The Universe - explained.

[gater]

Do these 2 rocks disappear if we are not around to experience the mathematics of 1 + 1?

Of course not. But addition does disappear.

Not so. It is not the "addition" per se that disappears, it is the human comprehension of the "addition" that disappears. -- You forget that the truths of math are not "man-made". They are not determined by man. They are a priori truths!

1 rock plus another rock makes 2 rocks is TRUE, whether or not we are around to "add" them!

Exactly, all cultures, on Earth, or anywhere else, start with 1 plus 1. The idea of "two" was man's first mathematical concept, knowning it had the same value as 1 plus 1.

[Consul]

Truth is a judgment that persons make about the relationship of a proposition to something else.

There is a distinction between a proposition's being true and its being judged to be true.

[creation]

But who is saying that there is no space and/or that there is no spatial contact?

The relation(al)ists.

So, another group of 'believers'.

You even said, in what I quoted, that they are kept apart spatially.

The problem for relation(al)ists is to explain how bodies are kept apart spatially when there is no space or spatial path between them, in virtue of which there is some (nonzero) spatial distance between them.

But some so called "relation(al)ists" say there is space between them.

Also, if some people have a "problem" explain things, then it might be because what they believe is true simply is not actually the Truth at all.

Obviously, there would not be and is no problem at all in explaining what thee actual Truth of things IS.

And, you just said that "they don't touch"? I took this latter part to mean 'they do not touch, each other physically'. Did you mean something else here?

By "touch" I mean direct spatial contact.

How do you define the word 'spatial', which you allege physical matter does not have direct contact with?

By the way how are you defining the word 'philosophy' here?

I don't like his philosophy,

You do not like who's philosophy?

but I like Hegel's simple general definition of "philosophy" as "the thoughtful contemplation of things".

Okay, so now that we know what you like, is this how 'you' define the word 'philosophy' here?

And, how are there 'positions' in 'philosophy'?

Double ??

I suggest IF people want to be able to look at and see the actual Truth of things, then it does follow that they do not have any beliefs at all, let alone hold any beliefs at all.

This is off-topic, but I don't think it's really possible for a person to believe nothing.

Do you understand that, 'Do not have ANY beliefs AT ALL', would mean do NOT believe 'nothing'?

To me any one can believe any thing they so choose to. So, if any one wants to choose to believe 'nothing', then they possibly could. Why any one would want to do that is a completely other matter. But consider some of the other things human beings believe, then I suppose it is really possible to believe nothing, that is; If one really want to so.

By the way I also think you saying what you did is off-topic, and even completely off from what I have said.

(Don't those who assert that they believe nothing believe self-contradictorily that they believe nothing?)

I have absolutely no idea. I am not even sure I have met anyone who asserts that they believe nothing. I have never even considered the idea that any one would believe nothing prior to bring this off-topic comment up here now.

I was not asking what you deny, I was just asking if there are any zero-dimensional objects? If there are, then examples please.

My answer contains examples. Whether these are examples of existing 0D things is another question.

I must be blind. Where were the examples of 0D objects? What was the name or label that you gave to these zero-dimension object examples?

Also, I was not asking for examples of objects that could be zero-dimensions. I was asking, if there are any, then just provide them.

I just cannot yet fathom an object with zero dimensions. But i am not yet savvy to all things that others know of.

0D objects or points are certainly unimaginable.

If these so called "objects" are certainly not even imaginable, then that means we are not even aware of any in existence, and if there are not even any known such things in existence, then why bring them up and discuss such certainly unimaginable things in a topic regarding The Universe - explained.

Would not just explaining what IS, instead of what possible things could BE, be just a far simpler and far easier exercise, especially considering that some of the what could BEs are certainly not even imaginable?

There's a perfectly consistent mathematical conception of them, but it's questionable whether concrete, physical reality contains point-particles, space-points, or boundary points.

A mathematical 'conception' certainly does not have any bearing what so ever on what actually IS.

What actually IS is HERE-NOW for ALL of us to look at, see, and understand. What actually IS is therefore very simple to explain and very easy to understand. If any one is have any problem at all trying to explain some thing very simply, then either they do not yet know it very well, or, what they are trying to explain is just not the actual Truth of things.

Most relation(al)ists hold that space is a web of spatial relations between point-particles or matter-points, but the idea that 0D objects are the substances of the world is ontologically strange.

This whole "relation(al)ists" thing seems very strange to me. But each to their own.

I am not sure why people just do not look at what actually IS, instead of trying to come up with other things.

QUOTE>
"Many of us have gotten so used to hearing and talking about points that we have forgotten the intrinsic strangeness of the concept. Imagine taking a sphere and progressively shrinking it. Its volume gets smaller and smaller: one cubic meter, then one cubic millimeter, then one cubic micron, and so on. As it gets smaller and smaller, it remains a sphere. But what happens when you get down to size zero? When you actually reach zero, is it the case that you now have a really small object there? Or is it that the sphere is simply gone, leaving nothing behind?

I have not gotten used to hearing and talking about "points".

I have gotten used to just observing and talking about what actually IS, instead.

What does the word 'point' mean to you here? And, by the way, what is the answer to this seemingly absurd question; When you reach 'zero' is there a really small object to you, or, is there nothing, to you?

Did the one writing this stuff actually provide the conclusive answer, which, by the way, is depended solely upon one's own imagination. So, really this has no bearing on what actually IS.

If you think there is a really small object there, try to imagine this object. I predict that anything that you imagine will not be the geometric point. You might, for example, imagine a tiny, black dot. But that can’t be the point; however tiny the dot you imagine, it’s not small enough. In geometry textbooks, points are represented by small, round dots. But an actual point is not round; it has no shape at all, because to have a shape, an object must have some extension. (Shape is a matter of how an object’s parts relate to each other; for example, in a circle, the parts are equidistant from a single, central point.) So try to imagine a shapeless, sizeless, but somehow spatial object.

Was there any actual 'point' in trying to imagine an object shrunk down to zero but is still a spatial object, without shape nor size?

If there was, then what was that point?

Now you might say: ‘So points are unimaginable. So what? Many mathematical objects are unimaginable – that is, they cannot be visualized – but are nonetheless real (in whatever sense mathematical objects are ever real). So this is no proof that points are not real.’

This sounds more stranger as it goes along. So, some one wants us to take a shape, imagine shrinking that shape to zero, asks us what we arrived at, but instantly predicts that what we arrived at will not be some thing. Tells us that we might be imagining some thing, which it can not be some thing, but informs us that what we are imagining is not round and has no shape at all, as though that person KNEW what we were imagining. They then proceed to tell us that the assumed imagined we are having MUST HAVE some extension, and then proceeds to tell us to try to imagine some thing, which, by the way, I certainly was not.

To me, it is really rather completely pointless to tell some one to take a certain thing and tell them to imagine doing some thing, and then telling them what outcome that they arrive at is wrong, without ever clarifying what they have arrived at, and/or telling that what outcome that they would or should arrive at.

But rather than asking for proof that there are no points, shouldn’t we first ask what reason we have for believing that there are such things?

If there is any 'point' or there are any 'points', then, literally, just tell us what the 'points' are or what the 'point' is.

Like, what is the point of telling people to imagine there is some thing, which has now been shrunk to 'zero'?

I want to first ask what is the reason for imagining any of this?

Their unimaginability does not preclude their existence, but doesn’t it at least indicate that we would need some pretty impressive reason to believe in them?

I do not see any impressive reason, or any reason at all, to believe in 'points', nor any thing else.

But this is just me. You are free to believe in unimaginable points if you so wish to.

Certainly, some mathematical objects are difficult or impossible to visualize. But this would typically be for quite different reasons from the reason why points cannot be visualized.

Okay, if you say so.

By the way, what is the reason why 'points' cannot be visualized?

Some mathematical objects are impossible to visualize because they are non-spatial, and visualization only applies to things in space.

Is there even such a thing as 'space', which you now say visualizing things only applies 'in space'?

According to the logic here "relation(al)ists" could not visualize anything because you said earlier to them there is no space.

Other mathematical objects are unvisualizable because they are too complex to visualize. But this could not be the case for points, which are supposed to be the simplest of all spatial objects. Points are in fact supposed to be the basic building blocks of all other geometrical objects. Is it not strange that such a thing should be impossible to imagine?"

(Huemer, Michael. Approaching Infinity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. pp. 163-4)
<QUOTE

What I find rather quite strange is that there are some people that go on with this sort of 'stuff'.

Was there any real point in that quote, and, what was your point of posting that quote here?

Yes human beings who discuss 'philosophical topics' do like to talk about a lot of things. But, i find just looking at and talking about what IS far more rewarding.

Philosophers and scientists do want to know what is and what is not; and they also want to know what can be and what cannot be.

Well I suggest that if this is what they Truly WANT, then for the former one just talk about what IS ONLY.

If they want to talk about what can be and what cannot be, then all well and good. But in a topic like; The Universe - explained, then just looking at what IS ONLY far more conclusive to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING thee Universe.

Maybe if people asked specific questions about the Universe, which they want to know and what answered, then this might help them to learn and understand thee Universe, Itself?

From what I have observed talking about "certainly unimaginable points", in mathematics, even if it has been discussed for thousands upon thousands of years will NEVER explain Thee Universe, Itself.

What thee Universe IS, and how It works, is just way to simple and easy to discover, learn, know, and understand. Only human beings could take this extremely very simple and easy process of discovering and learning about thee Universe Itself and make it appear as though it is a complex and hard process.

Okay. Could you explain more and/or elaborate further on just how 'space' itself is an 'object' with 'properties'?

If space (spacetime) is an object or substance, it must have some properties or other, since unpropertied objects or substances are ontologically impossible.

Are you saying 'space' is an object or substance, or not?

I do not want you to tell me IF 'space' is some thing or not, then it must have this or that, because of this or that.

I want to know what your view is, and then I want you to explain or elaborate on that view further. If you cannot or do not want to do this, then so be it.

Also, what is 'space' in relation to ('spacetime')? Why did you bring the word 'spacetime' into this?

How do you define the word 'space'?

QUOTE>
"[S]pace is a 3 dimensional arena in which things and events are related to each other."

(Nerlich, Graham. Einstein's Genie: Spacetime out of the Bottle. Montreal: Minkowski Institute Press, 2013. p. 100)
<QUOTE

So, is this 'your' definition, or just some one else's that you have copied here?

How would you explain that definition as being an 'object'?

QUOTE>
"I favor the old idea of substratum: the haver of properties not itself had as a property. Space-time might itself be the bearer of properties, not itself borne as a property. It makes no sense in ontology or modern physics to think of space-time as empty and propertyless. Space-time nicely fulfils the conditions of a substratum."

(Martin, C. B. The Mind in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 44)
<QUOTE

Once again you quote someone else, when I specifically ask you about 'your' views/thoughts.

Also, I am not really interested in what you "favor".

If you see some thing as such a thing, then I am just asking you why you see things this way, and I ask you to explain what that view you have of, could actually be the case?

See quoting others and following and/or copying their views, which obviously are not even yet close to resolving, by explaining - thee Universe is not really that helpful at all.

And, what 'properties' does this 'object' called 'space' have exactly?

This question is to be answered by the physicists; but, generally speaking, it has certain geometrical, topological, and mereological properties; and as a substrate of fields it also has physical properties. (If supersubstantivalism is true, then space or spacetime is the only substance and the bearer of all physical properties.)
[/quote]

Sounds like you really are not sure of anything yet. Am I correct?

[creation]

You did appear to misunderstand those comments, because the reason 2 plus 2 is 4 is The Truth is because of 'agreement', which is what makes things true or not. But, unlike your own personal truth, as explained, TheeTruth is different.

So, what I think will be discovered and learned is your view of the Universe is NOT Thee Truth, as you believe it is, but rather your version is just your own personal truth.

Once thee Truth about thee Universe is learned, and understood, then how and where your version differs can be, and will be, clearly seen.

There is no "agreement" - 1 plus 1 is 2 everywhere in the Universe, these values dont change.

How did you get to these values? Through 'agreement' or through 'disagreement'.

The answer is only these values because you 'agree' that if you have 1, and add 1 to it, then you will get 2.

If there is, as you say, "no agreement", then what is there exactly?

If you had, for example, been taught that 3 plus 3 equals one, and you learned to agree with (and thus accept) this, then you would now be saying: "There is no "agreement" - 3 plus 3 is 1 everywhere in the Universe, these values dont change."

There IS 'agreement'. This can be obviously seen in what you write.

1 plus 1 is always 2, we accept that as a simple and true statement.

That is only IF we accept that. And if we 'accept' that as a simple and true statement, then it is that 'agreement' and 'acceptance', themselves, which is what makes 'that' statement true. As I have been saying and pointing out.

Agreement, and acceptance, is what makes some thing true, or false.

Just as "the Universe has always been here" is a true statement.

It may well be a 'true statement', to you, because you agree and accept that it is a true statement. But why is it not a true statement to others?

It is obviously not yet a true statement for everyone. So, why not?

How is 'truth' come to be known if not through agreement, and acceptance?

It doesn't need to be the "accepted belief" to make it true.

Why did you bring the 'belief' word into this? This just completely detracts and derails what I have been saying and meaning here.

From your remark here you obviously are completely misunderstanding me.

[creation]

1 rock plus 1 rock makes 2 rocks is TRUE regardless if there are any humans around to perceive it (or agree to it).

That might be TRUE. But what makes that statement - 1 rock plus 1 rock makes 2 rocks - TRUE?

Obviously, if you and I did not agree (and accept) that it was true, then it would not be true, to us. So, what is 'it' exactly, which makes some thing true?

[Pattern-chaser]

But what makes that statement - 1 rock plus 1 rock makes 2 rocks - TRUE?

Definition. In this case, if we accept set and number theory, and the axioms that go with them, then 1+1=2 is true, because we define it to be so. The rocks have actual existence. The arithmetic is man-made.

[Terrapin Station]

Truth is a judgment that persons make about the relationship of a proposition to something else.

There is a distinction between a proposition's being true and its being judged to be true.

A supposed distinction that on my view does not at all hold water.

[Terrapin Station]

Do these 2 rocks disappear if we are not around to experience the mathematics of 1 + 1?

Of course not. But addition does disappear.

Not so. It is not the "addition" per se that disappears, it is the human comprehension of the "addition" that disappears. -- You forget that the truths of math are not "man-made". They are not determined by man. They are a priori truths!

1 rock plus another rock makes 2 rocks is TRUE, whether or not we are around to "add" them!

I'm not forgetting that the truths of math are not man made, I'm denying that they are. That claim is false. It has wrong what the world is really like.

[RJG]

Not so. It is not the "addition" per se that disappears, it is the human comprehension of the "addition" that disappears. -- You forget that the truths of math are not "man-made". They are not determined by man. They are a priori truths!

1 rock plus another rock makes 2 rocks is TRUE, whether or not we are around to "add" them!

I'm not forgetting that the truths of math are not man made, I'm denying that they are.

I know you can irrationally "deny" it, but can you 'rationally' "deny" it? If so, then please show us your 'rational' argument. -- Hint: it is impossible to deny "a priori" truths such as math and logic because the denial would entail the use of math/logic. So any attempt to deny math/logic, would only defeat one's attempt (denial).

The truths of math/logic are "a priori" truths (NOT-"man-made"!), and can be proven and known as such by the impossibility to (rationally) deny these truths. In other words, we have no means (no ammunition) by which to defeat the truths of math/logic, except by using the truths of math/logic. But then, this would then only defeat the denial itself, ...and not the a priori truths of math/logic themselves.

[Consul]

There is a distinction between a proposition's being true and its being judged to be true.

A supposed distinction that on my view does not at all hold water.

It certainly does.

QUOTE>
"Mr B. Erdmann equates truth with general validity, grounding the latter on general certainty regarding the object judged, and this in turn on general consensus amongst those judging. And so, in the end, truth is reduced to being taken to be true by individuals. In opposition to this, I can only say: being true is different from being taken to be true, be it by one, be it by many, be it by all, and is in no way reducible to it. It is no contradiction that something is true that is universally held to be false."
(pp. xv-xvi)

"Can the sense of the word 'true' be subjected to a more damaging corruption than by the attempt to incorporate a relation to the judging subject!"
(p. xvi)

(Frege, Gottlob. Basic Laws of Arithmetics, Vol. 1. 1893. In Basic Laws of Arithmetics, Vols. 1&2, translated and edited by Philip A. Ebert and Marcus Rosenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.)
<QUOTE

[Terrapin Station]

A supposed distinction that on my view does not at all hold water.

It certainly does.

QUOTE>
"Mr B. Erdmann equates truth with general validity, grounding the latter on general certainty regarding the object judged, and this in turn on general consensus amongst those judging. And so, in the end, truth is reduced to being taken to be true by individuals. In opposition to this, I can only say: being true is different from being taken to be true, be it by one, be it by many, be it by all, and is in no way reducible to it. It is no contradiction that something is true that is universally held to be false."
(pp. xv-xvi)

"Can the sense of the word 'true' be subjected to a more damaging corruption than by the attempt to incorporate a relation to the judging subject!"
(p. xvi)

(Frege, Gottlob. Basic Laws of Arithmetics, Vol. 1. 1893. In Basic Laws of Arithmetics, Vols. 1&2, translated and edited by Philip A. Ebert and Marcus Rosenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.)
<QUOTE

What is quoting Frege supposed to do here?

[creation]

But what makes that statement - 1 rock plus 1 rock makes 2 rocks - TRUE?

Definition. In this case, if we accept set and number theory, and the axioms that go with them, then 1+1=2 is true, because we define it to be so. The rocks have actual existence. The arithmetic is man-made.

So, do you agree with more or less what I have been saying all along?

If no, then what parts do you not agree with?