Then ask your question...3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:35 pmSure, "the floor is yours"!Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:47 amNo. I mean exactly that maths is a tool devised by humans to describe the universe. i.e. Maths is descriptive.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 10:46 amAs a philosopher, and please don't take this the wrong way, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Unless of course, you're implying that math cannot explain (not describe) the nature of all reality.
And maths has many limitation which indicate that is is absolutely nothing more than that. It uses many things that do not, and cannot exist in nature and others that simply do not even fit into its own schema.
If you had not been so high minded in your response I'd explain that all to you. But your response leads me to think that you are not going to engage.
If you are interested in picking up any of these points, in particular let me know.
Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Then you must ask a specific "particular" question.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:35 pmSure, "the floor is yours"!Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:47 amNo. I mean exactly that maths is a tool devised by humans to describe the universe. i.e. Maths is descriptive.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 10:46 amAs a philosopher, and please don't take this the wrong way, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Unless of course, you're implying that math cannot explain (not describe) the nature of all reality.
And maths has many limitation which indicate that is is absolutely nothing more than that. It uses many things that do not, and cannot exist in nature and others that simply do not even fit into its own schema.
If you had not been so high minded in your response I'd explain that all to you. But your response leads me to think that you are not going to engage.
If you are interested in picking up any of these points, in particular let me know.
Maths is nothing more than a description; a human conceit.
And maths has many limitation which indicate that is is absolutely nothing more than that. It uses many things that do not, and cannot exist in nature and others that simply do not even fit into its own schema.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Thanks! I'll play along.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:16 pmThat's it? Your criteria for whether x is an explanation is simply the word "math"??? What about math?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:08 pmThanks! I'll play along.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 4:56 pmWith you meeting the requirement I outlined for you long ago:3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 4:38 pm I'll accept a challenge! Let's see, I'll play along too, where shall we begin, I wonder... . Would you like to start with a physical/logical/objective explanation of consciousness?
I'll only do a discussion about whether anything has an explanation or not IF we first do the following, which I just laid out again a couple days ago:
"As I've commented time and time again, the first thing that needs to be tackled is a 'philosophy of explanations' in general. We can't critique whether something works as an explanation or not if we don't rigorously tackle a philosophy of explanations first.
"We need to pin down just what the criteria for explanations are--it needs to be literally spelled out in at least a cluster property manner--and we need to tackle just WHY are proposed criteria should be the criteria. A 'subsection' of this is going to have to tackle philosophy of meaning in a plausible way, because it's going to need to address how expressions have meaning and how that all manages to 'link up' or not with other things. And all of this needs to be done in a way that in general, things that are intuitively accepted as explanations can meet the criteria and things that are intuitively considered unexplained do not meet the criteria."
Unsurprisingly, you never followed through with this at all. We didn't even begin. I'd bet my life that the same thing will happen again.
RE: TS said: "The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical. So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic."
The short answer is that the criteria is Math in the OP. Hence, support your above statement/supposition.
First request.
And what happened to when I said, "a 'subsection of this is going to have to tackle philosophy of meaning in a plausible way"?
Is your answer to that also just the word "math"?
I know that logic/math and metaphysics is not necessarily in your wheelhouse but do you think [your] physicalism can resolve Hawking's black hole paradox?
First request.
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Sure! I'll be happy to ask questions, thank you. After all, that's kinda what a philosopher does, she learns how to ask the right questions. Allow me then to ask some questions along with some supporting propositions:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:36 pmThen you must ask a specific "particular" question.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:35 pmSure, "the floor is yours"!Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 11:47 amNo. I mean exactly that maths is a tool devised by humans to describe the universe. i.e. Maths is descriptive.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 10:46 am
As a philosopher, and please don't take this the wrong way, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Unless of course, you're implying that math cannot explain (not describe) the nature of all reality.
And maths has many limitation which indicate that is is absolutely nothing more than that. It uses many things that do not, and cannot exist in nature and others that simply do not even fit into its own schema.
If you had not been so high minded in your response I'd explain that all to you. But your response leads me to think that you are not going to engage.
If you are interested in picking up any of these points, in particular let me know.
Maths is nothing more than a description; a human conceit.
And maths has many limitation which indicate that is is absolutely nothing more than that. It uses many things that do not, and cannot exist in nature and others that simply do not even fit into its own schema.
1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.
Philosophical questions to Sculptor1:
1. If mathematics was used to describe the initial conditions prior to the theoretical BB (which you implied you might agree but am not certain), does that infer an independent existence of some sort? If not, why not?
2. What is the purpose of math if it has no Darwinian survival advantages?
3. Using your words, if math is "a human conceit", does that mean the nature of logic itself is conceitful? If so, how should we escape that notion of "conceit'?
4. At the most fundamental level of existence (the nature of reality) can things-in-themselves only be described/explained through mathematics? If not, are there other methods more suitable to the human condition?
― Albert Einstein
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Did you not understand that I asked you questions, and that the post to you two back was a request for work you'd need to do to proceed with the conversation you want to have?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 9:57 amThanks! I'll play along.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:16 pmThat's it? Your criteria for whether x is an explanation is simply the word "math"??? What about math?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:08 pmThanks! I'll play along.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 4:56 pm
With you meeting the requirement I outlined for you long ago:
I'll only do a discussion about whether anything has an explanation or not IF we first do the following, which I just laid out again a couple days ago:
"As I've commented time and time again, the first thing that needs to be tackled is a 'philosophy of explanations' in general. We can't critique whether something works as an explanation or not if we don't rigorously tackle a philosophy of explanations first.
"We need to pin down just what the criteria for explanations are--it needs to be literally spelled out in at least a cluster property manner--and we need to tackle just WHY are proposed criteria should be the criteria. A 'subsection' of this is going to have to tackle philosophy of meaning in a plausible way, because it's going to need to address how expressions have meaning and how that all manages to 'link up' or not with other things. And all of this needs to be done in a way that in general, things that are intuitively accepted as explanations can meet the criteria and things that are intuitively considered unexplained do not meet the criteria."
Unsurprisingly, you never followed through with this at all. We didn't even begin. I'd bet my life that the same thing will happen again.
RE: TS said: "The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical. So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic."
The short answer is that the criteria is Math in the OP. Hence, support your above statement/supposition.
First request.
And what happened to when I said, "a 'subsection of this is going to have to tackle philosophy of meaning in a plausible way"?
Is your answer to that also just the word "math"?
I know that logic/math and metaphysics is not necessarily in your wheelhouse but do you think [your] physicalism can resolve Hawking's black hole paradox?
First request.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Gosh, I'm still struggling with your quote or notion of physicalism, math and logic viz. the OP: "The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical. So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 12:38 pmDid you not understand that I asked you questions, and that the post to you two back was a request for work you'd need to do to proceed with the conversation you want to have?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 9:57 amThanks! I'll play along.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:16 pmThat's it? Your criteria for whether x is an explanation is simply the word "math"??? What about math?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:08 pm
Thanks! I'll play along.
RE: TS said: "The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical. So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic."
The short answer is that the criteria is Math in the OP. Hence, support your above statement/supposition.
First request.
And what happened to when I said, "a 'subsection of this is going to have to tackle philosophy of meaning in a plausible way"?
Is your answer to that also just the word "math"?
I know that logic/math and metaphysics is not necessarily in your wheelhouse but do you think [your] physicalism can resolve Hawking's black hole paradox?
First request.
Anyway, back to physics/metaphysics and the nature of physical objects, in the alternative, knowing that religion is a sensitive issue for you since you are an atheist, do you think the God particle (Higgs/Boson field) could somehow resolve the Hawking's black hole paradox? Or (in layman's terms) could physicalism put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
I'm loosing track of the requests now...
― Albert Einstein
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Hello? <raps on 3017Metaphysician's wooden skull> Do you see that I'm asking you questions or not?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 1:11 pmGosh, I'm still struggling with your quote or notion of physicalism, math and logic viz. the OP: "The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical. So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 12:38 pmDid you not understand that I asked you questions, and that the post to you two back was a request for work you'd need to do to proceed with the conversation you want to have?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 9:57 amThanks! I'll play along.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 5:16 pm
That's it? Your criteria for whether x is an explanation is simply the word "math"??? What about math?
And what happened to when I said, "a 'subsection of this is going to have to tackle philosophy of meaning in a plausible way"?
Is your answer to that also just the word "math"?
I know that logic/math and metaphysics is not necessarily in your wheelhouse but do you think [your] physicalism can resolve Hawking's black hole paradox?
First request.
Anyway, back to physics/metaphysics and the nature of physical objects, in the alternative, knowing that religion is a sensitive issue for you since you are an atheist, do you think the God particle (Higgs/Boson field) could somehow resolve the Hawking's black hole paradox? Or (in layman's terms) could physicalism put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
I'm loosing track of the requests now...
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 2:09 pmHello? <raps on 3017Metaphysician's wooden skull> Do you see that I'm asking you questions or not?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 1:11 pmGosh, I'm still struggling with your quote or notion of physicalism, math and logic viz. the OP: "The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical. So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 12:38 pmDid you not understand that I asked you questions, and that the post to you two back was a request for work you'd need to do to proceed with the conversation you want to have?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 9:57 am
Thanks! I'll play along.
I know that logic/math and metaphysics is not necessarily in your wheelhouse but do you think [your] physicalism can resolve Hawking's black hole paradox?
First request.
Anyway, back to physics/metaphysics and the nature of physical objects, in the alternative, knowing that religion is a sensitive issue for you since you are an atheist, do you think the God particle (Higgs/Boson field) could somehow resolve the Hawking's black hole paradox? Or (in layman's terms) could physicalism put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
I'm loosing track of the requests now...
Hello? <raps on Terrapin Station's wooden skull> Do you see that I'm asking you questions or not?
― Albert Einstein
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Yes. (See how easy it is to answer?)3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 3:46 pmTerrapin Station wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 2:09 pmHello? <raps on 3017Metaphysician's wooden skull> Do you see that I'm asking you questions or not?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 1:11 pmGosh, I'm still struggling with your quote or notion of physicalism, math and logic viz. the OP: "The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical. So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 12:38 pm
Did you not understand that I asked you questions, and that the post to you two back was a request for work you'd need to do to proceed with the conversation you want to have?
Anyway, back to physics/metaphysics and the nature of physical objects, in the alternative, knowing that religion is a sensitive issue for you since you are an atheist, do you think the God particle (Higgs/Boson field) could somehow resolve the Hawking's black hole paradox? Or (in layman's terms) could physicalism put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
I'm loosing track of the requests now...
Hello? <raps on Terrapin Station's wooden skull> Do you see that I'm asking you questions or not?
Can you answer now?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
1. Please note word DESCRIBE in your question please.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 10:20 am Philosophical questions to Sculptor1:
1. If mathematics was used to describe the initial conditions prior to the theoretical BB (which you implied you might agree but am not certain), does that infer an independent existence of some sort? If not, why not?
2. What is the purpose of math if it has no Darwinian survival advantages?
3. Using your words, if math is "a human conceit", does that mean the nature of logic itself is conceitful? If so, how should we escape that notion of "conceit'?
4. At the most fundamental level of existence (the nature of reality) can things-in-themselves only be described/explained through mathematics? If not, are there other methods more suitable to the human condition?
2. This is a weird question. Are you saying that people who know maths have or have not a Darwinian advantage? Clearly a party of humans is running from a Lion, it does not help them to know the maths involved in calculating the speed ration. What is important is the fact that you can run faster. Not faster than the lion, but faster than your fellows. And you do not need to know ANY maths to run fast.
But maths has many uses.
3.Yes logic is also a conceit.
4. No. The point about Kant's "Ding an sich" is that it is no accessible. THough we moght try to use maths to describe it, the thing in itself knows no maths. Mathematical descriptions are limited to quantity, and do not always convey quality or many other details.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Sculptor1!Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 5:59 pm1. Please note word DESCRIBE in your question please.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2021, 10:20 am Philosophical questions to Sculptor1:
1. If mathematics was used to describe the initial conditions prior to the theoretical BB (which you implied you might agree but am not certain), does that infer an independent existence of some sort? If not, why not?
2. What is the purpose of math if it has no Darwinian survival advantages?
3. Using your words, if math is "a human conceit", does that mean the nature of logic itself is conceitful? If so, how should we escape that notion of "conceit'?
4. At the most fundamental level of existence (the nature of reality) can things-in-themselves only be described/explained through mathematics? If not, are there other methods more suitable to the human condition?
2. This is a weird question. Are you saying that people who know maths have or have not a Darwinian advantage? Clearly a party of humans is running from a Lion, it does not help them to know the maths involved in calculating the speed ration. What is important is the fact that you can run faster. Not faster than the lion, but faster than your fellows. And you do not need to know ANY maths to run fast.
But maths has many uses.
3.Yes logic is also a conceit.
4. No. The point about Kant's "Ding an sich" is that it is no accessible. THough we moght try to use maths to describe it, the thing in itself knows no maths. Mathematical descriptions are limited to quantity, and do not always convey quality or many other details.?
1. If mathematics was used to DESCRIBE the initial conditions prior to the theoretical BB (which you implied you might agree but am not certain), does that infer an independent existence of some sort? If not, why not? (Does the emphasis on DESCRIBE help you any?)
2. Yes. You are correct. Hence, what is the purpose of math, now that we agree it has no Darwinian biological survival advantages?
3. You said "logic is conceit' as a type of proposition. How does one arrive at your conclusion?
4. Sure. But what if the thing-in-itself was an animate object? As such, how would we go about describing (or explaining) both its quantity and quality? Remember, among other 'things', the world contains both animate and inanimate objects. Even so, if both abjects can be described through abstract mathematical structures, what does that mean? And so there are at least two kinds of observable things, right?
― Albert Einstein
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
Gosh, I'm still struggling with your propositions from your very first post. I'm stuck. I've fallen and I can't get up! How did you arrive at these conclusions?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:43 pm The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical.
So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic.
― Albert Einstein
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
I answered your question. Are you capable of answering the questions I asked you above? This is all I'm going to focus on until you answer the questions or just go away.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2021, 11:04 amGosh, I'm still struggling with your propositions from your very first post. I'm stuck. I've fallen and I can't get up! How did you arrive at these conclusions?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:43 pm The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical.
So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?
I must have missed it!Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2021, 11:08 amI answered your question. Are you capable of answering the questions I asked you above? This is all I'm going to focus on until you answer the questions or just go away.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2021, 11:04 amGosh, I'm still struggling with your propositions from your very first post. I'm stuck. I've fallen and I can't get up! How did you arrive at these conclusions?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 3:43 pm The "nature" of a physical object is that it's concrete and physical.
So it's not abstract, and it has nothing to do with logic.
― Albert Einstein
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023