye to eye.
My metaphysic is Man/Woman IS.
You cannot have an "is not".
You cannot have a negative - especially a contradictory negative - as a metaphysical primary.
If there is a negative it doesn't exist. Non-existence cannot be a medium for something to exist in.
Period. Full stop. Non-existence doesn't spontaneously "become" existence.
Nothing and something are mutually exclusive states and descriptions of phenomena.
This is very important to understand because if we disagree on that we're not going to agree at all, anywhere, down the line.
Again my philosophy is one of reason, which I'd again define as conceptual consistency.
Nothing becoming something violates reason (conceptual consistency).
The big bang is an irrational assertion. Time as a causal factor depends entirely on the big bang being an actuality. I'm saying it's an impossibility, and thus time is likewise only a descriptive factor - that is, man's consciousness precedes IT - versus it being the vehemently defended "determinative" (determinism) kick starting of nature, for no reason, out of nowhere.
Two absolute existential states do not cross paths. Ever. An absolute is an absolute. Any extension of an absolute is also that same absolute. They are two parallel streams that never cross. If you're arguing they do, and can't explain it without using contradictory concepts, circular reasoning or arguments rooted in irrational metaphysical assumptions, then, I'm sorry folks, you have nothing.
...And this is why this shit is so hard to talk about because most are not going to escape the throes of the materialist-determinist-causality cluster fuck. I'm arguing that since it is indeed man/woman that is, and IS the only one responsible for observing and creating these models/is making this shit up (arbitrary symbols and mouth noises and maths and abstraction) - shouldn't he/she at least be playing the "song" he's "composing" for himself, so to speak? Western science tries to have it's metaphysically irrational premise cake and eat it to.
Where is math absent the OBJECTS WE OBSERVE? Where is math absent the OBSERVER?
Where is time absent the OBJECTS WE OBSERVE? Where is time absent the OBSERVER?
One more time:
IF time and space were created at the Big Bang, then it would be impossible to assign a “where” and a “when” to that event, right? Therefore, how do you define its beginning? You can’t really say it happened however many billions of years ago, because, by definition there can be no WHEN (and by extension no WHERE) to its “beginning” since time and space didn’t exist until AFTER the big bang, which is what everyone is claiming, correct? And so, it is impossible to tell ultimately then how old the universe is…indeed, you can't say it had a beginning, because something that is absent a time or place cannot be said to have a beginning.
Edited by Loaded Shaman (09/16/19 10:31 AM)
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 27 days, 21 hours
|
|
Furthermore...
Since we can't observe time directly, as I said, it's impossible to argue its causal power, let alone its existence.
What is time absent the objects we observe?
It has no rational definition. It's, well…”time”, and “time” is not a rational definition of “time”. That’s what’s known as circular reasoning, or appealing to the idea as proof of its own efficacious meaning, which isn't reason at all. That's bullshit, and doesn’t work towards answering the root question.
Try to explain time without a reference to the material universe.
I assure you it's impossible.
You can't even make a mathematical argument (the point of me hijacking this thread).
For as soon as YOU open your mouth or tap on your keyboard or pen your letter or pick up your can and string you have already conceded the contrary argument.
YOU, a material agent, are required to explain time.
YOU must exist first, before time can have any rational meaning.
Thus, the material reality which we attempt to argue is caused by time is a prerequisite for the relevant meaning of the concept altogether.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
Edited by Loaded Shaman (09/16/19 10:09 AM)
|
Tripsten
Stranger

Registered: 10/23/17
Posts: 1,104
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Lemme retype my reply
Edited by Tripsten (09/16/19 12:13 PM)
|
Tripsten
Stranger

Registered: 10/23/17
Posts: 1,104
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten]
#26191680 - 09/16/19 12:27 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I don’t see what any of that means tho. If any of it was a reply to what I had stated before these replies.
I stated “if one believes consciousness and reality to be linked , or even one in the same one must find the characteristics and functions of consciousness to be relevant and meaningful As you stated An extension of one absolution is still that absolution Which I fully agree with And agree the Big Bang can not be for the same reasons ( actually I’m not sure if anyone ever ride tidied as a materialist here or a believe in Big Bang )
I also believe “the universe” had no beginning or end.
But first off to make so many “we have to agree on this and that “ remarks while posting about all the things you believe are factual it’s not really a discussion so much as a takeover See what I mean ?
Cause first of all Somethifn and nothing do not have to be strictly separate phenomena Some ( correctly in my mind ) believe nothing to not even exist but be more of a fun mind game , other believes action and inaction , on and off to the the same An extension of absolution
I only say that to show why “We have to think this way to talk about this” discussions aren’t graceful or ultimately any help as an answer came to on false assumption or what others consider to be logical fallacy is just as hollow an answer as any other
I’m more into the sharing of ideas equally Not as a “it has to be this or that” way, to restrictive to eve rreach true knowledge But in a “what about thisnor that” sort of way
If consciousness and reality are one Which they are in my mind Is the fact that consciousness is so math based Even down to seeing mathematical patterns and objects while breaking through tripping Is that not clearly significant to the structure of the universe ? To these “laws” it apparently operates under , what formed the laws ? Perhaps a system like math which report iced consistentcy ?
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 27 days, 21 hours
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten]
#26191707 - 09/16/19 12:38 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It sounds like you have the grasp of my main points my man that's all that matters.
My "You have to agree with this or it won't make sense" statement wasn't to dismiss your views at all - on the contrary! I was saying my position is anchored in those things; if we don't see eye to eye there (metaphysics), we're going to bounce back and forth on bullshit that isn't related to the main point. It was the declaration of my metaphysic. If we don't have a standard; a way to agree that 2 + 2 = 4, there's no sense in arguing calculus, correct?
It sounds like we agree on everything that matters. That's why this shit is tough! I thank you for hanging in there. No personal quips or stubbornness/close-mindedness (on the contrary! All ideas are welcome; I just navigate them using as much reason as possible, so I sound blunt and prickish lol) outside of me just making everyone aware of my position.
This is NOT an easy topic.
You do, however, strangely contradict everything at the top you claim to agree with me on. First, you claim you agree:
Quote:
Tripsten said: As you stated An extension of one absolution is still that absolution Which I fully agree with And agree the Big Bang can not be for the same reasons ( actually I’m not sure if anyone ever ride tidied as a materialist here or a believe in Big Bang )
I also believe “the universe” had no beginning or end.
Which is awesome. Great. Same page! Then you say:
Quote:
Tripsten said: Cause first of all Somethifn and nothing do not have to be strictly separate phenomena Some ( correctly in my mind ) believe nothing to not even exist but be more of a fun mind game
Hmmm, I'm a bit confused how you just accept "something and nothing do not have to be strictly separate phenomena"? If you're appealing to "mind games" (mystery/paradox) as a solution to how nothing and something can exist with one another, that is an issue my man. Not for me, but for you. You violated your first initial claims above, which were based in reason. You are contradicting your own premises my friend. This is not a judgement thing at all this is to help you build a strong and conceptually consistent base for your assertions and claims.
Also, I am NOT saying math isn't useful! I know my wall of text is a bitch, but I repeat several times that it has efficacy and purpose. I'm not saying it's useless in navigating and mapping and learning about nature, reality, etc. I'm saying we just need to appropriate it and put it in its correct place as a tool.
The patterns in nature are inherent; don't misunderstand me there. It's how we model them AFTER we're observing them. The shapes in nature are there. Not denying this at all. They're beautiful patterns. You can model geometry and plenty of other fractal stuff off of that which creates proofs. Not arguing that.
A wild 3 doesn't exist, however accurate and useful those models are though, right? Outside of the need to use 3 to describe what we're seeing to one another, 3 isn't a thing beyond a concept used after the fact to give value and quantity to an observation. If we attempt to argue numbers as anything causal beyond this we start to misappropriate their purpose and usefulness and they start to block consciousness evolution IMHO.
Three trees can be measured as a quantity, but that's AFTER the fact of them already existing, correct? And you, I, or another conscious agent having a reason or desire to observe them existing, correct? Remove all observers and what's left to measure? Three has no value or meaning to you, I, or anyone outside of a specific context. You need an object and observer that already exist in order to use numbers to measure them. That's all I'm saying. It sounds like a dumb repetitive easy thing but it's amazing the schism that occurs if you start treating numbers as causal agents.
That conceptualization is what I'm talking about. Conceptualization IMHO IS the defining factor of consciousness. Being able to know YOU from NOT YOU. X, Y, Z eventually become apple, moon, cow, left, etc. Useful, but abstractions none the less, no? That's my point is all. When we shadow box models of reality as if reality IS those things FIRST AS A CAUSE - that's where I have an issue.
Edited by Loaded Shaman (09/16/19 01:18 PM)
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 27 days, 21 hours
|
Re: Mathematical Philosophies ? [Re: Tripsten]
#26191915 - 09/16/19 02:12 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tripsten said: It states “mathematical entities” and “mathematical objects” exist in their own real and separate dimension I’m not sure what this exactly means I liked the bit in it stating math exists outside the human mind and therefore could be found by any intelligent beings That seems sensical to me But no natter what I search to find this answer I can’t seem to find a clear consensus on what a “mathematical entity” or object or space or whatever would be exactly
Roger Peneose says good things sometimes , but other times some of it is pretty nonsensical
Anyone have answers ? Perhaps your own philosophy in mathematics that you subscribe to ?
I submit, that the reason you can't seem to find an answer to the assertion that "“mathematical entities” and “mathematical objects” exist in their own real and separate dimension", is exactly because of all of what I stated above in my first big post: your present assumptions aren't conceptually consistent, so you're hitting logical impasses to due faulty/incomplete premises, my friend. That's what I'm trying to tell you here.
There is no separate dimension...except as a concept in your consciousness. There is only your awareness, first and foremost. You never, ever, ever leave your existential anchored point of YOU AS YOU. If you're arguing for things we can't perceive, or are beyond man's ability to reason and make use of, that's an irrational assertion and is not a foundation for any serious philosophical discussion on this topic. Sorry to be blunt, but conceptual consistency is the arbiter here, not me. I merely follow conceptual consistency to the point of being annoying, I know.
You cannot argue for other states of existence that you never existentially experience, because your existentially anchored, absolute infinite consciousness is the only standard by which you, I, or any other SELF can ever know or claim anything to begin with. That's my entire argument, once more phrased a different way.
AND IF they did actually exist somewhere and we can't access them, then they are of absolutely no use and concern to us. They have no efficacy (usefulness). They effectively don't exist or have any impact beyond your mental insistence that they do. You can try to model them - like with math, but at least math has efficacy (usefulness), as discussed several times above. There IS only YOU (SELF), relative to other IS-es (SELVES).
Those numbers and their relationships are all in your head first, and foremost. There IS no "out there". If by Intelligent beings you mean conscious beings, then yes that could be an argument. But if one is positing a non-physical "dimension" where "math and abstracts" actually exist - that's the bullshit I'm talking about/clamping down on. THAT'S nonsense. As I said - all ideas are welcome. Reason as a standard will eliminate a lot of bullshit ideas. People don't like this. I get it.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
Edited by Loaded Shaman (09/16/19 02:20 PM)
|
|