[noemon]

Are you claiming that Platonists are damaged and they don't know what is good for them?

Euclid belonged to Plato's "persuasion" and brought together the Elements, drawing on prior work by several pupils of Plato (particularly Eudoxus of Cnidus, Theaetetus and Philip of Opus.)

Euclid's Elements has been referred to as the most successful[5][6] and influential[7] textbook ever written. Being first set in type in Venice in 1482, it is one of the very earliest mathematical works to be printed after the invention of the printing press and was estimated by Carl Benjamin Boyer to be second only to the Bible in the number of editions published,[7] with the number reaching well over one thousand.[8] For centuries, when the quadrivium was included in the curriculum of all university students, knowledge of at least part of Euclid's Elements was required of all students. Not until the 20th century, by which time its content was universally taught through other school textbooks, did it cease to be considered something all educated people had read.[9]

[Hong Wu]

No, I was making a general statement. If Platonism works for him then it's fine, if it's not working then he should stop. Other people's opinions on someone's personal and subjective philosophy don't matter.

[mikema63]

The question "why does something need to exist for it to exist?" is evidently non-sensical.

That's not what I said. I said why does something need to be somewhere specific for it to exist. Gravity exists everywhere in the universe at once, it's not in some specific place. Electrons aren't even in any specific place, their smeared across reality in a probability wave. Would you say electrons don't exist?

a) no serious person believes such a thing

I said that math was only a physical thing in so far as it was an abstract concept physically stored in the brain. I did not say that math was categorically a physical thing.

b) that your thought process is any different than Plato's, the only reason you make the distinction in this case is because of identity politics anyway

Identity politics? What?

I make that distinction because I'm studying neurology. It's the standard interpretation of most neurobiologists that mental states are just brain states. No experiment has ever shown that there is any distinction between a mental state and a brain state.

Besides if you put your identity politics on the side for a moment you would notice that even your assertion about physical memory leads you by default to the Mind as a whole, rather than an individual's memory.

How? What?

The other assertions you make about me supposedly making assertions do not follow from anywhere and do not actually exist, they are cheap attempts at straw-men. I have already discussed this with Potemkin in the previous pages.

What I'm saying and what you think I'm saying are apparently completely different things. I'm still kind of reeling about your statement that my views on the relationship between the brain and the mind are identity politics.

[noemon]

That's not what I said. I said why does something need to be somewhere specific for it to exist. Gravity exists everywhere in the universe at once, it's not in some specific place. Electrons aren't even in any specific place, their smeared across reality in a probability wave. Would you say electrons don't exist?

I don't get your straw-man, you want to deny that abstract objects exist by claiming that they are not found in a particular place and then go offer examples as to how that is possible thus proving yourself wrong.

I said that math was only a physical thing in so far as it was an abstract concept physically stored in the brain. I did not say that math was categorically a physical thing.

At this point it is very difficult to pin down what you want to say. And the same contradiction as above applies. You are trying to draw lines where there aren't any.

Identity politics? What?

I make that distinction because I'm studying neurology. It's the standard interpretation of most neurobiologists that mental states are just brain states. No experiment has ever shown that there is any distinction between a mental state and a brain state.

Not really, you make all these distinctions not just this one but all of them and draw all these non-existent lines because you want to feel that your materialism is better than platonism. This has always been a popularity contest in here for you rather than an actual philosophical exercise. That is my idea at least and judging from your statements it is quite self-evident. Ofc that's non-sense and materialists should not be feeling threatened by the self-evident reality and use of abstract objects. They use them too.

How? What?

You start from the particular physical brain of an individual which if you think about it results in various contradictions, can result to racist theories about only certain people capable to understand Euclidean geometry and numbers, Plato starts from the general the Nous, the Mind, the Noosphere, the ability of our minds to conduct noetic exercises.

I'm still kind of reeling about your statement

I'm kind of reeling at your statement than Euclid saw triangles and thus created the Elements. So what can we do? You need to put your materialistic identity politics on the side for a minute if you want to be productive on this conversation otherwise you are going to make more of that.

[Saeko]

Apparently, mikema believes that if everyone started believing that 2+2=5, then 2+2 would indeed equal 5.

Is that what you're saying mike?

You seem to be a logical positivist. Would that be a fair characterisation (really with an 's'? Fucking Queen's English) of your views?

Let me give an argument for platonism:

Premise 1) The truth of scientific theories follows from observation of entities, their properties, and relations.
Premise 2) However, the truth of these observations depends on the laws of physics. For instance, if I observe a flying, sentient spaghetti monster, then I know I am hallucinating or dreaming because the existence of such a thing violates the laws of physics.
Conclusion 3) Therefore, the argument for the truth of a scientific theory or any observation is circular.
Conclusion 4) From 3, both our observations and scientific theories can be false, regardless of what theory we believe or how many observations we have.
Premise 4) But conclusion 4 is false.
Conclusion 5) Therefore, either premise 1 is false, or premise 2 is false, or both are false.
Premise 6) Regardless of which of the three cases in 5 is true, there must be some third set of claims (which themselves are not about observations or scientific theories) from which the truth of scientific theories or observations or both is provable.
Premise 7) This set of claims obviously can be about neither physical objects (which are not directly observed, but whose existence and properties are inferred from observation) nor concrete objects (whose existence and properties depend on what laws of physics are true).
Conclusion 8 ) Since the statements referred to in 7 are about neither concrete nor physical objects, they must be about abstract objects.
Premise 9) There exist true statements about abstract objects, i.e., 2 + 2 = 4.
Conclusion 10) Therefore, abstract objects exist.

[mikema63]

I don't get your straw-man, you want to deny that abstract objects exist by claiming that they are not found in a particular place and then go offer examples as to how that is possible thus proving yourself wrong.

What is an abstract "object"? I'm not denying that abstractions exist, I'm denying that they are the fundamental thing the universe is made of. I have repeatedly said that I think that abstractions do not need to be any particular place in order to exist and it was never part of my fundamental argument but an aside you've decided to make a big deal out of.

At this point it is very difficult to pin down what you want to say. And the same contradiction as above applies. You are trying to draw lines where there aren't any.

Because half the time I'm saying one thing and your saying I'm saying another. I'm kind of just tired trying to argue with you about it.

Not really, you make all these distinctions not just this one but all of them and draw all these non-existent lines because you want to feel that your materialism is better than platonism.

I'm being psychoanalized now? I don't think platonism is better or worse than metaphysical materialism. I think they are both unprovable. I'm a methodological materialist if you want to call me anything.

Do you seriously think I have some superiority issue revolving around metaphysics? I kind of have better things to feel superior about.

This has always been a popularity contest in here for you rather than an actual philosophical exercise.

So by arguing against you I'm not arguing against your ideas but on the basis of popularity? What?

Ofc that's non-sense and materialists should not be feeling threatened by the self-evident reality and use of abstract objects. They use them too.

I've never had to point out to anyone that I'm not threatened by their metaphysics. Thank you for new experiences if nothing else.

You start from the particular physical brain of an individual which if you think about it results in various contradictions

What contradictions?

can result to racist theories about only certain people capable to understand Euclidean geometry and numbers

There is not evidence that there is any racial differences in ability to understand geometry. Which is what matters to me. Is it theoretically possible that some group of people might physically be incapable of it? I suppose. If we found such people and had such evidence I wouldn't deny it just because I didn't like it.

Plato starts from the general the Nous, the Mind, the Noosphere, the ability of our minds to conduct noetic exercises.

There is no reason to believe our mind is inherently capable of working out the metaphysical truth about reality. In general I'm just going to be suspicious of noetic exercises without corroborating physical evidence.

I'm kind of reeling at your statement than Euclid saw triangles and thus created the Elements.

So a mind who had never experienced any physical reality through taste, touch, sight, sound, etc. would be able to know what a triangle is?

You need to put your materialistic identity politics on the side for a minute if you want to be productive on this conversation otherwise you are going to make more of that.

"materialistic identity politics" is new. Is there a safe space I can go for that?

Apparently, mikema believes that if everyone started believing that 2+2=5, then 2+2 would indeed equal 5.

Not even slightly.

You seem to be a logical positivist.

Nope. I don't think you can ever really know something to be absolutely 100% true. While I think science is the best thing since sliced bread I think it's more a practical ad hoc affair than some system that needs to cling to any one theory about how it should operate.

Premise 1) The truth of scientific theories follows from observation of entities, their properties, and relations.
Premise 2) However, the truth of these observations depends on the laws of physics. For instance, if I observe a flying, sentient spaghetti monster, then I know I am hallucinating or dreaming because the existence of such a thing violates the laws of physics.
Conclusion 3) Therefore, the argument for the truth of a scientific theory or any observation is circular.
Conclusion 4) From 3, both our observations and scientific theories can be false, regardless of what theory we believe or how many observations we have.
Premise 4) But conclusion 4 is false.
Conclusion 5) Therefore, either premise 1 is false, or premise 2 is false, or both are false.
Premise 6) Regardless of which of the three cases in 5 is true, there must be some third set of claims (which themselves are not about observations or scientific theories) from which the truth of scientific theories or observations or both is provable.
Premise 7) This set of claims obviously can be about neither physical objects (which are not directly observed, but whose existence and properties are inferred from observation) nor concrete objects (whose existence and properties depend on what laws of physics are true).
Conclusion 8 ) Since the statements referred to in 7 are about neither concrete nor physical objects, they must be about abstract objects.
Premise 9) There exist true statements about abstract objects, i.e., 2 + 2 = 4.
Conclusion 10) Therefore, abstract objects exist.

Science, in my view is far more probabilistic than that. Sure if you see a flying spaghetti monster you are probably hallucinating. All most certainly hallucinating. There is however the small possibility that you really saw it.

We observe gravity all the time and all our experiments and measurements have show that gravity pretty much is a thing. That means that gravity is very very likely to exist tomorrow. So close to 100% certainty that for all practical purposes we just say it will definitely be there. It still might not. Same with everything else. I can never tell you something with 100% certainty, I'm just pretty sure.

The same is true even of the most fundamental laws that seems impossible to even imagine breaking down. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, even of the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them. The speed of light might change next Tuesday for all we really know. It just probably wont.

[noemon]

What is an abstract "object"? I'm not denying that abstractions exist, I'm denying that they are the fundamental thing the universe is made of. I have repeatedly said that I think that abstractions do not need to be any particular place in order to exist and it was never part of my fundamental argument but an aside you've decided to make a big deal out of.

Well you have repeatedly stated that abstract objects do not exist at all, when you realised that your position is impossible you created your own theory that they exist in physical memory and as such are material objects.

I'm being psychoanalized now? I don't think platonism is better or worse than metaphysical materialism. I think they are both unprovable. I'm a methodological materialist if you want to call me anything.

Do you seriously think I have some superiority issue revolving around metaphysics? I kind of have better things to feel superior about. So by arguing against you I'm not arguing against your ideas but on the basis of popularity? What?

I think you see this ultimately as a materialism(leftism) vs platonism(rightism) pop contest. And that is why you rush to make statements that are beyond repair using the same tactics as in any other political conversation.

And it's not against me, it's against what you contrive as rightism.

There is not evidence that there is any racial differences in ability to understand geometry. Which is what matters to me. Is it theoretically possible that some group of people might physically be incapable of it? I suppose. If we found such people and had such evidence I wouldn't deny it just because I didn't like it.

Your theory makes it evidently possible for people to conjure such a thing but it's a good thing that your theory does not exist anywhere. It does not matter what you think is provable, if you give people a bone to be racist they will take it and for what reason exactly do you even conjure up this theory? That abstract objects exist as physical objects only in the physical brain of an individual rather than the collective mind of humanity and beyond? And Why make it strict to humans? Do you have evidence than only a human brain can conduct geometry in the entire universe, or that euclidean geometry does not apply in Mars?

There is no reason to believe our mind is inherently capable of working out the metaphysical truth about reality. In general I'm just going to be suspicious of noetic exercises without corroborating physical evidence.

Sorry but wha? There is no reason to believe our mind is capable of doing math?

So a mind who had never experienced any physical reality through taste, touch, sight, sound, etc. would be able to know what a triangle is?

I don't know, do you?

"materialistic identity politics" is new. Is there a safe space I can go for that?

The communist forum.

[Saeko]

You haven't actually addressed my argument.

I'll comment more on your post when I have more time.

[mikema63]

In so far as I've said I don't think even the laws of physics can be taken as absolutely certain I think I have. Proposition 2 depends on the laws of physics being inviolable. While I think they probably are I cannot be certain and so I cannot be perfectly certain that you didn't actually see a spaghetti monster.

I won't believe you of course but in a philosophical sense I can't.

I'm kind of too tired to go through the rest of everything right now So I'll probably follow saeko's lead and do it later.

[Saeko]

Not even slightly.

If mathematical entities are entirely in the brain, then I don't see why you think that different brains couldn't come to the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 4 is false.

Nope. I don't think you can ever really know something to be absolutely 100% true. While I think science is the best thing since sliced bread I think it's more a practical ad hoc affair than some system that needs to cling to any one theory about how it should operate.

I meant that you are a logical positivist in that you think that only empirically testable statements are meaningful.

Science, in my view is far more probabilistic than that. Sure if you see a flying spaghetti monster you are probay hallucinating. All most certainly hallucinating. There is however the small possibility that you really saw it.

We observe gravity all the time and all our experiments and measurements have show that gravity pretty much is a thing. That means that gravity is very very likely to exist tomorrow. So close to 100% certainty that for all practical purposes we just say it will definitely be there. It still might not. Same with everything else. I can never tell you something with 100% certainty, I'm just pretty sure.

The same is true even of the most fundamental laws that seems impossible to even imagine breaking down. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, even of the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them. The speed of light might change next Tuesday for all we really know. It just probably wont.

The issue has nothing to do with certainty, absolute or otherwise. The issue has to do with justification. Either observations are evidence for scientific theories or probabilities of given observations are calculated from scientific theories. You can't have this go both ways.

[mikema63]

I meant that you are a logical positivist in that you think that only empirically testable statements are meaningful.

In what sense of meaningful? Lot's of things can be meaningful to lots of people. In a strict philosophical sense I'm not sure that anything is meaningful.

The issue has nothing to do with certainty, absolute or otherwise. The issue has to do with justification. Either observations are evidence for scientific theories or probabilities of given observations are calculated from scientific theories. You can't have this go both ways.

It sort of does go both ways actually. Stage one of building a theory is to take observations and build your theory. Stage two is to predict outcomes that would have to happen if the theory is true and then go look for them. If observations come in that defy those predictions you either modify the theory or you get rid of it.

The theory must be predictive, and those predictions are used to test the theory. However to make the theory in the first place you must construct an explanation for some set of observations and test it.

[Saeko]

In what sense of meaningful? Lot's of things can be meaningful to lots of people. In a strict philosophical sense I'm not sure that anything is meaningful.

I don't know. Why don't you describe your own position? I realize that trying to do it for you is an exercise in futility.

It sort of does go both ways actually. Stage one of building a theory is to take observations and build your theory. Stage two is to predict outcomes that would have to happen if the theory is true and then go look for them. If observations come in that defy those predictions you either modify the theory or you get rid of it.

The theory must be predictive, and those predictions are used to test the theory. However to make the theory in the first place you must construct an explanation for some set of observations and test it.

The construction of a theory is not the same as the justification of a theory.

[mikema63]

I don't know. Why don't you describe your own position? I realize that trying to do it for you is an exercise in futility.

Asking for clarification about what you mean by meaningful isn't the same as me asking you to tell me what my position is.

What would a justification be in your mind? As far as I can tell the main justification for scientific theories is that it seems to work really well and it doesn't contradict anything else we know.

[Saeko]

Asking for clarification about what you mean by meaningful isn't the same as me asking you to tell me what my position is.

Nevermind.

What would a justification be in your mind? As far as I can tell the main justification for scientific theories is that it seems to work really well and it doesn't contradict anything else we know.

A justification is what allows you to know that something is true. Evidence or proof, etc.

[mikema63]

Then it would be testing the predictions of the theory which justified the theory. In a purely philosophical sense of absolute truth you can't know that a theory is true.

[American Serf]

In broad outline, my thinking is as follows:

All arguments consist of propositions, and all propositions consist of terms and relations.

Are questions propositions? Don't some arguments include questions and other arguably not-quite-propositional items? Or are propositional attitudes accounted for as "terms" or "relations", perhaps?

These terms and relations are defined by futher terms and relations, but to avoid infinite regress or circularity, there have to be some terms and relations which are not themselves defined by any further terms and relations.

Have you ever listed an infinite number of terms or relations? I assume not. Has this prevented you from "making arguments"? It sounds like you have a very particular set of concerns in mind here, motivating your thinking and your turn to "Platonism".

When I was a materialist, I supposed that these ultimate terms and relations were given by human psychology, but that belief leads to all sorts of problems.

What sort of materialist were you?

In what way did you, as a materialist, believe that the "ultimate terms and relations" that constitute propositions and arguments were "given by human psychology"? And what sort of "problems" did your view produce?

One role for human psychology, for instance: I have a concept of apple, a concept of red, and a current experience of seeming-to-see a seeming-red seeming-apple. If everything's as it seems, as a matter of fact I see a red apple, and my demonstrative judgement "That's a red apple" is true.

What's the problem?

I eventually realized that as long as we make explicit our implicit assumptions which are at the basis of any subject of discourse, then the terms and relations appearing in those assumptions are actually implicitly defined by those assumptions.

Is it possible to make all of one's implicit assumptions explicit? How would you test whether you got them all?

Any true statement provable from those assumptions can be proved without even knowing what the fundamental terms and relations refer to in material reality, if anything at all.

You mean to say, any statement the truth of which may be demonstrated on the basis of those now-explicit assumptions, is by definition provable on the basis of those assumptions, even if we don't know what the signs that function as terms and relations in our articulation of those assumptions "stand for"?

I'd be careful putting it that way. Presumably you want to show why your view is somehow more satisfying than empty formalism.

Moreover, how do you show that the "basic assumptions" you've isolated are the right bunch to have? "p is true on the basis of x1, x2, ..., xn" doesn't entail that p is true, unless you can also show that x1, ..., xn are true. Seems you've still got a circle here?

But in order for things like provability and inference and truth to make sense, there must be something which interprets the statements of any subject of discourse.

There is *always* something that interprets the statements of any real discourse. It's the speaker, and any other speakers in the vicinity who recognize his speech as speech.

The work is already done for us and by us. The model-theoretic approaches of logicians can succeed or fail on their own terms. What good are their great efforts for us? What would they achieve, and what genuine philosophical problem would they resolve?

Who says the nature of "truth" has anything to do with the function of "truth" in a logician's notebook?

Here I take a model-theoretic conception of truth, and say that abstract mathematical structures are what all statements are about, and that these structures are eternal, abstract, mind-independent, etc. Essentially, platonic forms.

I deny that my statement "I'm eating this apple" is *about* a mathematical statement. It is about me, and this apple, and my eating, and the current state of the universe... but it is not about a mathematical statement. Though it can of course be formalized as one, like just about anything else, I reckon.

I deny, further, that there's any general theoretical need to characterize abstractions (like numbers, possibilities, causes, or statements) as "existing", except perhaps as dependent on minds, like creatures of fiction. Nevertheless -- and rather unlike creatures of fiction -- we use such concepts to make true or false objective statements about the world on the basis of experience.

[yiostheoy]

I used to be a materialist, and I am now convinced that platonism + rationalism is the one true faith. Ask me anything.

Plato's metaphysics is too prehistoric for me.

Materialism is too speculative.

Not sure what you mean exactly by your rationalism -- if this means subjectivism then I do not agree.

If it means a-priori and a-posteriori rationality then I am good with it, as Johnny Depp would say in Pirates Of The Caribbean.

As for me, I am an Empiricist.

Everyone starts out tabula rasa.

Then they perceive things around them with their senses.

Then they notice patterns.

Then their I/Q starts to show and they begin manipulating their environment to their own satisfaction.

Ultimately they discard all brainwashing and re-learn everything on their own.

At last then they become free -- free of ignorance and confusion.

Life Is Good.

[yiostheoy]

Then it would be testing the predictions of the theory which justified the theory. In a purely philosophical sense of absolute truth you can't know that a theory is true.

A preliminary conclusion, also knows as a hypothesis, can be sometimes demonstrated to be true by finding something in reality that it corresponds with.

Truth is equal to reality.

Falsehood is equal to non-reality.

Theories tend to be more complex and scientific and can never be proven in most cases, only the most simple ones.

"If I take out your heart and don't put it back in you will die" -- obvious enough.

[mikema63]

That's a gross misrepresentation of what makes up a theory in science. A theory is a hypothesis that has an enormous body off support and is extremely predictive and isn't contradicted by any evidence.

If you are like many people who attack the concept of theories in science then I doubt you will care because you don't like some theory or another.

[yiostheoy]

That's a gross misrepresentation of what makes up a theory in science. A theory is a hypothesis that has an enormous body off support and is extremely predictive and isn't contradicted by any evidence.

If you are like many people who attack the concept of theories in science then I doubt you will care because you don't like some theory or another.

Enormous yes especially when you take into account all the argumentum populum.

Ring a bell?