|
prick with tenure posted:I have wondered about the surprising applicability of math in physics. I think I know what you're getting at, but this sentence by itself is pretty funny.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think I know what you're getting at, but this sentence by itself is pretty funny. He's referring to the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:To idolize means to imbue an artifact with the sense of the divine, spiritual, or supernatural; and to deify is usually used in the sense of imbuing those same characteristics in a human. Possible faint connection between deify and reify, but not enough to equate them. I think if your claim rests on weight of these three words, and the presumption that they are identical, you need to reexamine your foundations. All those words are to describe the error of making the divine a thing. Two are a subcategories of the other, deify is to make a god. Idolize is a broader word than just being applicable to physical objects, ideas can be idols. All three of those words in the context of this conversation are viable to talk about the error of making ideas/abstracts as things. And that last word you use, foundation. Beneath standing or underpinning. I'm obsessed with examining foundations. The things we think fundamentally supports all other thing. There's a word for type of foundation, a hypostasis, or underlying substance. Math is reality is a statement of Math as a hypostasis. To do that is to make a form (an eidos, an idol) of Math (to idolize.) To do that is to assert that math is the foundation (to deify). And it is to assert an abstract is a concrete. (To reify.) And there aren't rational arguments for foundations. Proofs of a foundation always make some fundamental error. Accepting a foundation is never scientific. Math as foundation is a old assertion. And it's an idealism. And we've got people in the thread asserting it's testable, or potentially provable, or rationally concludable. That's a problem. SedanChair posted:What does either have to teach us, besides that people try to take shortcuts to knowledge? The point was how do people who believe a form is real or who believe in a transcendent look to people who don't share that belief? Goddam crazy. Why do I look so drat crazy to some of you? Why does the example of the commentary on Euclid look loving nuts? Why does that "Tree of Life" look nuts? Why is Charles Koch loving nuts? Why does somebody like a Dr. Bronner (the soap guy) look nuts? Why does that Evangelion series look loving nuts? All these things that look crazy share a characteristic. MadMattH posted:There are no repercussions, that is the point. If mathematics is reality then, of course, we can use it to describe reality. They go hand in hand, they are not seperate but one thing. That doesn't mean that there is some huge meaning in it. Nothing had to choose math as being a way to describe reality. "We can use it to describe reality." That's one hell of a repercussion. That's a join us outside of the drat cave level of repercussion. We can describe reality is we can know where we are, where we are from, and where we can head. We can describe reality is we are not lost. It's these symbols (numbers, equations, geometrical drawings, the maths) can teach us about reality. That's salvation talk. I guess what I'm trying to say is, look at the language and type of statements the discussion is pushing you into already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Literally none of us are talking about the things you are. We do not treat certain words and phrases like magic spells like you do. Stop. This isn't interesting to anyone but you and you're derailing this thread so far off it's intended topic I'm shocked you haven't gotten it locked. Just please let sane people discuss this topic without you taking a huge half-baked pseudo-intellectual dump all over everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Why is Charles Koch loving nuts? Why does somebody like a Dr. Bronner (the soap guy) look nuts? Because they are (or were in Bronner's case) nuts. Because their entire approach to life has been to start with a half-baked theory and shoehorn everything they see and hear into it. Does that sound like anybody you know? At least Dr. Bronner's soap smells good and Koch's coal burns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I've been staying away from this thread until it occurred to me that this might be a Tegmark jerkfest. Seems that it is. Given that, let me recommend the following review of his book by Ed Frenkel, a really good mathematician who is not afraid of stuff that's way out there. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/books/review/our-mathematical-universe-by-max-tegmark.html?_r=0&referrer= tldr: The m.u.h and c.u.h. are not mathematics nor physics but rather more science fiction. I also recommend Peter Woit's posts on the subject at his blog "not even wrong"
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Literally none of us are talking about the things you are. We do not treat certain words and phrases like magic spells like you do. Stop. This isn't interesting to anyone but you and you're derailing this thread so far off it's intended topic I'm shocked you haven't gotten it locked. Just please let sane people discuss this topic without you taking a huge half-baked pseudo-intellectual dump all over everything. Ad Hom again. All you've done in the thread is bitch about me. Look Who What Now, when some thing like "the universe is a simulation" is asserted it produces contingent conclusions. A simulation is a thing, things have causes. If the universe is a simulation what causes the simulation? Suddenly we've got an implied demiurge. A creator (not necessarily God) outside of the reality we are in (thus supernatural), that we can only infer things about from the created simulation (by analogy). Again there are massive problems with all this. People aren't going to like me talking about these implied conclusions from their axioms. Especially if they haven't thought about them yet and even more so if they contradict other things they believe. That doesn't make me off topic. And if you think I am, loving report me, cut out the passive aggressive back seat modding poo poo and stop being a coward. I seem to remember you didn't like me making GBS threads on Ray Kurzweil's singularity crap either. That guy literally thought the singularity was going to bring his dead father back to life and you didn't like me saying it was just apocalypse talk. I'm starting to think you might be crazier than I am. SedanChair posted:Because their entire approach to life has been to start with a half-baked theory and shoehorn everything they see and hear into it. Does that sound like anybody you know? Exactly like somebody I know  , I did put myself at the front of the list. This happens when one believes a form is a concrete reality. Bronner's bit was "All in One", Koch bit is "Freedom is real" and my bit is the "Word was Flesh". All these are heavily influenced by Neo-platonitic mysticism. The Times had an article on this reality is a simulation stuff last Sunday in the review section: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/is-the-universe-a-simulation.html?_r=0 The important part to me from that article: "Many mathematicians, when pressed, admit to being Platonists." (but this "some highly advanced computer programmer of the future has devised this simulation" is interesting too, simulation implies a demiurge)All I'm saying is that this stuff is a Neo-Platonism. The arguments over if the words I'm using are imperfect, I could lose every single one of those and as long as nobody shows that this isn't a Platonism. Neo-Platonism has a tendency to get shithouse crazy assed. Systematics get built and those systematics goto nutty places in an effort to be consistent. Because when one makes a truth claim of this type, one inevitably has to "shoehorn everything they see and hear into it" because if you can't do that then truth claim is false. Because then it's not a universal perfect form anymore. Mrparkbench thinks I'm making a slippery slope argument. That's not the case, all this is already over the cliff. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
E: Nope, gently caress it.
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Exactly like somebody I know But what are we meant to take from it? Bronner said "everybody get together and stop fighting." Koch says "remove all the laws except ones that enrich me." What the hell action are you proposing? People calling themselves Platonists isn't significant in any way unless they do something. What are you doing? Are we supposed to worship your insane clockwork god by hallucinating, in imitation of you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:But what are we meant to take from it? Bronner said "everybody get together and stop fighting." Koch says "remove all the laws except ones that enrich me." What the hell action are you proposing? People calling themselves Platonists isn't significant in any way unless they do something. What are you doing? Are we supposed to worship your insane clockwork god by hallucinating, in imitation of you? Does it matter where it goes? I don't have a goddamn clue where the final place "Math is reality" or "the universe is a simulation" stuff is going to go. These things always go someplace different in the same way. I'd guess all this will head towards some sort of trans-humanism, but that'd be speculatory even for me. But it doesn't matter. I really mean that too, it doesn't matter at all where it goes. But I do think we can say things about what the apology and the systematic are going to look like (obviously because I'm making assertions of that type). My own beliefs go to "Love your neighbor as yourself", but that can get turned into "Let's rape the poo poo out of South America", or "let's go on a crusade", or "let's kill these Indians", or "with this sign, you will conquer". It doesn't matter at all where it goes. Any sort of idea X is reality claim, is also an X is true or an X is the good, type of statement. Those types of assertions let people say, Y is against the truth, Y is against reality, Y is against the good about other people. They can be justification for any action and have been over and over again historically. I'm not saying the people in thread will do those things, either, just that they are being very naive about idealism. I'm saying that when one makes idealistic statements one has to confront the massive problems that travel with idealism. Hell, I'm not even saying don't be idealistic. I can't be the only one who looks at Tegmark publishing this idea as a paper in a scientific journal who goes: holy poo poo that's a shocking amount of naivety on the part of the journal. This is also why I'm being an rear end in a top hat. People on SA were nice enough to be assholes to me about it when I started exploring my own beliefs(and I'm genuinely appreciative of that).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Please give me a point by point progression where you start with "Math can be used to accurately simulate the universe" and end with "Let's commit genocide", because that is an extraordinarily stupid statement even for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
People in this thread need Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Dean of Swing posted:People in this thread need Jesus. in the face of an unremittingly absurd world its good to have a fundamental source of meaning to keep you grounded, even if it is wrong, imho.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Brandor man I don't even know how to reply all the stuff you continue to be spewing here. You are making extrapolationas and assertions based on the idea that "Some people will try to demonstrate xyz if they accept premise a. Therefore premise a is bad" or, alternatively the stronger claim "Conclusion x, which I don't agree with, logically follows from premise a. Therefore a is bad". I can't say I follow precisely what about conclusion x is so inevitable and horrendous, because I'm not sure what you are saying conclusion x is. You are applying terms from theology that I can't claim to have a strong grasp of, so it is difficult for me to comment on them individually, but you have yet to satisfactorily demonstrate that the theological perspective in necessarily relevant here. We are not starting at a place of faith, we are starting from reason and seeing where the conclusions take us. If the premise fails based on reason alone then it fails and should be dismissed of. There is no point in arguing the ethical or theological implications of an idea like this when we haven't even gotten past the starting gate. First off I want to be clear here: Math is logic, the two are equivalent. The apparent difference is just the naming and grouping of structures that can be built up using basic axioms and rules. And rational argument is the process of invoking a logical structure to validate a claim. If you believe in the validity of this process, I think you have to accept that the underlying logic is real and immutable, otherwise the argument must be meaningless/subjective/a product of artificial invention, so no objective assertion of truth can come of it. So basically I think some form of platonism is inevitable, else we are forced to admit that all attempts at argument amount to asinine bullshit. And you talk about platonism (in a general sense) as if it's a dirty word, by asserting that it must for some reason imply Neo Platonism, which is a specific mysticism and by no means follows directly from an assertion that forms are real. All the implications about having gone 'over the cliff' are reliant on this unfounded equivalence. One can very easily believe in a literal sense that the laws of physics and reality are fully defined by some logical form without going on to assert anything about demiurge. Also to clarify the simulation issue here, while it's maybe fun to think about, the implication of the OP was supposed to be that it is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. Even if a universe simulation CAN be run, it is simply a replication of a pre-existing structure, no creation necessary. So I think in the end any conclusions that come from this line of thought are completely meaningless. Skeesix posted:
I don't think there is much circle jerk going on here since most of us have expressed strong reservations about Tegmark's prescription, but in any case, I don't think you should base your opinion of this topic on an article which poses the illuminating question "But then how do you explain CONSCIOUSNESS, Man??" (Tegmark's explanation is pretty poorly defined but I see what he is getting at, and it's better than any form of dualism) As for the Woit post, he has some points re: it's not science, but he's also basically just a hater relying on ad hominem attacks against Tegmark's funding sources and motivations, combined with a bit of bitterness due to his own personal crusade. Read all the comments for some of the most immature bickering you will ever find between a group of well-known physicists (Smolin makes an appearence as well).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Mr. Parkbench sorry I'm responding so long after your post I'd didn't notice it until now. I want you to look at this statement. "One can very easily believe in a literal sense that the laws of physics and reality are fully defined by some logical form without going on to assert anything about demiurge." In that one sentence you state you don't have say anything about demiurge while simultaneously asserting the existence of one of the three ordering principles of the nous. This: "the laws of physics and reality" is identical to this "the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances". You're contradicting yourself within the statement by talking about a thing while simultaneously denying it exists. The thing you are starting from, reason, is the the thing you are asserting does not exist in that sentence. The demiurge is the nous (mind) which has the three ordering principles, beginning (things coming into existence), word (reason), or harmony (ratio, math). All three of those things are being talked about in this conversation. When you say something like this "We are starting from reason", you are making a spiritual mystical assertion. When you say math is logic, that's exactly the same as saying harmony and word are one. These types of assertions are not different from religious spiritual/mystical assertions. The first Christian systematics with a cosmology were in large part Origen drawing from / reacting to Plotinus. I mean this next thing seriously, it's in no way a joke. "We are starting from Reason" is not any different saying "We are starting from an angel". That what that word is "messenger of reason". Then you go here. "So basically I think some form of platonism is inevitable" saying some thing like this is identical to a religious person saying God is provable. That's a dangerous thing to do. But this whole conversation is only possible between people who think some sort of universal is real. So basically can you see what I'm doing, I'm making GBS threads on something I myself participate in. Who What Now posted:Please give me a point by point progression where you start with "Math can be used to accurately simulate the universe" and end with "Let's commit genocide", because that is an extraordinarily stupid statement even for you. Math is the starting point of idealism. Platonism comes out of Pythagoreanism. Math and idealism have been tied up together for as long as we've had math. In our times what has the relationship between idealism and the actions of nations been? What does romantic nationalism lead to? And would there be a point? You've had a history of being pretty drat nominalist in nearly all conversation with me. Why the gently caress would an religious idealist need to explain to a nominalist why religious idealism can be really dangerous? Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And would there be a point? Yeah, you would make yourself seem credible and capable of arguing in good faith, as well as help me and others understand you and your thought process. You have this really bad habit of making outlandish claims and then getting incredibly pissy when someone asks you to stop and explain it further, like you did just now when you started throwing your own Ad-Homs. If you can't do it then just loving admit that you made an outlandish claim, and move on. There's no need for you to throw a temper-tantrum about it like a child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, you would make yourself seem credible and capable of arguing in good faith, as well as help me and others understand you and your thought process. You have this really bad habit of making outlandish claims and then getting incredibly pissy when someone asks you to stop and explain it further, like you did just now when you started throwing your own Ad-Homs. If you can't do it then just loving admit that you made an outlandish claim, and move on. There's no need for you to throw a temper-tantrum about it like a child. You're missing it. Can you and I even have a conversation about anything. I'm entirely serious. I'm obsessed with a universals. You very often argue as if universal don't exist and totally and completely miss the point of any type of conversation about them. I assume there is a common basis for communication between individuals in that we all exist in the same reality. I'm always looking for it in every conversation I try to have. I don't find it with you. You reject every attempt to find something shared that actual communication could be built on. You have conversations with me and there are conclusions reached by one of us or the other and there is no carry over. I didn't make an outlandish claim. I made a claim that was simplistic and pretty drat widespread. Idealism gets used to justify very bad things. That's not really controversial claim. What's the point in having a conversation with you about that? I'm arguing, a thing you don't participate in and don't think is real often has result X. We'll only end up talking past each other, yet again. I could make arguments about how if one starts with math, one ends up with a cosmology. A story defining where we are from and where we might go (like Cosmos). What happens when, a cosmology, a myth of origin (doesn't matter which one it is) is politicized by a state? Bad things, over and over again. But those arguments don't matter, because you and I can't even get to a conversation like that. Even if I make arguments that given all things you've argued before, should be common ground, nothing. The subject of this thread is that a scientist (Tegmark) is asserting that there is a universal essential (math) set of relationships that is expressed in and is inseparable from the physical universe. It's an assertion of a highest universal form, and it's being argued to be provable. I'm going after that and pretty drat aggressively. For fucks sake there should be common ground between us in this conversation. Can you really not see it? Edit: I was wondering when I'd piss somebody off enough to get a red title. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
That's not, in fact, the argument you made. This is: 1. Some idealist beliefs have been used to justify very bad political outcomes. 2. Mathematical idealism is idealist. 3. Therefore, mathematical idealism is in grave danger of producing very bad political outcomes. There are gaping holes in this inference (i.e. it is an outlandish claim) that you are obligated to bridge (i.e. explain further) if you want to be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Peel posted:That's not, in fact, the argument you made. This is: Thank you. This was going to be the core of my rebuttal, and you said it better than I could. I'm gonna try to edit in a full reply to Brandor later if I have the time. -small EDIT- It goes back to the issue of not understanding degrees. A mathematically simulated universe is not comparable to a humans "simulated" perception of reality. Likewise, talking about math as a "universal" (which I don't believe Brandor is using the same way I or other people would use the word universal) is not the same as talking about a religious "universal being". Brandor we don't come to consensus because you don't communicate effectively. You use different meanings of a word in nebulous, and sometimes simultaneous and contradictory, ways with absolutely no explanation. And when asked, especially by me, you absolutely flip out and accuse the other people of being the problem. Look at everything you wrote. You spent ten times more effort ranting and raving about how I refuse to communicate than you ever would have had you just answered my question in the first place. When I try to meet you in the middle and come to an understanding of your current point you accuse me of being unreasonable. When I try to be forceful you cry and moan about ad hominems while slinging just as many at me. So how the gently caress am I supposed to communicate with you, then? We're not here to be your audience for your sermons, Brandor, so that means you're going to have to stop and answer questions and clarify when someone asks you to do so. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Peel posted:That's not, in fact, the argument you made. This is: Any idealism irregardless of what it is, can be used to justify very bad outcomes. It's not some it's all. Again the example I gave earlier, The "Love each other" of Christianity was used be to justify rape and genocide all over South America. The particulars of the ideal don't matter. Having an ideal creates the problem. Is there something special about mathematics that exempts it from the problem? Reason/Logic as an ideal has been used the same way (the Reign of Terror) Moreover, Is there something about mathematics that exacerbates the problem? MrParkbench said something I don't disagree with. Math is logic, the two are equivalent. All of the idealism(s) that are systematic in character (by systematic I mean, a methodical logical consistent group of conclusions is built on the initial axioms) are mathematical in character because one systematizes using logic. The various neo-platonic crap I've been comparing this "math is real" stuff to are systematics, they are logical constructions from initial axioms. They are built logically and are mathematical. That's why I brought up Origen. This stuff worked it's way into Christianity. Angels in heaven talk, transcendent ideals talk, is logical systematizing from initial axioms. Hell the whole method, the axiomatic method itself, I don't think it can really be divorced from any of this. Trying the describe the entire universe with math and logic, well that is trying to make everything one with the highest form. I'm not arguing "in grave danger of", It's "has already" and repeatedly. Who What Now, I'll respond to you tomorrow. edit: WWN and Peel didn't get it done today, will try to get the post finished tomorrow. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Any idealism irregardless of what it is, can be used to justify very bad outcomes. It's not some it's all. I do not accept this as a valid premise, but rather as an outlandish claim that you're going to have to back up. Like I asked you the first time. You keep starting with a premise or axiom and then quickly jump to a conclusion assuming that everyone already agrees with your starting position. This isn't always the case. You're going to have to build a justified base to your claims that everyone agrees that they understand and are valid before you can start moving on to other things. This is, bar none, your absolute greatest weakness as communicator and what I've been struggling to tell you for years now. -EDIT2- To be absolutely clear with you, while I agree that some ideals can be used to justify some bad outcomes, I do not agree that all ideals can be used to justify any bad outcome, and I am not convinced that there isn't an ideal that cannot be used to justify a bad outcome. I'm not sure what that may be, or if it does in fact exist, but I absolutely do not accept your assertion that all ideals ever can be used for bad ends. quote:Who What Now, I'll respond to you tomorrow. I wait with bated breath. -EDIT- I didn't buy you that avatar/title, but I love whoever did. Glorious. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Having an ideal creates the problem. Why. How does it create the problem? As WWN says, you really need to clearly explain this proposition (both what an ideal is and why it is bad) and then justify it. I have a few ideas regarding what I think you're saying, from this and other threads, but I need you to put it out there as clearly as possible first so that we don't start sliding around. This seems like your big thesis across a lot of threads I've seen you in so it's important. Peel fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Peel posted:Why. Because Truth (emphasis on the capitalization) claims are always exclusive of all other Truth claims. If a universal is universal it is present everywhere, in everything (and every idea), that fundamentally excludes the validity of any other claims to universality. Once you say ideal X is the Truth or X is reality then you've got the problem. From there you end one with a couple of different situations. The worst one is if you're dualistic. Then you got a situation where X is the Truth, and people who are against X are against the Truth. The group that participates in the Truth claim has othered every one else that doesn't. Combine that with something asserted in this thread, the nature of how the universal ideal is expressed. In this thread it was that math is one and the same with the physical reality, so we've got the universal expressed in all specific concretes, which is sort of Aristolean. Well that (universal expressed in particular concretes) includes us, people. So when you've got a Truth claim and dualism (and don't limit this to only dualism, a poly situation would be the same) it leads to one group looking at another group and concluding they don't have the truth, the universal, in them. That conclusion is the same as they don't have reality in them or they aren't real people. That's very bad. It's leads to genocide bad. A example from conversations in D&D is Victor. A truth claim combined with dualism leads to Victor concluding Pipel is going to hell. (Pipel is from Elie Wiesel's book Night, and is a young boy hanged by the Nazis in the holocaust.) Other thinking that is this way is the libertarian stuff, you've got a Truth (Freedom) and a dualism (all those commie/socialists are against freedom), it reaches equally objectionable conclusions very quickly. And of course there is variation by degree, sometimes I forget that. The other general situation is mono. No dualism (or at-least no ontological dualism). In this case the Truth claim ends up having to roll all other truths into itself. This comes back again to: "well that includes us" (if we are instances of the universal expressed in specific concretes). It's a totalizing situation. People eventually end up as the object of the totalizing and that's fundamentally dehumanizing to individuals. That's really dangerous. Which relates to WWN's counterpoint is there a situation where this isn't the case? Is there an ideal that doesn't dehumanize us as individuals when this totalizing happens? I don't have an answer to that. There might be. The ideal I believe in totalizes in this way (We are all children of the Father and brothers and sisters of Christ). It carries this same risk of dehumanizing others. I guess that's at the root of what I'm trying to say. When one says "Math is real" one takes that risk. It's a big goddamn risk. This was a whole thread of people taking that risk in a naive way. Thinking math is somehow exempt because it's math. Who What Now posted:It goes back to the issue of not understanding degrees. A mathematically simulated universe is not comparable to a humans "simulated" perception of reality. Likewise, talking about math as a "universal" (which I don't believe Brandor is using the same way I or other people would use the word universal) is not the same as talking about a religious "universal being". By universal I mean present everywhere in all things. And if math is universal a mathematically simulated universe is definitely comparable to a humans "simulated" perception of reality. If they aren't comparable math isn't universal. The highest form (by form I mean a universal platonic ideal) as God the Father is the doctrine of a majority of the denominations Christianity. When people say something like "God is Love" they are asserting exactly this. It gets in by Aristotle. Remember that axiomatic method, well the axiomatic method, arguing logically, that's towards the end of unifying all ideals with the highest ideal. It's the highest ideal drawing all things in towards itself by reason towards a unity. That drawing inward to the highest form gets called love (by Aristotle). So, when some Christian repeats a statement like "God is love", all this is implied, even if the person saying it doesn't know it's implied (it is especially implied if they are Catholic). But talk about a universal, a highest form, is definitely not different than talk about a monotheistic God. I think what I just did there is why we don't communicate. I think even small statements, even ones that seem innocuous usually imply total systems of thought (unless the statement is nonsense or absurd). In the context of the thread "Math is real" implies a whole system of thought to me. I think word usage does the same thing. Word usage is also affected by these implied contexts. Words have a literal meaning, a symbolic meaning, and a metaphorical meaning, and they also carry the connotation of the things they have been used to say in the past. And even the literal meaning of a word can vary with it's context. So words are nebulous and contradictory just because they are words. Insisting they only mean one thing, that's a totalizing act too. I flip out on you, because I'm reacting to that. You want me to do this: "You're going to have to build a justified base to your claims that everyone agrees that they understand and are valid before you can start moving on to other things." What I tend to do is point to various places where that's already been done. I'm often responding with claims taken from a systematic (usually I remember to say which one when I do this.) From my side it seems like the conversation you want to have is one about the details of the systematic, how does it get from A to Z. Well that part of it is just a logical progression, it is a series. It's already played out. Maybe I can make the point more concrete. Take something like this statement you made. "Likewise, talking about math as a "universal" (which I don't believe Brandor is using the same way I or other people would use the word universal) is not the same as talking about a religious "universal being"." You want me to give you something like a proof for my statement. Axiom followed by the arguments. All I think I have do is say neoplatonist thought got sucked up into Christianity. God as the highest form had worked it's way into neo-platonism before that, via Aristotle. From The History of Christian Thought (Tillich) "In this way the Aristotelian God, as the highest form, came into Christian theology and played a tremendous role there." You want me to make an logical argument to back up a assertion. From my side I don't need to do that. I'm asserting a fact. It's a thing happened that's part of history. So we end up talking past each other, yet again. Frankly it's exhausting. Then the next conversation deals with something else entirely. And then you expect me to be using the words in the same way as before, and I don't (different context) and we argue past each other again. Worse it might not really be a different conversation. We could be talking about the same topic being discussed but with radically different symbols or language. An example: In this post I described this idea: The highest ideal drawing all things in towards itself by reason (love) towards a unity. You and I have talked about that exact idea before. I asserted it was in Christianity and was being criticized harshly. You even brought up the exact conversation that, that occurred in, in this thread. But I'm pretty sure you don't know what I'm referring to. And that's exhausting. I don't know how to bridge the gap and communicate. Things I see as outright obvious, statements that I see as being straight forward, you challenge. I respond and you don't even recognize my response as a response. Well I guess I get to find out if be angry and keep talking works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:When you say something like this "We are starting from reason", you are making a spiritual mystical assertion. When you say math is logic, that's exactly the same as saying harmony and word are one. These types of assertions are not different from religious spiritual/mystical assertions. The first Christian systematics with a cosmology were in large part Origen drawing from / reacting to Plotinus. I mean this next thing seriously, it's in no way a joke. "We are starting from Reason" is not any different saying "We are starting from an angel". That what that word is "messenger of reason". Say whatever you want about semantics, you can't participate in a discussion like this without agreeing to do battle in the same arena as the other participants. You talk about words being used in context, but refuse to apply this principle to your own rebuttals. If you want to assert that reason is just angels with or without wings, you're going to have to back it up with more than just "Plotinus". No one else in this thread is going to accept your argument here so it's worthless to use it as an offhand assertion. In the end, it doesn't matter really if you want to label the 'universal' as 'God' or 'math' as 'Jesus's poetry'. It's not relevant to the discussion at hand and provides no explanatory value. You can fall back on 'but systematics blah blah blah', but then you are assuming that the rest of us are willing to accept all and any conclusions drawn from theology. The point is, this didn't start as a theological discussion, we aren't attempting to discuss this from a theological perspective, so it's hard to view your posts as anything but a derail. e: As an aside, for those who may have doubted the actuality of the multiverse in the first place, physicists have just announced the discovery of pretty compelling evidence of an inflationary big bang: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25249-multiverse-gets-real-with-glimpse-of-big-bang-ripples.html#.UyoLmV7B87s mrParkbench fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You want me to make an logical argument to back up a assertion. From my side I don't need to do that. I'm asserting a fact. It's a thing happened that's part of history. I'm going to start with, and focus mainly on, this point that you've made. And for multiple reasons, because what you've said here is wrong on quite a few levels. Like, astoundingly, stunningly wrong. Such that I'm having difficulty even comprehending that you could write this sentence and not understand how utterly wrong it is. But let's not dither on that and move onto something more useful. What you're saying isn't a fact. It's not. At all. Period, end of story. Facts are obvious, Brandor, and cannot in any way be disputed by anyone ever. The mere fact that I can bring legitimate greivances and logical contradictions to what your saying proves that what you're saying is not a fact. You mentioned that you believe that I treat absolutes as if they do not exist. But I do. There are many absolutes in the existence, most of which I cannot quantify. But one that I can quantify is that a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. Facts are inarguable and instantly recognizable. And what you call "fact" or "absolute" is almost always neither. Things such as the Law of Identity, "A=A", is a fact. By it's very nature it is impossible to deny or contradict. It is fact and it is absolute; it is concrete and irrefutable. I would even call it a gold standard of fact. But most important any of those is that it is demonstrable. Facts are demonstrable. Always. And they are demonstrable on demand as well. These are fundamental things that define a fact, these are fundamental descriptors of universal truths. So I really don't care at all if you "feel" you don't need to do that, because quite frankly you are simply wrong. If you need to obfuscate your point then it isn't a fact, simple as that. I know that I'm repeating myself a lot, but you do too, so I'll say once more; if you can't demonstrate what your saying on demand then it's not a fact. And if you choose to be a petty rear end in a top hat about it, then I don't have to take your word for it, and you have no right to get pissy when I don't. Do you understand what I'm saying yet? Do you understand that you aren't using a usable definition of fact? Do you understand that the very core of your arguments are flawed from the start because they rest on ill-defined and indeed outright wrong concepts? And if what you believe is somehow backed up by facts then loving DEMONSTRATE IT. Until you do you have no right to be angry at me for not believing you, because you have no more credibility than a simple con-artist; a profession you emulate in your every post. BrandorKP posted:By universal I mean present everywhere in all things. And if math is universal a mathematically simulated universe is definitely comparable to a humans "simulated" perception of reality. If they aren't comparable math isn't universal. Then you're not operating under definitions that the rest of us are, and you need to say so. When I, and I assume others, say "universal" in context of a mathematical simulation we mean "applicable to a simulated universe". You know, because we are talking about simulations. We don't mean "applicable to all reality and imaginable scenarios", like you are using it. Again, this goes back to your inability to differentiate between degrees. And I don't know how to teach you the ability to understand simple context over the internet. But quite frankly I don't see that as my failing, but yours. BrandorKP posted:The highest form (by form I mean a universal platonic ideal) Before I or anyone else addresses this you're going to have to define "universal platonic ideal". I've already explained that you aren't using universal correctly, and quite frankly I don't believe you're using "platonic" or "ideal" correctly either. So I'm going to ignore the rest of this paragraph until you elucidate. BrandorKP posted:I think what I just did there is why we don't communicate. I think even small statements, even ones that seem innocuous usually imply total systems of thought (unless the statement is nonsense or absurd).  BrandorKP posted:Words have a literal meaning, a symbolic meaning, and a metaphorical meaning, I absolutely agree with you on this point. Words do have multiple meanings of literal, symbolic, and metaphorical natures. Sometimes they even have multiples of each! Here's the difference that I understand and that you are ignorant of, however. Words do not always have all of those meanings simultaneously. But you believe, completely incorrectly, that they do. Or at the very least you ignore any definitions that are clearly intended and substitute in ones that you feel are more convenient for your argument. That being said, you could and probably will claim that I do the same thing to you. However, I don't go out of my way to misrepresent your arguments. In fact most of the time I don't even bother to address your arguments; because I'm more interested in your premises. Premises that are founded on incorrect assumptions and axioms. THAT more than anything you claim is the biggest obstacle in communication between you and me. You refuse to discuss your base axioms. I have many thoughts as to why, none of which speak highly of you, but that's unimportant. You need to take a step back from all your posting and you need to reevaluate the core principles of your beliefs. You need to ask yourself if that are consistent and logically sound. And if you do that I think you'll find very quickly that they are neither. BrandorKP posted:I flip out on you, because I'm reacting to that. No, I believe you flip out on my because you know what I'm saying makes sense, and that makes you uncomfortable. So rather than review your own thoughts on the subject you push those aside and lash out. As I'm probably the most vocal and consistent person to challenge your ideas you've chosen me as a target for that. BrandorKP posted:You want me to do this: "You're going to have to build a justified base to your claims that everyone agrees that they understand and are valid before you can start moving on to other things." What I tend to do is point to various places where that's already been done. I'm often responding with claims taken from a systematic (usually I remember to say which one when I do this.) From my side it seems like the conversation you want to have is one about the details of the systematic, how does it get from A to Z. Well that part of it is just a logical progression, it is a series. It's already played out. If it's a logical series, if it's already played out, then it should be TRIVIALLY easy for you to restate it. So why can't you, Brandor? In all the years I've challenged you you've never been able to give me step-by-step deconstructions. Now, perhaps you're just incredibly, stunningly lazy. I certainly can't discount that. But I think a more probable explanation is that you simply can't. And so you go to great lengths to obfuscate that fact. BrandorKP posted:Maybe I can make the point more concrete. Take something like this statement you made. "Likewise, talking about math as a "universal" (which I don't believe Brandor is using the same way I or other people would use the word universal) is not the same as talking about a religious "universal being"." You want me to give you something like a proof for my statement. Axiom followed by the arguments. You're quite right. I want you to explain yourself in a logically mapped argument that flows step-by-step from start to finish. This is neither difficult nor unreasonable. And yet you've always, ALWAYS, fought against doing so tooth and nail. BrandorKP posted:All I think I have do is say neoplatonist thought got sucked up into Christianity. God as the highest form had worked it's way into neo-platonism before that, via Aristotle. From The History of Christian Thought (Tillich) "In this way the Aristotelian God, as the highest form, came into Christian theology and played a tremendous role there." I don't accept neoplatonism as valid. Demonstrate that it is. See, this again is the difficulty I have with you. You refuse to build a base to your arguments, you simply jump to the conclusion. It doesn't work like that, Brandor. It never has and it never will. BrandorKP posted:You want me to make an logical argument to back up a assertion. Well holy shitballs on Christmas Eve. You're saying I want you to do something that is neither difficult nor unwarranted? Truly I am an unreasonable monster. BrandorKP posted:From my side I don't need to do that. I'm asserting a fact. It's a thing happened that's part of history. I've already addressed this. Yes you do, no you aren't, and no it isn't. Respectively. BrandorKP posted:So we end up talking past each other, yet again. Frankly it's exhausting. You're telling me. BrandorKP posted:Then the next conversation deals with something else entirely. And then you expect me to be using the words in the same way as before, Well holy loving poo poo, I expect you to be consistent with your meanings? Whelp, you've convinced me, I'm an unreasonable dick. I mean, why should someone mean the same thing more than once? That's loving crazy! Only an insane person would hold views that could expressed in a consistent way. BrandorKP posted:Worse it might not really be a different conversation. We could be talking about the same topic being discussed but with radically different symbols or language. This has literally never happened. BrandorKP posted:An example: ...I've refreshed several times before posting this and there is literally nothing here. (Imagine that). BrandorKP posted:I don't know how to bridge the gap and communicate. This has a SUPER easy fix to it. Ok, are you ready? You need to stop your train of thought, back up, rethink the portion that I'm questioning it, and address my questions fully and succinctly before moving on. Again, for another time, you seem to be completely unable to form a BASE for your argument, you simply want to move to the conclusion because you assume that your axioms and assumptions will be accepted. And when they aren't your ability to communicate turns to absolute poo poo. That's your failing, Brandor. Not mine, not anyone else's in this thread or on this forum, but YOURS. BrandorKP posted:Things I see as outright obvious, statements that I see as being straight forward, you challenge. I respond and you don't even recognize my response as a response. Again, to drive this point home, you need to think. What is the simplest explanation? That I, and everyone who agrees with my criticsms, are being assholes for no other reason to piss you off, or that you're fundamental arrgument is flawed and needs to be reworked? It's the latter
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Because Truth (emphasis on the capitalization) claims are always exclusive of all other Truth claims. If a universal is universal it is present everywhere, in everything (and every idea), that fundamentally excludes the validity of any other claims to universality. quote:Once you say ideal X is the Truth or X is reality then you've got the problem. From there you end one with a couple of different situations. The worst one is if you're dualistic. Then you got a situation where X is the Truth, and people who are against X are against the Truth. The group that participates in the Truth claim has othered every one else that doesn't. Combine that with something asserted in this thread, the nature of how the universal ideal is expressed. In this thread it was that math is one and the same with the physical reality, so we've got the universal expressed in all specific concretes, which is sort of Aristolean. Well that (universal expressed in particular concretes) includes us, people. So when you've got a Truth claim and dualism (and don't limit this to only dualism, a poly situation would be the same) it leads to one group looking at another group and concluding they don't have the truth, the universal, in them. That conclusion is the same as they don't have reality in them or they aren't real people. That's very bad. It's leads to genocide bad. quote:The other general situation is mono. No dualism (or at-least no ontological dualism). In this case the Truth claim ends up having to roll all other truths into itself. This comes back again to: "well that includes us" (if we are instances of the universal expressed in specific concretes). It's a totalizing situation. People eventually end up as the object of the totalizing and that's fundamentally dehumanizing to individuals. That's really dangerous. Which relates to WWN's counterpoint is there a situation where this isn't the case? Is there an ideal that doesn't dehumanize us as individuals when this totalizing happens? I don't have an answer to that. There might be. The ideal I believe in totalizes in this way (We are all children of the Father and brothers and sisters of Christ). It carries this same risk of dehumanizing others. I like that concept and would be interested in seeing it explored in speculative fiction (and it has been). But they key word there is 'speculative'. As a claim about the real world, two big problems come to mind. 1. Regarding freedom specifically, we have no need of mathematical ontology to do away with it. Psychology, neurology and physics can do the job by themselves. More generally you're putting a lot of emphasis on the dangers of 'universal claims' to produce bad ideas. Others would say that most people don't give a fig about metaphysics and get their bad ideas from elsewhere. 2. Even more generally, and more fundamentally, you're assuming an extremely idealist sociological model. That some idea of high ontology in the academy has possible consequences in the form of other ideas and those ideas are the source of political evil. But this isn't the only model of society. The truth of your model is an empirical claim, and you at least gesture towards this fact with your later statement 'I'm asserting a fact. It's a thing happened that's part of history.'* But your examples don't actually demonstrate much. Take the way you invoke the 'love your neighbour' of Christianity underpinning colonial atrocities. it's not at all clear that the causation works how you say. A Marxist or other economist could explain colonial atrocities as expressions of material conditions, not the working out of the consequences of idealist speculations. A different sociologist might point to the specifics of political organisation to explain the same phenomena. Your treatment of these things is a speculative explanation of them, not a marshalling of them as evidence for your speculation. You consistently have problems in threads, and I think it's not just because you express yourself in an abstruse, sometimes obtuse, and disorganised way, but because you focus your posts on your idiosyncratic metaphysical concerns that presuppose your immense and extremely contentious sociological assumptions. Which leads us to: quote:I guess that's at the root of what I'm trying to say. When one says "Math is real" one takes that risk. It's a big goddamn risk. This was a whole thread of people taking that risk in a naive way. Thinking math is somehow exempt because it's math. *Okay, I've now read your post in more detail and this was just more metaphysical rambling. So yeah. You talk about the hidden implications of words: yours imply vast and incredible sociological claims. Peel fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Greg Egan (Australian hard sci-fi writer.) had a really interesting proposion in Permutation city that I thinks kind of fun to think about (remember, although Egans stuff tends to be mathematically sounds [he IS after all a published physicist+mathematician], these are just stories and are intended to be taken that way). In the book he posits this thing called the "Autoverse" which is a giant computerized cellular automata simulator , and the protagonist commisions a mathematician to create a simple cellular automata that runs on it capable of sustaining a complex enough physics to model a universe capable of holding humans. The book has a theory called "The dust theory" that if you could create a mathematical model of the universe where you could plug into it a point of time and a location in space , it could tell you what is there without necessarily having to run the intervening steps up to it (This in itself is problematic, but hey as I said its fiction). Thus he scans himself into it and then starts running the simulation backwards , chopped into pieces, and various other non linear and disordered ways to see if the version of him in the simulation would percieve the non directionality of time. The simulation doesnt. Thus this allows the simulation to percieve a complete universe on a computer unable to track or simulate that complete universe since its able to just dial in a time/space coordinate and report whats actually at that position. The book goes on further to essentially speculate that reality sort of can exist within a perfectly mathematically determinist universe simply by virtue of the fact that *within* that algorithm, it logically must exist, and theres no real way to know if this reality is simply the implication of such an algorithm of has some sort of reality beyond the logical substrate, but rather just within the implictation of a set of rules. The book itself has much more going on, including a sort of false-vacuum scenario where one universe gets destroyed because another of a set of equasions within it that are even MORE logically sound than the ones its running, amongst other things. Egan might not always write the best characters (He tends to have characters who monologue on for pages at a time about math or physics, I guess because he's writing characters who think like him), but god drat it does he write loving amazing ideas. As I said, its just a fiction book and not a serious physics or metaphysics speculation, but its fun to think about. duck monster fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What you're saying isn't a fact. It's not. At all. Period, end of story. Facts are obvious, Brandor, and cannot in any way be disputed by anyone ever. The mere fact that I can bring legitimate greivances and logical contradictions to what your saying proves that what you're saying is not a fact. This is incorrect. Wittgenstein dismissed this notion almost a century ago, beautifully summarizing that a fact is merely "the apparent state of affairs". Who What Now posted:Before I or anyone else addresses this you're going to have to define "universal platonic ideal". I've already explained that you aren't using universal correctly, and quite frankly I don't believe you're using "platonic" or "ideal" correctly either. So I'm going to ignore the rest of this paragraph until you elucidate. A universal is a philosophical object that exists independent of the mind. "Platonic" refers to the philosopher which popularized the concept of universal, immaterial Forms. Ideal refers to the immaterial, perfect existence of this Form. Do not get confused by the fact it is ideal yet mind-independent. Who What Now posted:I don't accept neoplatonism as valid. Demonstrate that it is. See, this again is the difficulty I have with you. You refuse to build a base to your arguments, you simply jump to the conclusion. It doesn't work like that, Brandor. It never has and it never will. Neoplatonism is valid. Given its premises, neoplatonism's conclusion is necessarily true. This is all it takes for an argument to be valid. You merely do not think that it accurately describes anything. This is completely different from validity. Also, he has built a base for his arguments. As solid a base as you have, in fact. You simply reject his premises, and he rejects your premises. This is an intractable problem and there is nothing one can do to "build" an axiom up. BrandorKP, you should probably make a more concerted effort to remain consistent in your definitions. I do not think your audience has a nuanced enough understanding of philosophy to identify, from context alone, what definition you are working with in any given instance. Words do have several, context-dependent meanings in philosophy, but you just can't expect everyone to be familiar with them. Judakel fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Peel posted:I don't know what you mean by 'emphasis on the capitalisation' but it is true that any truth claim excludes any contradictory truth claim. However this is a chunk of metaphysical speculation that I don't think is actually very important. He intends to highlight the difference between personal truths and universal Truths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Judakel posted:
Please don't come in here to stoke Brandor's fires if you haven't bothered to actually break down the arguments. This isn't about premises, it's about refusing to consistently apply mutually acceptable definitions of terms. This isn't something that requires a 'nuanced enough understanding of philosophy'. Inconsistent definitions mean that you literally aren't talking about the same thing from one paragraph to the next. Allowing this type of wordplay in an argument is immediate grounds for dismissal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Nothing to see here.
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
mrParkbench posted:Please don't come in here to stoke Brandor's fires if you haven't bothered to actually break down the arguments. This isn't about premises, it's about refusing to consistently apply mutually acceptable definitions of terms. This isn't something that requires a 'nuanced enough understanding of philosophy'. Inconsistent definitions mean that you literally aren't talking about the same thing from one paragraph to the next. Allowing this type of wordplay in an argument is immediate grounds for dismissal. BrandorKP has been pretty consistent in his application of terms, but some terms have different meanings depending on context. Your assessment of BrandorKP's style of argumentation is completely off-base. Were he truly that useless, he would've been banned by now, much like Victor. His terms do actually provide explanatory value, you just have to have some foundational knowledge. I encourage you to re-read his posts and ask for clarification on any terms you are uncertain about; I am more than happy to clarify for you if he doesn't respond. Declaring that he needs to operate on a less sophisticated level is simply not constructive. I can assure you that he is not making it up as he goes along. Moreover, when discussions like this one get dragged down to stupefying levels of simplicity (ie. the definition of "facts" I quoted, GIFs of Peggle characters, etc.) you often have individuals getting away with lazy, clumsy arguments that don't benefit anyone reading the thread. Judakel fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
You're being smug instead of addressing actual arguments. Your definition of 'facts' was entirely irrelevant to the discussion, don't you find it a bit ironic that you are pointing out your own post as an example of 'stupefying simplicity'. The point is, Brandor is relying on some group of definitions you may or may not accept in a way that may or may not be in line with certain schools of philosophical thought. I can tell that you like the way he's doing this, good for you! That has nothing to do with the actual argument he is presenting, which is no more sophisticated than 'Don't you see that this obviously leads to dehumanization and genocide??". He hasn't backed that up at all, except for saying "you fill in the blanks!" and "that's what happens with religion!". It's a very simple fallacy that I can break down for you, feel free to go back if you missed it: X sometimes entails Y, Therefore this instance of X entails Y. If you want to contribute beyond calling the rest of us lazy uneducated cretins, pick a side on that and defend it. e: Not to go too much off on the facts thing, but I know you are going to sit back and smugly think about how I missed the point of your definition. How does the statement "A fact is an apparent state of affairs" in any way go against the conventional (lay person) definition of a fact? What did Wittgenstein say that leads you to think of a fact as anything other than 'that which is the case'? You do know that the word 'apparent' means 'obvious', correct? mrParkbench fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
mrParkbench posted:You're being smug instead of addressing actual arguments. Your definition of 'facts' was entirely irrelevant to the discussion, don't you find it a bit ironic that you are pointing out your own post as an example of 'stupefying simplicity'. The point is, Brandor is relying on some group of definitions you may or may not accept in a way that may or may not be in line with certain schools of philosophical thought. I can tell that you like the way he's doing this, good for you! That has nothing to do with the actual argument he is presenting, which is no more sophisticated than 'Don't you see that this obviously leads to dehumanization and genocide??". He hasn't backed that up at all, except for saying "you fill in the blanks!" and "that's what happens with religion!". It's a very simple fallacy that I can break down for you, feel free to go back if you missed it: X sometimes entails Y, Therefore this instance of X entails Y. If you want to contribute beyond calling the rest of us lazy uneducated cretins, pick a side on that and defend it. I answered smugness with straightforward corrections. If you're going to chastise someone for being smug, at least make sure you distribute your lessons equally. Wittgenstein's definition of facts is actually extremely relevant, since certain parties in this discussion are operating under the assumption that their paradigms cannot be challenged and that the burden of justification lies solely with the other party. This is simply incorrect. It is asinine to suggest that philosophy has nothing to do with this discussion. You are engaging in a philosophical discussion and only one party seems to be aware of this fact. I enjoyed your breakdown, here's what actually happened: BrandorKP simply stated quote:Any sort of idea X is reality claim, is also an X is true or an X is the good, type of statement. Those types of assertions let people say, Y is against the truth, Y is against reality, Y is against the good about other people. and quote:My own beliefs go to "Love your neighbor as yourself", but that can get turned into "Let's rape the poo poo out of South America", or "let's go on a crusade", or "let's kill these Indians", or "with this sign, you will conquer". That turned into this: quote:Please give me a point by point progression where you start with "Math can be used to accurately simulate the universe" and end with "Let's commit genocide", because that is an extraordinarily stupid statement even for you. Returning to the last portion of your post: Read Wittgenstein before you actually comment on his work. A Google search is not enough to prepare for this discussion. Don't chastise me for being "smug" when you're Googling the word "apparent" and mounting a counter-argument from that. In Tractatus, Wittgenstein declares that every fact is contingent. Not immutable, not unimpeachable, and certainly not universal. There's not much room for debate as to what he intended in this regard. This is why it is often translated as "apparent", for it is subject to change in appearance. Judakel fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Ok, I will take back what I said about facts after re-reading what you were responding to, and I agree that Who What Now's statement was problematic, but no more so than Brandor's assertion in the first place (Namely, that his arguments were based on 'facts' that he did not need to justify). Point is, the comment was essentially irrelevant to the discussion here as a whole, and merely served as a platform for you to launch into stroking Brandor's semantic bs. In any case your breakdown was just the last few posts, neglecting most of a discussion that has carried over the last 3 pages. With claims such as: "Reification of the wave function leads people to do things like: Anthropomorpize the universe, talk about secret hidden realities, and to argue for monism" "The small thing, the simple assertion of math as true and real, that assertion that there is a natural law, never stops there" Or finally to sum it up "Having an ideal creates the problem" Meaning, in this context, that belief in a universal truth necessarily leads to morally abhorrent conclusions. And he has backed that up with references to Charles Koch, weird book titles, rape in the name of god, and little else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Anyways, I missed a bunch of stuff that Brandor said earlier, haven't had a chance to address, been busy, but wanna add this in before we get too derailed. Basically my whole issue with your argument of the implications of a universal, is the movement from descriptive truth to prescriptive truth. First off, it rests on an assertion that prescriptive universals even exist in the first place. But seeing you are coming from a religious perspective you clearly believe this to be the case. The question, then, is how can you, starting from a descriptive truth, arrive at a prescriptive truth (as any claim about good/evil surely is)? Your examples always point back to situations which take this for granted. The libertarian perspective arises fundamentally from such a prescriptive belief, as do the morals of any religion. The point is, the descriptive nature of the mathematical universe claim is wholly devoid of any such entailing claim, unless you yourself are tacking it on somehow. So any 'danger' lies in the hands of an individual who is attempting to use a descriptive truth to define what 'ought to be'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Peel posted:I don't know what you mean by 'emphasis on the capitalisation' but it is true that any truth claim excludes any contradictory truth claim. However this is a chunk of metaphysical speculation that I don't think is actually very important. Judakel was spot on. But it's incredibly relevant. Because it's the type of Truth claim "Math is Real" is. You used the phrase "mathematical ontology". Ontology deals with what is real. Ontology deals with what has being or existence, it also deals with the ordering/hierarchy of being and existence. That's metaphysical speculation. Both sides of this conversation are metaphysical speculation. One side is hiding (and I don't think intentionally, I think ironically) that it is. To assert "Math is real" or to characterize an ontology as mathematical is definitely to make an ontological claim. They're engaging in metaphysical speculation. And how ever much Who What Now doesn't like it (or asserts that it isn't case, even though it clearly is historically) onto-philosophy, this type of metaphysical speculation, it's really tied up with theology and monotheism. This: "I don't think is actually very important." That's a naivety. And this is too: mrParkbench posted:First off, it rests on an assertion that prescriptive universals even exist in the first place. They want to have it both ways. They want to say "Math is Real" and make that speculative ontological statement. And they want to deny they are doing it at the same time. Like this: mrParkbench posted:The point is, the descriptive nature of the mathematical universe claim is wholly devoid of any such entailing claim, unless you yourself are tacking it on somehow. This is what's dangerous. Look at the words you use mathematical adj (abstract symbolic study of numbers and change, logic) modifying noun universe (the totality of existence). The words you use make the claim. Mathematical universe, totality of existence has the characteristics of abstract/symbolic logically structured. I don't have to tack it on. It's right there. Peel posted:Is it a 'big risk'? You haven't demonstrated this and it's taken a lot of picking to even get a clear argument for it being a 'big risk', and that argument isn't convincing. You've presented a possible chain of causation from the mathematical ontology to bad political outcomes. You haven't demonstrated that it's likely to instantiate. Maybe I can explain where this "risk" comes from. One way of describing it this risk is "the slaughter bench of history". But personally for me it's explained by answering: Where does monotheism come from? This is because of that totalizing thing. Monotheism develops slowly over time and one can see that in the old testament. But the important part, that comes from Rome. Rome being thought of as the entirety of the world. That leads to the thought that there might be one God for the entire world. It's the totalizing thing. Rome was a totalizing force in a real physical sense. I'll get back to that in second. It looks like that you'll give me that math is a rigid formal structure that when totalized gets rid of our freedom. That's broader problem than I think you realize. Language has the same characteristics. Just communicating creates these rigid formal structures. Just thinking symbolically creates this rigid formal structure that takes away our freedom. So logic, language, math, thought they all do this same thing, they a make structure that underlies reality. This also ends up as part of monotheism (Philo brings this into Judaism). It's that word WWN hates that I use so very often, Logos. This is why MrParkbench, how ever much he wants to making avoid making a claim of this type cannot do so. So there's a physical totalizing (Rome) of the world and this totalizing of ideas. When I think about these things they are not separate, if you do one you're doing the other. Then there is a specific event happens. A relative (at least as far as the Romans are concerned) nobody gets crucified. That ends up being seen as (I think is, but I don't need to argue that to make the point) a negation of all this totalizing, both the real world totalizing of the empire of Rome and the totalizing ideal form, the symbol for all this is the cross. These things are also then inverted and subsumed into that symbol. Anyway, that's the risk of totalizing. That's why I'm being such an rear end in a top hat about it. Naive libertarians asserting "Freedom is real" (and they do this with the idea of praxelogy) they risk putting individuals, real people, on the cross. Naively asserting "Math is real" starts down that same risky path. Somebody like Fred Koch, he starts with "math and rules discovered by science" are real. There is it, that's the root source of my criticism against "Math is real". Totalizing is Titus going to Jerusalem and crucifying thousands (well thousands to hundreds of thousands depending on the source). It's also the root of why I end up doing things like this, making "immense and extremely contentious sociological assumptions". I do the same thing. What is the reason that the way that I think leads doing that? It's because I start with a claim that has the same type of structure as "Math is Real". And really that is the problem in asserting "Math is Real". If you look at Tegmark, the "Math" the guy is talking about isn't the symbols and the numbers we all use. He's talking about Math that is independent of our symbols and language. Transcendent is word for that. And when I've been saying universal or Neo-Platonic form, that's just different language for talking about the transcendent. Any asserting that something is transcendent is fundamentally an immense and extremely contentious assumption. It's far broader than just being sociological. People in this thread are saying a transcendent (Math) is testable. That's as broad and contentious as anything I could have to say. mrParkbench posted:Say whatever you want about semantics, you can't participate in a discussion like this without agreeing to do battle in the same arena as the other participants. You talk about words being used in context, but refuse to apply this principle to your own rebuttals. If you want to assert that reason is just angels with or without wings, you're going to have to back it up with more than just "Plotinus". No one else in this thread is going to accept your argument here so it's worthless to use it as an offhand assertion. That's the most literal meaning of the word angel "messenger of reason". That what the word was created by people to say, that's the concept it introduces to thought. That naive fundamentalists like to imagine winged creature, (taken from Persian mythology), well we can all agree that's silly can't we. One of the Jewish ways to say it was (there were a bunch) Malak elohim. That's messagner of Elohim (God). The Greek word Angelos, that's messenger of the logos (reason). Compare my usage of that word, to your usage of the phrase "mathematical universe". You're make a claim with an adjective modifying all of reality (the universe), while simultaneously telling me you aren't asserting a universal and demanding that I prove you're asserting a universal. Judakel posted:BrandorKP, you should probably make a more concerted effort to remain consistent in your definitions. There's something else going on. Too much consistency seems to separate one from reality. But that's off topic (even for me) to this thread. It'll come up later this stuff always does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
So "totalizing" worldviews result in atrocity? But doesn't this put you in the position of trying to jam every culture that commits atrocities into your definition? Why is this overlay necessary? Why does it augment our ability to see, predict or avoid these abuses?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Brandor I think you totally missed the point of my last point. I'm not attempting to deny that the mathematical universe hypothesis is based on a universal claim, or that it is essentially a form of platonism. The issue I brought up is the fact that you try to use this to demonstrate that prescriptive (READ: moral, normative, value-based) conclusions will inevitably follow. There are a lot of reasons to be dubious about this, such as in specific the lack of a principle by which one can transition from a descriptive statement to a normative one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
I'm really enjoying the discussion in this thread. I hope Judakel continues to participate and hopefully to clarify things. I have a scientific/mathematical background in terms of studies but I've always been a bit frightened at how widespread the "math is real" belief is. Math is often fetishized and its language co-opted to make all kinds of bullshit appear legitimate. Despite being a total atheist I actually find myself agreeing on many points with the unapologetically self-aware religious person in this tread. I think this debate has the potential to be really productive. I'm craving more stuff to read on the topic of idealism and its problems. The greater part of the philosophical canon I've read has tended to frustrate me deeply by its idealism (or dualism or platonism etc...); either self-described or not. Any reading recommendations would be greatly appreciated. I'm interested in critiques of idealism in general, or in histories of anti-idealist thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 06:17
|
|
