Platonic Idealism is True, and Human Beings are Immortal

Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism is True, and Human Beings are Immortal

Platonic Idealism is True, and Humans are Immortal

 

 

Physicalism and Naturalism are THE MOST IRRATIONAL of all irrational precepts. This is because Platonic Idealism is true.

 

This is the most fundamental of all questions at the centre of science and philosophy: What is reality, and what is not reality; what is nature, and what is not nature?

 

This question, and it’s answer, is metaphysical, or metaphysics.

 

The answer to this question, and it’s resulting debate, marks the central division in western thought. This debate began with Plato and Aristotle. Plato maintained that reality is that which we know or experience by or through reason (mathematics). Aristotle maintained the opposite; that reality is that which we know or experience by or through observation (physics and the other natural sciences). PLATO WAS RIGHT, AND ARISTOTLE WAS WRONG.

 

To clarify further, REALITY CANNOT BE BOTH WHAT WE OBSERVE, AND WHAT WE EXPERIENCE BY OR THROUGH REASON. IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

 

Platonic idealism is true because mathematics is reality, and physics is not. And because mathematics is reality, there is therefore no such thing as time and space. Time and space only exist in physics. TIME AND SPACE DO NOT EXIST IN MATHEMATICS. Physics is not reality; it is an imperfect reflection of mathematics.

 

For naturalism and physicalism to be true, reasoning has to be biological (observable). If reasoning is not biological, then naturalism and physicalism are false. REASONING IS NOT BIOLOGICAL, therefore naturalism and physicalism are false, and Platonic idealism is true.

 

THERE IS NO MORE EVIDENCE THAT REASONING OCCURS IN THE BRAIN (or that reasoning is biological) THAN THERE IS THAT GOD EXISTS i.e. in terms of evidence, if you believe that reasoning occurs in the brain, it is the same as believing in God. So if you believe that reasoning is biological or occurs in the brain, you may as well be ‘theist’. The brain, like the rest of the body, is just an illusion.

 

For physicalism and naturalism to be true, they have to demonstrate that knowledge of mathematics and physics exists in a biological form in the brain (or just in a biological form). This is because mathematics and physics are classified as the ultimate arbiters of reality – the queen and king of the sciences, respectively. For naturalism and physicalism to be true, biology has to be the ultimate arbiter of reality, and not mathematics and physics. And therefore the only way that biology can be the ultimate arbiter of reality, is to demonstrate the existence of mathematics and physics knowledge in a biological form. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE, SO BIOLOGY IS DEFINITELY NOT THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF REALITY.

 

In terms of understanding the relationship between mathematics, physics (and the other natural sciences), and reality (the central metaphysical question), I am a genius. The reason why people in this forum have difficulty understanding what I say or disagree with what I say about this subject is simply because I am a genius, and you’re not.

 

I am not arrogant about this. I am just telling the truth. Being arrogant and telling the truth are two completely different things.

 

Nobody on Earth understands this metaphysical issue as well as I do. I’m the best. No one can ever beat me on this subject. I will always win. I am the world’s leading expert on Platonic idealism. The reason why I will always win is because I am on the side of Platonic idealism, and Platonic idealism is true. Truth always triumphs, because it is reality. You cannot escape reality. And I am in direct communication with Plato. Yes, Plato’s body has died. But bodies are not real. Bodies are just reflections of reality, because human beings are actually immortal. My soul is unified with the soul of Plato in the world of perfect ideal forms. The world of forms, which is known by and through reason, is the real world, and the observed world is the reflection. Plato had the first word, and he will have the last word.

 

Please read the profile of the best human being that ever lived – Plato: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

 

Platonism is central to the philosophy of mathematics: “Platonism is considered to be, in mathematics departments the world over, the predominant philosophy of mathematics, especially regarding the foundations of mathematics.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism

 

I am a fundamentalist atheist.

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3177
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kuei Shan reached for his

Kuei Shan reached for his whisk...


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
 It is pretty obvious that

 It is pretty obvious that you are deluded so im just going to keep this quick and point to a couple basic flaws in your premises.

"TIME AND SPACE DO NOT EXIST IN MATHEMATICS" That is just false. Have you ever taken a calculus course? Calculus along with many other disciplines in mathematics necessitates spatial dimensions and you will usually solve most problems in 2-3 dimensions. 

Physics is not an imperfect reflection of mathematics as you claim. Physics is an interpretation of mathematics. It is just mathematics viewed in light of reality. Physicists may mess with the mathematics to simplify things for the sake of expediency as there is usually no need to be exact on most scales but the mathematics they use in proofs is always exact. More often than not, a principle in physics will be derived mathematically before it is ever observed in reality. Einstein was known for doing this in his famous thought experiments.

about reasoning in the brain, if you are implying that we could reason without a brain then maybe you should try removing a little more of yours and see if your powers of reasoning decrease as experimentation shows they will.

 

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
You're becoming more like

You're becoming more like Paisley...

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:Nobody

Epistemologist wrote:

Nobody on Earth understands this metaphysical issue as well as I do. I’m the best. No one can ever beat me on this subject. I will always win. I am the world’s leading expert on Platonic idealism. The reason why I will always win is because I am on the side of Platonic idealism, and Platonic idealism is true. Truth always triumphs, because it is reality. You cannot escape reality. And I am in direct communication with Plato. Yes, Plato’s body has died. But bodies are not real. Bodies are just reflections of reality, because human beings are actually immortal. My soul is unified with the soul of Plato in the world of perfect ideal forms. The world of forms, which is known by and through reason, is the real world, and the observed world is the reflection. Plato had the first word, and he will have the last word.

 

Thank you Epistemologist. In past few days, I had been wondering if you are sincere in your arguments or if you are just posting here as a parody/joke/way of dealing with being bored/other reason I didn't think of.

The quoted paragraph has led me to think that it is much more likely that you are a troll than a person who is trying to engage in an actual discussion.

I shall no longer waste my time by responding to your posts.

 

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We observe a filtered

We observe a filtered version of Reality, through the limitations of our senses.

Mathematics, Logic, and Metaphysics all deduce by reason the implications of their axioms.

Unless those axioms precisely capture every significant aspect of Reality, and there is no reason a priori to expect that they do, the conclusions of such 'idealist' disciplines are likely to eventually drift indefinitely far from an accurate depiction of reality.

At least Science is inherently self-correcting to a useful degree, therefore its conclusions about the nature of reality are more trustworthy. It uses Mathematics as an essential tool to describe and define the models of reality it constructs (theories). It selects those mathematical constructs which most closely correspond to the details of the model.

Just a reality check...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:You're

butterbattle wrote:

You're becoming more like Paisley...

 

Really?  In the other thread, yes.  But here Epist has gone off the deep end.  Paisley isn't that crazy, imo.

 

He TALKS to plato?  WTF


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:
 

Really?  In the other thread, yes.  But here Epist has gone off the deep end.  Paisley isn't that crazy, imo. 

He TALKS to plato?  WTF

*sigh*

I'm actually really disappointed. I mean, when I first started talking with him, he seemed like a fairly thoughtful and somewhat open-minded guy. Granted, he possessed a wealth of weird ideas, his reasoning skills were rather....poor, and his semantics were absolutely atrocious, but at least I talked to him and respected him. 

Now he's just bat-shit crazy.

Edit:

WTF is this?!

Epistemologist wrote:
Nobody on Earth understands this metaphysical issue as well as I do. I’m the best. No one can ever beat me on this subject. I will always win. I am the world’s leading expert on Platonic idealism. The reason why I will always win is because I am on the side of Platonic idealism, and Platonic idealism is true. Truth always triumphs, because it is reality. You cannot escape reality. And I am in direct communication with Plato. Yes, Plato’s body has died. But bodies are not real. Bodies are just reflections of reality, because human beings are actually immortal. My soul is unified with the soul of Plato in the world of perfect ideal forms. The world of forms, which is known by and through reason, is the real world, and the observed world is the reflection. Plato had the first word, and he will have the last word.

This is insane! 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I thought there was

Yeah, I thought there was potential for good discussion, but it went downhill fast.  At least he claims he's an atheist?


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

liberatedatheist wrote:
“It is pretty obvious that you are deluded so im just going to keep this quick and point to a couple basic flaws in your premises.

 

"TIME AND SPACE DO NOT EXIST IN MATHEMATICS" That is just false. Have you ever taken a calculus course? Calculus along with many other disciplines in mathematics necessitates spatial dimensions and you will usually solve most problems in 2-3 dimensions.

 

Physics is not an imperfect reflection of mathematics as you claim. Physics is an interpretation of mathematics. It is just mathematics viewed in light of reality. Physicists may mess with the mathematics to simplify things for the sake of expediency as there is usually no need to be exact on most scales but the mathematics they use in proofs is always exact. More often than not, a principle in physics will be derived mathematically before it is ever observed in reality. Einstein was known for doing this in his famous thought experiments.

 

about reasoning in the brain, if you are implying that we could reason without a brain then maybe you should try removing a little more of yours and see if your powers of reasoning decrease as experimentation shows they will.”

 

liberatedatheist, in that reply, you have demonstrated that you do not understand metaphysics. It is only through metaphysics that you can understand the relationship between physics (and the other natural sciences), mathematics and reality.

 

What you clearly do not understand is that mathematics is reasoning. Reasoning does not exist in any location in time and space. Ideas do not exist anywhere in time and space. The two ways of knowing reality are through reason and observation. You CANNOT observe reasoning.

 

Physics is certainly not mathematics viewed in the light of reality, as you claim. Reality is not that which we observe through our senses. What we observe through our senses (the physical universe) is actually an illusion. Reality is what we know and experience by and through reasoning.

 

The evidence you present that reasoning is biological is very poor indeed. A loose correlation between the brain and the mind certainly does not mean that reasoning is biological. If you have ever studied statistics, you will know that correlation does not equal causation. For reasoning to be biological, you have to demonstrate that biology is the arbiter of reality. To do that, you have to show that knowledge of mathematics and physics, and reasoning about mathematics and physics, exists in a biological form in the brain. That is because, currently, it is mathematics and physics that are regarded to be the ultimate arbiters of reality, and not biology.

 

A way to understand Platonic idealism is to think of it as ‘eliminative idealism’. Eliminative idealism is the opposite of eliminative materialism i.e. eliminative idealism eliminates matter, and eliminative materialism eliminates mind. So from the perspective of eliminative idealism, the only reality is mind. And from the perspective of eliminative materialism, the only reality is matter. Eliminative idealism is true, and eliminative materialism is false.

 


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

 

butterbattle wrote:
“You're becoming more like Paisley...”

 

Is he a philosopher? Can you give me a URL link to him?


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

 

Whatthedeuce wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Nobody on Earth understands this metaphysical issue as well as I do. I’m the best. No one can ever beat me on this subject. I will always win. I am the world’s leading expert on Platonic idealism. The reason why I will always win is because I am on the side of Platonic idealism, and Platonic idealism is true. Truth always triumphs, because it is reality. You cannot escape reality. And I am in direct communication with Plato. Yes, Plato’s body has died. But bodies are not real. Bodies are just reflections of reality, because human beings are actually immortal. My soul is unified with the soul of Plato in the world of perfect ideal forms. The world of forms, which is known by and through reason, is the real world, and the observed world is the reflection. Plato had the first word, and he will have the last word.

 

Thank you Epistemologist. In past few days, I had been wondering if you are sincere in your arguments or if you are just posting here as a parody/joke/way of dealing with being bored/other reason I didn't think of.

 

The quoted paragraph has led me to think that it is much more likely that you are a troll than a person who is trying to engage in an actual discussion.

 

I shall no longer waste my time by responding to your posts.

 

You are too sensitive. And once again, Whatthedeuce, you have demonstrated that you could not be further from the truth.

 

I am a leading expert on the question: what is reality, and what is not reality; what is nature, and what is not nature?

 

If you do not think this question is important, I am surprised. It is considered by academics to be the most important of all questions.

 

Just because I have studied this question for many years does not mean I am a ‘troll’, as you put it. I have merely debunked your ‘pet theory’, which is why you have only responded by insulting me. You’re doing exactly what fundamentalist Christians do when they can’t give evidence that their belief that God exists is true.

 

If you cannot answer the question, then I have won the argument. This is the most serious of all questions Whatthedeuce. I can assure you that anything else you think about in your daily life is nowhere near as important as this question, and its answer. The difference between mortality and immortality is the most important issue that exists.

 

If you think I am not telling the truth, you have to prove that I am not telling the truth. Otherwise what you have said is just bunk. Sorry.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
We observe a filtered version of Reality, through the limitations of our senses.

 

Mathematics, Logic, and Metaphysics all deduce by reason the implications of their axioms.

 

Unless those axioms precisely capture every significant aspect of Reality, and there is no reason a priori to expect that they do, the conclusions of such 'idealist' disciplines are likely to eventually drift indefinitely far from an accurate depiction of reality.

 

At least Science is inherently self-correcting to a useful degree, therefore its conclusions about the nature of reality are more trustworthy. It uses Mathematics as an essential tool to describe and define the models of reality it constructs (theories). It selects those mathematical constructs which most closely correspond to the details of the model.

 

Just a reality check...

 

But the question you seem to be missing is, what exactly is reality? Is reality what we observe through our senses, or is reality what we know and experience by or through reasoning?

 

How does science know what reality is before it uses mathematics to investigate reality?

 

Why is mathematics not itself reality, from your perspective?

 

Plato maintained that mathematics is reality and that physics is a reflection of reality. Aristotle maintained that physics (and the other natural sciences) is or reveal reality, and mathematics is the reflection of reality.

 

How do you know whether mathematics is the reflection, or whether physics is the reflection? How do you know which is reality, and which is not?


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

v4ultingbassist wrote:
“He TALKS to plato?  WTF”

 

No. My soul interacts with that of Plato intuitively through the world of ideal forms, which is eternal and outside time and space.

 

The existence of the soul (consciousness) is self evident. It is the belief in the existence of the brain, the body, and the rest of the physical universe that is unjustified. There is absolutely no evidence that the brain, the body, and the rest of the physical universe, are reality. Anyone who believes that the physical universe is reality is just living in cloud cuckoo land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cuckoo_land

 


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

butterbattle wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
“Nobody on Earth understands this metaphysical issue as well as I do. I’m the best. No one can ever beat me on this subject. I will always win. I am the world’s leading expert on Platonic idealism. The reason why I will always win is because I am on the side of Platonic idealism, and Platonic idealism is true. Truth always triumphs, because it is reality. You cannot escape reality. And I am in direct communication with Plato. Yes, Plato’s body has died. But bodies are not real. Bodies are just reflections of reality, because human beings are actually immortal. My soul is unified with the soul of Plato in the world of perfect ideal forms. The world of forms, which is known by and through reason, is the real world, and the observed world is the reflection. Plato had the first word, and he will have the last word.”

 

This is insane!

 

Genius and insanity are virtually identical in their characteristics. So the question is, how do you know what the difference is between genius and insanity?

 

You must be aware that Platonic idealism is eliminative idealism. It is the opposite of eliminative materialism. From each perspective, the other seems like insanity. Is it that which we observe that is reality, or is it that which we know by and through reason that is reality?

 

I am asserting that reality is that which we know by and through reason i.e. reality is actually outside time and space; time and space are not reality, but a reflection of reality. That which we observe is a reflection of that which we know and experience by and through reason. Observed reality as known through natural science is a reflection of reality.

 

Plato maintained that reality is outside time and space (mathematics), and Aristotle maintained that reality is inside time and space (physics and the other natural sciences). Reason vs. observation.

 

Reality can only be one or the other. You have to choose between the two. How do you chose? How do you know which is reality, and which is not?

 

This is fundamentally important, because if you get it wrong, it means that you don’t know what reality is. If you don’t know what reality is, then it means that you are insane.

 

So, how do you know whether you are sane or insane? Who decides that, and what are the criteria they use for making the judgement?

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

 

butterbattle wrote:
“You're becoming more like Paisley...”

 

Is he a philosopher? Can you give me a URL link to him?

LOL !!


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:Genius

Epistemologist wrote:

Genius and insanity are virtually identical in their characteristics. So the question is, how do you know what the difference is between genius and insanity?

Easy.  Einstein was a genius.  You are insane.  But you won't understand because I am the expert on geniuses.

Get your meds adjusted.  You are worse than Kapkao.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

cj wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Genius and insanity are virtually identical in their characteristics. So the question is, how do you know what the difference is between genius and insanity?

 

Easy.  Einstein was a genius.  You are insane.  But you won't understand because I am the expert on geniuses.

 

Get your meds adjusted.  You are worse than Kapkao.

 

You guys are unbelievable.

 

OK, this is the best definition of insanity so far, and it’s from cj:

 

Eliminative (Platonic) idealism = insanity

 

Einstein = Genius

 

Sorry cj. That explains nothing. That is merely your personal opinion. Plato classified personal opinion as a delusion, and it may as well be a delusion because there is no evidence (that you have presented) that it is true.

 

I have explained what Platonic (eliminative) idealism is, logically.

 

To refute Platonic idealism, you have to show were my logical definition of it is flawed. If you cannot do that, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

Eliminative idealism is the metaphysical opposite of eliminative materialism. Most people seem to believe in eliminative materialism (unless they include qualia), judging by a thread by that title in this section of the forum.

 

To everyone: This thread is not an opportunity for you to be silly and poke fun. Philosophers take this issue very seriously – the difference between eliminative idealism and eliminative materialism; the difference between reality and illusion. You have to understand these two concepts to understand the rest of philosophy. It is not a joke. In the Teaching Company course, entitled ‘The Philosophy of Science’, Professor Jeffrey L. Kasser defines philosophy as studying questions that come naturally to children, using methods employed by lawyers i.e. philosophy asks the simplest questions possible, but it uses the most sophisticated methods of reasoning to answer them.

 

“Science can't be free of philosophy any more than baseball can be free of physics.” – Professor Jeffrey L. Kasser http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=4100

 

I am waiting for someone to mention, yes, you guessed it . . . the difference between universals and particulars. This is a central problem in metaphysics. I am not going to do the work for you.

 

So how do you understand the relationship between universals, particulars, and reality? Specifically, how do you understand how universals and particulars relate to reality in terms of the relationship between mathematics and natural science, particularly physics?

 

This is supposed to be the forum of the ‘Rational Response Squad’. So far, I am not impressed.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
We observe a filtered version of Reality, through the limitations of our senses.

Mathematics, Logic, and Metaphysics all deduce by reason the implications of their axioms.

Unless those axioms precisely capture every significant aspect of Reality, and there is no reason a priori to expect that they do, the conclusions of such 'idealist' disciplines are likely to eventually drift indefinitely far from an accurate depiction of reality.

At least Science is inherently self-correcting to a useful degree, therefore its conclusions about the nature of reality are more trustworthy. It uses Mathematics as an essential tool to describe and define the models of reality it constructs (theories). It selects those mathematical constructs which most closely correspond to the details of the model.

Just a reality check...

But the question you seem to be missing is, what exactly is reality? Is reality what we observe through our senses, or is reality what we know and experience by or through reasoning?

We don't know. We seem to perceive something beyond ourselves, including other individuals, who we seem to be able to interact with. 

We apply our reasoning abilities to our sensory information, to try to come to conclusions about reality, based on both that sensory data, accounts from other conscious beings, as perceived, and our own introspection. We try to synthesise a model of Reality from all these sources of information, using reason.

We make the assumption that Reality is whatever our senses are perceiving, however imperfectly, and also that we are immersed in it, so our minds/thoughts are also part of it, just as those perceived other beings like ourselves 'out there' are part of it.

Quote:

How does science know what reality is before it uses mathematics to investigate reality?

It doesn't know.

It starts with the most basic assumptions, and adjusts those ground assumptions as it acquires more data, so that it all fits together as 'simply' as possible, as per the parsimony principle of Occam's Razor.

Quote:

Why is mathematics not itself reality, from your perspective?

Mathematics investigates part of reality, in that it formally investigates how various ideal concepts (numbers, shapes, etc, logically interact in various combinations.

Quote:
 

Plato maintained that mathematics is reality and that physics is a reflection of reality. Aristotle maintained that physics (and the other natural sciences) is or reveal reality, and mathematics is the reflection of reality.

How do you know whether mathematics is the reflection, or whether physics is the reflection? How do you know which is reality, and which is not?

Mathematics is purely a formal system. It is intrinsically incapable of revealing anything not implied by its axioms, which are just assumptions made by us, derived by a combination of experience, intuition, observation, and reasoning. It is not a 'reflection' of reality, it actually does express truths about the implications of its axioms, and those will be truths about Reality, where elements of reality can be mapped to the elements in the theorem. But it is not capable of revealing every truth about reality, because the axioms cannot be known or proved to capture every truth about reality.

All it shows is that if reality matches the assumptions in the theorem, then the conclusion of the theorem should closely predict the corresponding aspect of reality.

For example , the standard axioms of Euclidean geometry lead to, among other things, the Theorem of Pythagoras, about the relation between the sides of a right-angle triangle. Now one of those axioms about parallel lines is only valid in 'flat' space. Since General Relativity postulates that space, or space-time, is 'curved' in the vicinity of a massive object, the axiom about parallel lines is no longer a general truth about reality. Which means that Pythagoras is no longer a general truth, but a way of measuring the flatness of space.

Physics is the actual study of reality, as far as we can access it. Mathematics doesn't pretend to study reality in that sense. It studies how idealized abstract entities and processes interact, which may, but not necessarily, correspond to some degree to some aspect of Reality.

The distinction is better captured by stating that Mathematics and other formal systems are deductive, their 'truths' are fundamentally tautologies, and so 100% true - they follow absolutely, given the axioms. Whereas the natural sciences are heavily reliant on induction, and so their 'truths' are inevitably to that extent provisional, not established with 100% certainty.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I believe this is why NASA

I believe this is why NASA removed Plato from the planets list.

 

 

 


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:

Epistemologist wrote:

liberatedatheist, in that reply, you have demonstrated that you do not understand metaphysics. It is only through metaphysics that you can understand the relationship between physics (and the other natural sciences), mathematics and reality.

 

What you clearly do not understand is that mathematics is reasoning. Reasoning does not exist in any location in time and space. Ideas do not exist anywhere in time and space. The two ways of knowing reality are through reason and observation. You CANNOT observe reasoning. 

 Alright, I vaguely see what you are trying to say. You are going to have to clarify a few things. What exactly is your conception of "reasoning". You have turned it into an entity of its own. Reasoning as it is generally conceived is a process undergone by rational beings. Reasoning cannot exist unless there is an organism there to reason. How is your conception of reason possible if you separate it from the physical reality of the rational being and based on what evidence is this separation possible?

Epistemologist wrote:

Physics is certainly not mathematics viewed in the light of reality, as you claim. Reality is not that which we observe through our senses. What we observe through our senses (the physical universe) is actually an illusion. Reality is what we know and experience by and through reasoning.

 

If reality is this sea of information that surrounds our bodies, then we only have access to information that we can perceive through the senses. Given that our senses are not faulty, then our perceived reality consists of only the information we experience making our reality limited but certainly not an illusion. Based on our experiences we can use reason to further deduce aspects of reality but it is impossible to reason without experiences. We can't reason about the form of an object we have never come across and have no information about. Even if it was hypothetically possible for a brilliant man that was born without any senses to derive all of the laws of mathematics when given enough time (which its not), he still has to experience existence in whatever limited way to do so. If he has no concept of existence he can have no concept of math or any higher realm of forms. We need a physical reality in order to reason, unless you have proof to the contrary.

 

Epistemologist wrote:

The evidence you present that reasoning is biological is very poor indeed. A loose correlation between the brain and the mind certainly does not mean that reasoning is biological. If you have ever studied statistics, you will know that correlation does not equal causation. For reasoning to be biological, you have to demonstrate that biology is the arbiter of reality. To do that, you have to show that knowledge of mathematics and physics, and reasoning about mathematics and physics, exists in a biological form in the brain. That is because, currently, it is mathematics and physics that are regarded to be the ultimate arbiters of reality, and not biology.

 

 

what do you mean by "arbiter of reality". Our biological nature can only affect how we perceive and conceive or reality but can't affect reality. Math and physics are even weaker in this regard, they cannot not affect reality or our perception of it. they are mere descriptions of reality.

And again once we are conceiving "reasoning" in a different way, reasoning has to have a physical "Biological" reality. we know this through experience. there is no evidence of a non organic or inanimate being that possesses reason. We can affect reasoning by altering our biological state. It is not a loose correlation as you claim. try removing your cerebrum, if reason and biology are only loosely correlated you should still be able to reason.

 

 

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:cj

Epistemologist wrote:

cj wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Genius and insanity are virtually identical in their characteristics. So the question is, how do you know what the difference is between genius and insanity?

 

Easy.  Einstein was a genius.  You are insane.  But you won't understand because I am the expert on geniuses.

 

Get your meds adjusted.  You are worse than Kapkao.

 

You guys are unbelievable.

 

OK, this is the best definition of insanity so far, and it’s from cj:

 

Eliminative (Platonic) idealism = insanity

 

Einstein = Genius

 

Sorry cj. That explains nothing. That is merely your personal opinion. Plato classified personal opinion as a delusion, and it may as well be a delusion because there is no evidence (that you have presented) that it is true.

Ah, but after showing you repeatedly that you do not have a lock on philosophy, that there are plenty of philosophers that disagree with you, that your definitions are not the only ones used by bona fide philosophers who post their names and credentials on the internet for all to see, you then have to gall to say you are the expert and we are dopes.  Seems to me that is your personal opinion and it proves nothing.  Who is the delusional one?

Seriously, check your meds.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:Genius

Epistemologist wrote:

Genius and insanity are virtually identical in their characteristics. So the question is, how do you know what the difference is between genius and insanity?

Geniuses are amazingly intelligent. You're not.

Edit: You're not even smarter than most of the people on this forum.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
Epis may be a fundamentalist atheist

Epistemologist wrote:

Physicalism and Naturalism are THE MOST IRRATIONAL of all irrational precepts. This is because Platonic Idealism is true.

 

This is the most fundamental of all questions at the centre of science and philosophy: What is reality, and what is not reality; what is nature, and what is not nature?

 

This question, and it’s answer, is metaphysical, or metaphysics.

 

The answer to this question, and it’s resulting debate, marks the central division in western thought. This debate began with Plato and Aristotle. Plato maintained that reality is that which we know or experience by or through reason (mathematics). Aristotle maintained the opposite; that reality is that which we know or experience by or through observation (physics and the other natural sciences). PLATO WAS RIGHT, AND ARISTOTLE WAS WRONG.

 

To clarify further, REALITY CANNOT BE BOTH WHAT WE OBSERVE, AND WHAT WE EXPERIENCE BY OR THROUGH REASON. IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

 

Platonic idealism is true because mathematics is reality, and physics is not. And because mathematics is reality, there is therefore no such thing as time and space. Time and space only exist in physics. TIME AND SPACE DO NOT EXIST IN MATHEMATICS. Physics is not reality; it is an imperfect reflection of mathematics.

 

For naturalism and physicalism to be true, reasoning has to be biological (observable). If reasoning is not biological, then naturalism and physicalism are false. REASONING IS NOT BIOLOGICAL, therefore naturalism and physicalism are false, and Platonic idealism is true.

 

THERE IS NO MORE EVIDENCE THAT REASONING OCCURS IN THE BRAIN (or that reasoning is biological) THAN THERE IS THAT GOD EXISTS i.e. in terms of evidence, if you believe that reasoning occurs in the brain, it is the same as believing in God. So if you believe that reasoning is biological or occurs in the brain, you may as well be ‘theist’. The brain, like the rest of the body, is just an illusion.

 

For physicalism and naturalism to be true, they have to demonstrate that knowledge of mathematics and physics exists in a biological form in the brain (or just in a biological form). This is because mathematics and physics are classified as the ultimate arbiters of reality – the queen and king of the sciences, respectively. For naturalism and physicalism to be true, biology has to be the ultimate arbiter of reality, and not mathematics and physics. And therefore the only way that biology can be the ultimate arbiter of reality, is to demonstrate the existence of mathematics and physics knowledge in a biological form. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE, SO BIOLOGY IS DEFINITELY NOT THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF REALITY.

 

 

but the reliance on a semantic war of the labels has decidedly theistic flavours. Consider reality being non physical, reasoning not being biological, the flat-out insistence that unprovable things are true, the implied fallacy from force inherent in the widespread upper case, the setting up on a pedestal of basic titles like 'metaphysics' in a manner that suggests the word itself has a special power. Then there's the insistence there is or must be the 'most important question in the universe' as laid down by some nude monkeys on a rock in the middle of nowhere. As for mathematics being the skeleton of reality - come again? The universe does not depend on math to exist. 

Epis, is there a possibility none of us know the answers to the big questions, including your grecian hero? I think 'reason' in relation to this universe is going to be inherent in any intelligence the universe 'produces'. This reason is shaped by the universe around us and at the same time it's not a separate thing from a biological mind. Another universe with different conditions would produce a different form of reason.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
We don't know. We seem to perceive something beyond ourselves, including other individuals, who we seem to be able to interact with.

 

We apply our reasoning abilities to our sensory information, to try to come to conclusions about reality, based on both that sensory data, accounts from other conscious beings, as perceived, and our own introspection. We try to synthesise a model of Reality from all these sources of information, using reason.

 

We make the assumption that Reality is whatever our senses are perceiving, however imperfectly, and also that we are immersed in it, so our minds/thoughts are also part of it, just as those perceived other beings like ourselves 'out there' are part of it.

 

But that does not solve the problem of whether mathematics is reality, or whether physics is reality. They cannot both be reality, because the truth of one is dependent upon observation, and the truth of the other is dependent upon reason. So how do you choose between mathematics and physics? Which one is reality, and which is not reality, and why?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
It (science) starts with the most basic assumptions, and adjusts those ground assumptions as it acquires more data, so that it all fits together as 'simply' as possible, as per the parsimony principle of Occam's Razor.

 

Wouldn’t Occam’s Razor demand that mathematics be the arbiter of reality rather than physics? Physics requires both reason and observation, but mathematics is simpler because it requires only reason.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Why is mathematics not itself reality, from your perspective?

 

Mathematics investigates part of reality, in that it formally investigates how various ideal concepts (numbers, shapes, etc, logically interact in various combinations.

 

Which part of reality does mathematics investigate? Are you implying that there is another part of reality that is not mathematics, and if so, what is it?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Mathematics is purely a formal system. It is intrinsically incapable of revealing anything not implied by its axioms, which are just assumptions made by us, derived by a combination of experience, intuition, observation, and reasoning. It is not a 'reflection' of reality, it actually does express truths about the implications of its axioms, and those will be truths about Reality, where elements of reality can be mapped to the elements in the theorem. But it is not capable of revealing every truth about reality, because the axioms cannot be known or proved to capture every truth about reality.

 

All it shows is that if reality matches the assumptions in the theorem, then the conclusion of the theorem should closely predict the corresponding aspect of reality.

 

For example , the standard axioms of Euclidean geometry lead to, among other things, the Theorem of Pythagoras, about the relation between the sides of a right-angle triangle. Now one of those axioms about parallel lines is only valid in 'flat' space. Since General Relativity postulates that space, or space-time, is 'curved' in the vicinity of a massive object, the axiom about parallel lines is no longer a general truth about reality. Which means that Pythagoras is no longer a general truth, but a way of measuring the flatness of space.

 

Physics is the actual study of reality, as far as we can access it. Mathematics doesn't pretend to study reality in that sense. It studies how idealized abstract entities and processes interact, which may, but not necessarily, correspond to some degree to some aspect of Reality.

 

The distinction is better captured by stating that Mathematics and other formal systems are deductive, their 'truths' are fundamentally tautologies, and so 100% true - they follow absolutely, given the axioms. Whereas the natural sciences are heavily reliant on induction, and so their 'truths' are inevitably to that extent provisional, not established with 100% certainty.

 

So are you seriously saying that mathematics is not natural, and not nature? If mathematics is not natural, then that debunks physics, because physics requires that mathematical truths conform to nature. If mathematics is not natural, then physics does not describe nature, because physics describes nature using mathematics.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:  No.

Epistemologist wrote:

 

No. My soul interacts with that of Plato intuitively through the world of ideal forms, which is eternal and outside time and space.

 

The existence of the soul (consciousness) is self evident. It is the belief in the existence of the brain, the body, and the rest of the physical universe that is unjustified. There is absolutely no evidence that the brain, the body, and the rest of the physical universe, are reality. Anyone who believes that the physical universe is reality is just living in cloud cuckoo land: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cuckoo_land

 

 

Oh, my bad.  I thought you were spewing nonsense.

 

You question the existence of the physical universe?  Ever stub your toe?  It hurts like a bitch.  When I REALLY want it to stop hurting, it continues to hurt.  How exactly do you interpret this?  Your toe is merely an extension of your consciousness that you have no control over?

 

And you are not the best.  At minimum you hold Plato as best, because you seem to like to jerk it to him every night before bed.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

liberatedatheist wrote:
Alright, I vaguely see what you are trying to say. You are going to have to clarify a few things. What exactly is your conception of "reasoning". You have turned it into an entity of its own. Reasoning as it is generally conceived is a process undergone by rational beings. Reasoning cannot exist unless there is an organism there to reason. How is your conception of reason possible if you separate it from the physical reality of the rational being and based on what evidence is this separation possible?

 

By ‘reasoning’, I simply mean ‘mathematics’ (including logic). Are you seriously saying that mathematics cannot exist if a thinking organism does not exist to think about it?

 

liberatedatheist wrote:
If reality is this sea of information that surrounds our bodies, then we only have access to information that we can perceive through the senses. Given that our senses are not faulty, then our perceived reality consists of only the information we experience making our reality limited but certainly not an illusion. Based on our experiences we can use reason to further deduce aspects of reality but it is impossible to reason without experiences. We can't reason about the form of an object we have never come across and have no information about. Even if it was hypothetically possible for a brilliant man that was born without any senses to derive all of the laws of mathematics when given enough time (which its not), he still has to experience existence in whatever limited way to do so. If he has no concept of existence he can have no concept of math or any higher realm of forms. We need a physical reality in order to reason, unless you have proof to the contrary.

 

What you have said in that paragraph is highly controversial. We don’t know that reality is the sea of information that surrounds our bodies (physics), if we even have bodies. You say that it is impossible to reason without experiences. You are therefore saying that mathematics cannot exist with out physics. But you’ve got it completely the wrong way around. It is actually physics that cannot exist without mathematics.

 

liberatedatheist wrote:
what do you mean by "arbiter of reality". Our biological nature can only affect how we perceive and conceive or reality but can't affect reality. Math and physics are even weaker in this regard, they cannot not affect reality or our perception of it. they are mere descriptions of reality.

And again once we are conceiving "reasoning" in a different way, reasoning has to have a physical "Biological" reality. we know this through experience. there is no evidence of a non organic or inanimate being that possesses reason. We can affect reasoning by altering our biological state. It is not a loose correlation as you claim. try removing your cerebrum, if reason and biology are only loosely correlated you should still be able to reason.

 

By ‘arbiter of reality’ I mean the judge of what reality ultimately is i.e. the natural sciences reduce reality to physics, and not biology. That is why physics is called the king of the sciences, and biology is not.

 

So are you saying that mathematics (reasoning) is reducible to biology, and not the other way around? Surely biology is reducible to physics, and physics, to make any sense whatsoever, must be reducible to mathematics.

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:  So

Epistemologist wrote:

 

So are you seriously saying that mathematics is not natural, and not nature? If mathematics is not natural, then that debunks physics, because physics requires that mathematical truths conform to nature. If mathematics is not natural, then physics does not describe nature, because physics describes nature using mathematics.

 

Really, it's a simple concept.  Neither mathematics nor physics ARE nature.  Both are models used to DESCRIBE certain aspects of reality.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

 

cj wrote:
Ah, but after showing you repeatedly that you do not have a lock on philosophy, that there are plenty of philosophers that disagree with you, that your definitions are not the only ones used by bona fide philosophers who post their names and credentials on the internet for all to see, you then have to gall to say you are the expert and we are dopes.  Seems to me that is your personal opinion and it proves nothing.  Who is the delusional one?

 

Seriously, check your meds.

 

No cj, you are wrong. I have repeatedly proved my position logically; people have only said that I haven’t because they were using rhetoric, and not logic. And everyone in this forum has failed to prove that naturalism and physicalism are true. You have to prove that they are true to prove that Platonic idealism is false. The burden of proof does not lie on Platonic idealism; it lies on naturalism and physicalism. And of course philosophers disagree; that’s how philosophy works. You are the one resorting to personal opinions. I am using logic and reason to prove my position. What my qualifications are, what your qualifications are, and what everyone else’s qualifications are, are irrelevant to this discussion. You have to use logic and reason, or you have failed. Sorry.

 

To cj, and everyone:

 

If you think Platonic idealism is either true or false, explain how.

 

If you think naturalism or physicalism are true or false, explain how.

 

If you think eliminative idealism or eliminative materialism are true or false, explain how.

 

If you can’t explain that, then the rest of science is meaningless, because choosing between whether mathematics or physics is reality requires that you get the first assumption right.

 

What I said in my first post in this discussion is a logic puzzle about the nature of reality. Platonic idealism is self evidently and automatically true. It is physicalism and naturalism (the opposite of Platonic idealism) that require evidence to support their claim to be true.

 

You can’t disprove it by mocking it. The solution to this logic problem is the primary axiom of natural science (naturalism and physicalism) i.e. reality is that which we observe (the assumption of natural science). Platonic idealism maintains that reality is not what we observe; reality is actually what we know or experience by or through reason (mathematics). From the perspective of Platonic idealism, mathematics is reality, and physics/natural science is a reflection of reality. If you disagree with this, you have to prove logically, that it is actually mathematics that is the reflection of reality, and not physics.

 

 

 


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

butterbattle wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
“Genius and insanity are virtually identical in their characteristics. So the question is, how do you know what the difference is between genius and insanity?

 

Geniuses are amazingly intelligent. You're not.

 

Edit: You're not even smarter than most of the people on this forum.

 

Here butterbattle (along with Cpt_pineapple and others in this forum) has demonstrated beautifully that naturalism and physicalism are a religion. butterbattle is absolutely incapable of disproving Platonic idealism, and proving naturalism and physicalism, using logic. So butterbattle has resorted to personal attack. That demonstrates that butterbattle’s position is ‘faith’ based, and not ‘reason’ based. butterbattle cannot logically defend physicalism and naturalism, and that is because they are an irrational religion.

 

As I have said before, my definition of religion is simple: Belief that something exists or is real with little or no evidence to support that belief. If you think that my definition of religion is incorrect, then please correct it.

 

butterbattle, you may be right, and you may be wrong, however, you have not logically disproved Platonic (eliminative) idealism.

 

If you think it is insane, you have to explain how, using logic, that naturalism and physicalism are true, and Platonic idealism is false.

 

I am very skeptical, so if you give me no evidence whatsoever that naturalism and physicalism are true, then I’m sticking with Platonic idealism, because it is self evidently true.

 

I say this to fundamentalist Christians, and I say this to you: If you think I should believe in the existence of your God, give me evidence that he exists. Otherwise your God (naturalism and physicalism) has no more evidence to support it than invisible pink unicorns and the invisible flying spaghetti monster.

 

To everyone: the catch phrase of this discussion is ‘evidence’. You need to provide evidence that physicalism and naturalism are true, if you think they are.

 

I am sorry I am pestering you all about this, and challenging your pet theories, but I am a rationalist, and I like debunking superstitious beliefs like naturalism and physicalism.

 

Since this is the forum of the Rational and Response Squad, I expect most forum users to use ‘reason’ rather than ‘faith’ to back up what they say.

 

I seek to purge the Rational Response Squad of ‘faith’, and replace faith with ‘reason’.

 

I am sorry if that offends you, but I believe that ‘reason’ is a greater arbiter of reality than ‘faith’.

 

That’s why I came to the forum of the Rational Response Squad. I was very pleased to know that a group of people were putting reason before faith. However, now I am disappointed, because I am seeing through the pretensions of the Rational Response Squad. The forum users here are putting faith before reason, and that is very disappointing indeed. I want to get away from religion, and that is why I have come to this forum. If I cannot escape from religion in this forum, then where can I escape from it?

 

This is really serious. If the Rational Response Squad are peddling Faith rather than reason, then you are all making the same mistake as the religious people i.e. the Rational Response Squad is clearly a religion.

 

I am sorry, but I am not religious. I think that religion is just nonsense. ‘Naturalism’ and ‘physicalism’ are clearly a religion, while their opposite – Platonic idealism – requires no evidence whatsoever.

 

Human beings are conceived and born as Platonic idealists, because Platonic idealism requires no ‘faith’. It is the opposite metaphysical perspectives that require faith (naturalism and physicalism), and I have demonstrated that logically.

 

The fact that none of you are capable of logically proving naturalism and physicalism, simply demonstrates, over and over again, that ‘naturalism’ and ‘physicalism’ are a religious faith.

 

Naturalists and physicalists pretend that their metaphysical perspective is scientific. It is not. Science requires evidence.

 

So I say this: Get the religious and superstitious beliefs out of science. Get rid of naturalism and physicalism. Let reason be the ultimate arbiter of reality, and not faith. I am on the side of ‘reason’, and not ‘faith’. That is why I am a Platonic idealist.

 

The burden of proof does not lie upon Platonic idealism. The burden of proof lies upon naturalism and physicalism. Platonic idealism is rational and requires no evidence. On the other hand, naturalism and physicalism are irrational, and they require evidence. But there is no evidence for naturalism and physicalism; they are just religious bunk.

 

Get back to basics. Get back to the metaphysical difference between Platonism and Aristotelianism. That is where it all started. All you believers in physicalism and naturalism need a reality check.

 

As someone says in their signature here, you have faith, and I have an axe. My axe is reason. Plato was more rational than Aristotle.

 

I am here to debunk naturalism and physicalism. And I am debunking them through reason, because they are irrational precepts.

 

It all boils down to this: Whether mathematics is the king, and whether physics is the queen, or vice versa.

 

From the perspective of naturalism and physicalism, mathematics and physics are called the queen and king of the sciences respectively. ‘King’ simply means the primary arbiter of reality, and ‘queen’ means the secondary arbiter of reality. From the perspective of Platonic idealism, it is mathematics that is the king, and physics that is the queen.

 

If reality is mathematics and not physics, then Platonic idealism wins. However, if reality is not mathematics but physics, then naturalism and physicalism win.

 

If mathematics is reality, then human beings are immortal, because there are no such things as time and space. Time and space are observed properties of the physical universe. The physical universe is merely a reflection of mathematics.

 

It is to do with the relationship between universals and particulars. Mathematical truths are universals, and physical truths are particulars. If universals are real, then the physical universe that we observe through our senses is reducible to universals. However, if universals are not real, and particulars are, then mathematics is reducible to physics, and the physical universe that we observe through our senses is reality, and mathematics is not reality. This raises the important contradiction: If the universals of mathematics are not real, then neither are the particulars of physics. That’s because physics requires the universals of mathematics to be true to describe the particulars of physics. So if the universals of mathematics are not real, then neither are the particulars of physics. So, that means . . . even from the perspective of physics, the universals of mathematics have to be real. And that means that only the universals of mathematics are real. That means that Platonic idealism is true, and physicalism and naturalism are false. Matter does not exist. Only consciousness (mind) exists.

 

 


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

Atheistextremist wrote:
“but the reliance on a semantic war of the labels has decidedly theistic flavours. Consider reality being non physical, reasoning not being biological, the flat-out insistence that unprovable things are true, the implied fallacy from force inherent in the widespread upper case, the setting up on a pedestal of basic titles like 'metaphysics' in a manner that suggests the word itself has a special power. Then there's the insistence there is or must be the 'most important question in the universe' as laid down by some nude monkeys on a rock in the middle of nowhere. As for mathematics being the skeleton of reality - come again? The universe does not depend on math to exist.

 

Epis, is there a possibility none of us know the answers to the big questions, including your grecian hero? I think 'reason' in relation to this universe is going to be inherent in any intelligence the universe 'produces'. This reason is shaped by the universe around us and at the same time it's not a separate thing from a biological mind. Another universe with different conditions would produce a different form of reason.”

 

The ‘semantic war of the labels’ as you put it, is not between labels. It is between concepts, and whether you like it or not, these concepts are metaphysical or metaphysics. Platonic idealism is a concept, and so is naturalism, and so is physicalism. It is actually ‘naturalism’ and ‘physicalism’ that have the ‘theistic flavour’, and not Platonic idealism.

 

But if reasoning (mathematics and logic) is biological, it means that mathematics is reducible to biology. However, every scientist knows that mathematics is not reducible to biology. That would just not make sense, because mathematics obviously existed before biology.

 

Your claim that the universe does not depend on mathematics to exist is nonsense. Physics would not work without mathematics, and the only way we know there even is a physical universe (if there is one) is through physics.

 

I agree that no one knows the answers to the big questions. I am highlighting the big problem that naturalism and physicalism claim that they do know the answer. But there is no evidence that naturalism and physicalism are true. All the evidence points to Platonic idealism being true, and naturalism and physicalism being false (i.e. reality is mathematics and not physics).

 

In mathematics there are no ‘other universes’. For there to be ‘other universes’, you have to assume that the physical universe, described by physics is actually a universe. What I am saying is that from the perspective of mathematics, there is no universe. There are just universal mathematical forms (universals rather than particulars), and they do not exist in time and space, because time and space are physics, not mathematics.

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote: I

Epistemologist wrote:

I have repeatedly proved my position logically;

 

You have to prove that they are true to prove that Platonic idealism is false. The burden of proof does not lie on Platonic idealism

 

I am using logic and reason to prove my position.

 

 

 Platonic idealism is self evidently and automatically true.

 

You really don't understand how debates work, do you?  Here, I'll disprove your position logically.  The burden of proof lies with YOU.  You posted in this thread that platonic idealism is true.  You did NOT do so logically, and you even admit above that you don't have a logical proof for it, because you admit you hold it as automatically true.  What's that fallacy called where you presuppose what you set out to prove?  Begging the question? 

 

This is what your argument boils down to, but twisted against you:

 

I know everything about science.  I'm the best.  No one can beat me.  You have tried, repeatedly, to show that idealism is true.  You have failed to provide evidence that reality is an extension of consciousness.  Since you cannot defeat my position, it is the best, and all others are irrational.  Your metaphysical perspective is the most irrational, because you cannot comprehend how correct I am.  I have used logic, reason, observation, and mathematics more pragmatically than you can ever hope to, and therefore I have a far better understanding of the nature of reality than you.  You also wish to show your philosophical prowess through a device developed by what you claim is the polar opposite of your position.  Your position is laughable, because it is only of use to people with egos inflated enough to feel the need to fill it with empty intelligence, to spread nonsensical ideas as truth because they sound crazy and profound.  You are no different than a teenager on acid.

 

 

I also don't believe for a second that you are an atheist.  Especially since you repeatedly add 'fundamental' as a qualifier.  Anybody else think he's being dishonest? (about the atheist claim)

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
Let's just skip the conjecture over

 

Epistemologist wrote:

From the perspective of Platonic idealism, mathematics is reality, and physics/natural science is a reflection of reality. If you disagree with this, you have to prove logically, that it is actually mathematics that is the reflection of reality, and not physics.

 

Math being reality and physics being the reflection of reality and jump straight into random matrix theory, shall we?

There are 50 years worth of studies that show that random matrices for a reason not understood encapsulate both math and physics yet at the same time offer profound insights into what we think of as reality. Random matrix theory can be applied to atomics, electronics, the behaviour of quantum particles, the movement of insects, the nature of prime numbers, the function of cells, climate, the impossible behaviour of water molecules, financial data - even the nature of road and internet traffic. In the future random matrices may ultimately help explain how biological brains work.

In any case, if there is an underlying universal law, it makes sense that this law is multi-dimensional and consistent across multiple discplines - math, physics (and QT) included.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Oh, my bad.  I thought you were spewing nonsense.

 

You question the existence of the physical universe?  Ever stub your toe?  It hurts like a bitch.  When I REALLY want it to stop hurting, it continues to hurt.  How exactly do you interpret this?  Your toe is merely an extension of your consciousness that you have no control over?

 

And you are not the best.  At minimum you hold Plato as best, because you seem to like to jerk it to him every night before bed.

 

You have not come even remotely close to proving that mathematics is reducible to biology. Sorry to disappoint you.

 


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
So are you seriously saying that mathematics is not natural, and not nature? If mathematics is not natural, then that debunks physics, because physics requires that mathematical truths conform to nature. If mathematics is not natural, then physics does not describe nature, because physics describes nature using mathematics.

 

Really, it's a simple concept.  Neither mathematics nor physics ARE nature.  Both are models used to DESCRIBE certain aspects of reality.

 

Reality is either that which we know or experience by or through observation (physics), or that which we know or experience by or through reason (mathematics and logic).

 

If you are implying that reality is something other than that, then what is it? Enquiring minds want to know.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:Reality

Epistemologist wrote:

Reality is either that which we know or experience by or through observation (physics), or that which we know or experience by or through reason (mathematics and logic).

 

If you are implying that reality is something other than that, then what is it? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

You really think that reality is only one of two things?  The most complicated and fundamental question in philosophy, and you think it is a true/false question?  C'mon, dude, it ain't that easy.  And why should I tell you what it is?  You won't believe me let alone understand what I tell you, as evidenced by your terrible understanding of what scientific naturalism entails in the first place.

 

But yes, I am implying that physics is not reality, nor is mathematics.  They are both a part of it, but neither is sufficient alone to constitute the whole of it.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote: You

Epistemologist wrote:

You have not come even remotely close to proving that mathematics is reducible to biology. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

I wasn't trying to. 


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
You really don't understand how debates work, do you?  Here, I'll disprove your position logically.  The burden of proof lies with YOU.  You posted in this thread that platonic idealism is true.  You did NOT do so logically, and you even admit above that you don't have a logical proof for it, because you admit you hold it as automatically true.  What's that fallacy called where you presuppose what you set out to prove?  Begging the question?

 

The burden of proof does not lie with my position of Platonic idealism. The burden of proof lies with your position of naturalism and physicalism, and this is why. For naturalism and physicalism to be true, mathematics has to be reducible to biology. Mathematics is not reducible to biology, therefore Platonic idealism is automatically and self evidently true (the only reality is mind, by default), and naturalism and physicalism are false (by default).

 

I explained the truth of Platonic idealism logically, and it is self evidently and automatically true. Are you implying that something cannot be both self evidently true and logical?

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
This is what your argument boils down to, but twisted against you:

 

I know everything about science.  I'm the best.  No one can beat me.  You have tried, repeatedly, to show that idealism is true.  You have failed to provide evidence that reality is an extension of consciousness.  Since you cannot defeat my position, it is the best, and all others are irrational.  Your metaphysical perspective is the most irrational, because you cannot comprehend how correct I am.  I have used logic, reason, observation, and mathematics more pragmatically than you can ever hope to, and therefore I have a far better understanding of the nature of reality than you.  You also wish to show your philosophical prowess through a device developed by what you claim is the polar opposite of your position.  Your position is laughable, because it is only of use to people with egos inflated enough to feel the need to fill it with empty intelligence, to spread nonsensical ideas as truth because they sound crazy and profound.  You are no different than a teenager on acid.

 

As usual, you are resorting to name calling to prove your position. As I said before, name-calling does not prove anything. You have to use logic. If you cannot use logic to prove your position, then you have lost the argument.

 

I know everything about the metaphysical relationship between mathematics, natural science and reality. Yes, in terms of knowing that, I am simply the best. I’m better than all the rest. I’m better than anyone; anyone you’ve ever met. Smiling

 

Physics is reducible to mathematics, and therefore reality is mathematics. Even from the perspective physicalism and naturalism, mathematics only exists in consciousness. Therefore consciousness (mind) is the only reality.

 

It is actually your metaphysical perspective that is irrational, because you cannot comprehend how correct I am. You cannot comprehend that your metaphysical perspective (naturalism and physicalism) is logically false, even though it blatantly is.

 

You cannot understand the relationship between mathematics, physics (and the other natural sciences) and reality, if you do not understand metaphysics. You clearly do not understand metaphysics.

 

It is actually your metaphysical position (naturalism and physicalism) that is laughable and nonsensical, and I have logically proved that.

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
I also don't believe for a second that you are an atheist.  Especially since you repeatedly add 'fundamental' as a qualifier.  Anybody else think he's being dishonest? (about the atheist claim)

 

OK, you are right that I am not an atheist. I am actually an apophatic theist, which is pretty much the same thing as an atheist. Essentially, an apophatic theist – a via negativa theist – is a theist that does not believe in the existence of God. Meister Eckhart was an apophatic theist (or apophatic mystic), and he expressed this position when he said, “. . . let us pray to God that we may be free of God, that we may gain the truth and enjoy it eternally, there where the highest angel, the fly and the soul are equal, there where I stood and wanted what I was, and was what I wanted.” Anyway, that is off topic. We are only talking about the relationship between mathematics (and logic), natural science and reality.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

Atheistextremist wrote:
Math being reality and physics being the reflection of reality and jump straight into random matrix theory, shall we?

 

There are 50 years worth of studies that show that random matrices for a reason not understood encapsulate both math and physics yet at the same time offer profound insights into what we think of as reality. Random matrix theory can be applied to atomics, electronics, the behaviour of quantum particles, the movement of insects, the nature of prime numbers, the function of cells, climate, the impossible behaviour of water molecules, financial data - even the nature of road and internet traffic. In the future random matrices may ultimately help explain how biological brains work.

 

In any case, if there is an underlying universal law, it makes sense that this law is multi-dimensional and consistent across multiple discplines - math, physics (and QT) included.

 

The point is that mathematics does not exist in the physical universe. Mathematics does not possess the properties of space and time. It describes the properties of space and time. If mathematics possesses the properties of space and time, then mathematics is space and time i.e. you are saying that mathematics is reality. Naturalism and physicalism assert that mathematics is not reality, but that we use it to understand and describe reality. The problem is that if mathematics is not reality, then what exactly is the reality that we seek to understand and describe using mathematics? If mathematics exists only in human thought, it means that mathematics does not exist in the physical universe. But if mathematics does not exist in the physical universe, why do we find it in the physical universe? Ultimately, what is the difference between mathematics and the physical universe? I assert that there is no difference, because there is no evidence that there is a difference i.e. Platonic idealism is true by default.

 


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Reality is either that which we know or experience by or through observation (physics), or that which we know or experience by or through reason (mathematics and logic).

 

If you are implying that reality is something other than that, then what is it? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

You really think that reality is only one of two things?  The most complicated and fundamental question in philosophy, and you think it is a true/false question?  C'mon, dude, it ain't that easy.  And why should I tell you what it is?  You won't believe me let alone understand what I tell you, as evidenced by your terrible understanding of what scientific naturalism entails in the first place.

 

But yes, I am implying that physics is not reality, nor is mathematics.  They are both a part of it, but neither is sufficient alone to constitute the whole of it.

 

I’m talking about the philosophy of science, not simply philosophy i.e. the metaphysical relationship between reality, mathematics and natural science (particularly physics). From the perspective of the philosophy of science (and from the perspective of science), natural science and mathematics are the only ways of knowing and experiencing reality. Are you implying that there are other ways, and if so, what are they?

 

Naturalism and physicalism merely mean that reality is that which is observed or perceived through the senses. That’s all there is to it. If I am mistaken, then tell me how I am mistaken.

 

The problem is that if you are asserting that neither the physical universe, nor what human beings experience in their minds, on their own or together constitute the whole of reality, then what else is there? We have run out of options.

 

If you are asserting that things exist other than what we experience through our senses or know through reason, then you could assert that just about anything exists. You could assert that God exists, and your assertion would be rational. If that is your assertion, then Richard Dawkins would be very disappointed with you.

 


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Platonic Idealism

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
You have not come even remotely close to proving that mathematics is reducible to biology. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

I wasn't trying to.

 

Well, you should have been, because if mathematics is not reducible to biology, it means that your metaphysical perspectives of naturalism and physicalism are absolutely false, and Platonic idealism is absolutely true.

 

If mathematics is not reducible to biology, it means that the soul definitely exists, human beings are immortal, religion is therefore not irrational but rationally justified (i.e. religion is actually rational), and atheism is irrational and therefore sucks. It means that the ‘Rational Response Squad’ are actually the ‘Irrational Response Squad’ because I have debunked them through logic. It means I have debunked Richard Dawkins. And I have. I have logically debunked The Rational Response Squad and Richard Dawkins. The reason why I have achieved this is because I am a fundamentalist atheist i.e. I question the fundamental assumption of what reality is (perception vs. reason). The reason why I am a ‘theist’ is because I am such an extreme atheist that it has lead me back to God. God exists, and I found God in the ideal eternal world of perfect forms outside time and space (along with Plato), by completely denying God’s existence – denying that the reality I perceive is real.

 

For consciousness to be a biological phenomenon, the metaphysical perspectives of naturalism and physicalism have to be true. The only way that naturalism and physicalism can be true is if consciousness is a biological phenomenon. Consciousness can only be a biological phenomenon if mathematics only exists in human consciousness. Naturalism and physicalism assert that mathematics only exists in human consciousness; it does not exist in the physical universe from the perspectives of naturalism and physicalism. So for naturalism and physicalism to be true, the burden of proof is on biology to demonstrate that mathematics only exists in biological form i.e. biology has to show mathematics in a biological form (in the brain, for example). The problem is that mathematics is certainly not reducible to biology. If it were reducible to biology, then biology could not use mathematics to investigate nature. Therefore naturalism and physicalism are false, and Platonic idealism is true. God exists, because otherwise, where else could our souls have come from? Human being’s are made in the image of God, just like the Bible says. And the Bible is divine revelation from God. That’s perfectly rational and scientific. So science is not in conflict with religion. Science and religion are in perfect harmony. It is actually atheism, naturalism and physicalism that are in conflict with science. That’s because atheism, naturalism and physicalism are irrational.

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
The difference between

The difference between genius and insanity? That's easy.

Genius provides better understanding of our universe, resulting in pragmatic, usable results.

Insanity leads to a bunch of words strung together that may possibly sound intelligent, but provides nothing of pragmatic value.

What have you provided of pragmatic value, Epistemologist?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
This point is correct

Epistemologist wrote:

If you are asserting that things exist other than what we experience through our senses or know through reason, then you could assert that just about anything exists. You could assert that God exists, and your assertion would be rational. If that is your assertion, then Richard Dawkins would be very disappointed with you.

And that's why most atheists including dawkins admit a vanishing probablity of god. The fact is there are things we do not know and things we may never know about the universe. Why are you so insistent on this black and white version of 'reality'? What is it that you are fundamentally trying to say to us here?

You are a theist, aren't you, Epis?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
Just call your self a theist and be done with it, Epis.

Epistemologist wrote:

The reason why I am a ‘theist’ is because I am such an extreme atheist that it has lead me back to God. God exists, and I found God in the ideal eternal world of perfect forms outside time and space (along with Plato), by completely denying God’s existence – denying that the reality I perceive is real.

 

No one's going to bite you.

 

 


 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
“You're becoming more like Paisley...”

Is he a philosopher? Can you give me a URL link to him?

Y'know what'd be funny?

A debate between Paisley and Epistemologist. I'm giggling just thinking about it.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
I think it's fair to say these sentences are the nub of

Epistemologist wrote:

The problem is that if mathematics is not reality, then what exactly is the reality that we seek to understand and describe using mathematics? If mathematics exists only in human thought, it means that mathematics does not exist in the physical universe. But if mathematics does not exist in the physical universe, why do we find it in the physical universe?

The Epis theory. I would contest the claim that mathematics is always capable of representing the random nature of the universe. You believe math encapsulates the vibrations, the waves, the ethereal weirdnesses that lie at the heart of things? What if it's rythmic disorder? Math is a reflection of the human need for order, not the DNA of reality. It's pretty obvious that sets of formulae designed to describe this universe by a creature living in this universe are going to symbolically represent things about the actual universe that we can conceive in our minds. This doesn't mean math is the universe. No one knows what the universe is made of. 

 

 


 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
We don't know. We seem to perceive something beyond ourselves, including other individuals, who we seem to be able to interact with.

We apply our reasoning abilities to our sensory information, to try to come to conclusions about reality, based on both that sensory data, accounts from other conscious beings, as perceived, and our own introspection. We try to synthesise a model of Reality from all these sources of information, using reason.

We make the assumption that Reality is whatever our senses are perceiving, however imperfectly, and also that we are immersed in it, so our minds/thoughts are also part of it, just as those perceived other beings like ourselves 'out there' are part of it.

But that does not solve the problem of whether mathematics is reality, or whether physics is reality. They cannot both be reality, because the truth of one is dependent upon observation, and the truth of the other is dependent upon reason. So how do you choose between mathematics and physics? Which one is reality, and which is not reality, and why?

They are BOTH reality, just addressing different aspects/parts of reality/truth. They are both dependent on reason, but natural sciences have to ADD empirical observation because it addresses nature in general, not just the truths of pure reasoning about abstract theorems. 

Do you know what a FALSE dichotomy is?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It (science) starts with the most basic assumptions, and adjusts those ground assumptions as it acquires more data, so that it all fits together as 'simply' as possible, as per the parsimony principle of Occam's Razor.

Wouldn’t Occam’s Razor demand that mathematics be the arbiter of reality rather than physics? Physics requires both reason and observation, but mathematics is simpler because it requires only reason.

That comment reflects the common misunderstanding of what Occam's Razor is about, and misunderstands what I was applying it to.

First, it is not about the 'simplest' explanation, in any naive sense, it is about the explanation that requires the fewest new assumptions, the fewest new principles or entities. If two explanations are similar on that criteria, then we can select the simplest.

Second, I was not applying the Razor to decide between Physics and Mathematics, but rather to help decide between various alternative theories proposed and developed thru the application of reason AND empiricism to observation and experiment, ie the normal process of science.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Why is mathematics not itself reality, from your perspective?

Mathematics investigates part of reality, in that it formally investigates how various ideal concepts (numbers, shapes, etc, logically interact in various combinations.

 

Which part of reality does mathematics investigate? Are you implying that there is another part of reality that is not mathematics, and if so, what is it?

Mathematics, of itself, does not study those aspects of reality that the natural/empirical sciences address, but it is a fundamental tool for analysing the results of empirical observation, and provides a language for constructing scientific theories of how the entities being observed interact.

Why do persist in failing to grasp this?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Mathematics is purely a formal system. It is intrinsically incapable of revealing anything not implied by its axioms, which are just assumptions made by us, derived by a combination of experience, intuition, observation, and reasoning. It is not a 'reflection' of reality, it actually does express truths about the implications of its axioms, and those will be truths about Reality, where elements of reality can be mapped to the elements in the theorem. But it is not capable of revealing every truth about reality, because the axioms cannot be known or proved to capture every truth about reality.

All it shows is that if reality matches the assumptions in the theorem, then the conclusion of the theorem should closely predict the corresponding aspect of reality.

For example , the standard axioms of Euclidean geometry lead to, among other things, the Theorem of Pythagoras, about the relation between the sides of a right-angle triangle. Now one of those axioms about parallel lines is only valid in 'flat' space. Since General Relativity postulates that space, or space-time, is 'curved' in the vicinity of a massive object, the axiom about parallel lines is no longer a general truth about reality. Which means that Pythagoras is no longer a general truth, but a way of measuring the flatness of space.

Physics is the actual study of reality, as far as we can access it. Mathematics doesn't pretend to study reality in that sense. It studies how idealized abstract entities and processes interact, which may, but not necessarily, correspond to some degree to some aspect of Reality.

The distinction is better captured by stating that Mathematics and other formal systems are deductive, their 'truths' are fundamentally tautologies, and so 100% true - they follow absolutely, given the axioms. Whereas the natural sciences are heavily reliant on induction, and so their 'truths' are inevitably to that extent provisional, not established with 100% certainty.

So are you seriously saying that mathematics is not natural, and not nature? If mathematics is not natural, then that debunks physics, because physics requires that mathematical truths conform to nature. If mathematics is not natural, then physics does not describe nature, because physics describes nature using mathematics.

 

Mathematics certainly is not 'nature', it is a human construct which describes the formal properties of ideal entities such as numbers, pure shapes, etc. As such, it can be applied to describe and analyse simplified models of natural phenomena.

The underlined proposition simply does not follow.

Take a really basic example. Maths describes the properties of an 'ideal' circle, giving us formulae to calculate the area and circumference of a such a shape. Whenever we come across a 'real' object which has a more-or-less circular shape, even if it is inevitably not a 'perfect' circle, we can still usefully apply those mathematical formula to it.

That is all that is required. The concepts of maths, such as perfect circles, do not have to have some Platonic reality to be usefully applied to the analysis of nature.

Nature itself is far more complex than any of our theories.

Physics applies those mathematical truths that do appear to adequately match patterns we observe in nature.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Math cannot be the ultimate

Math cannot be the ultimate reality, because its propositions are false more often than they are true. For example, "one and one makes two" is only true if you are referring to like kinds. If you select random referents for these quantities you get a false sentence, "one apple plus one skyscraper equals two minivans." Math is just a language for describing empirical realities. If it is not, then what meaning does it have?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I have a hard time with

I have a hard time with people actually trying to rationalize with this mess. Trying to add and subtract infinity and immortality, is just a quick lol and nothing more. Is this  concept even really on the radar?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Nature

BobSpence1 wrote:

Nature itself is far more complex than any of our theories.

Physics applies those mathematical truths that do appear to adequately match patterns we observe in nature.

This touches on a point I wanted to make earlier, but didn't.

There are plenty of examples that demonstrate our pragmatic (and still imprecise) application of mathematics and mathematical concepts.

The idea that the earth is flat is incorrect, yet it is sufficiently close to reality on a small scale that maps are practical. The idea the earth is a perfect sphere is a far better model than a flat earth, yet it is still incorrect. In spite of this, assuming the earth is a sphere allows us to fly around the world, or launch spacecraft. Modeling the earth as an oblate spheroid is closer to the truth, but still not perfect; and yet it helps us keep our satellites in orbit.

Then there's Newton's Laws, which turned out to not represent motion exactly, after a couple of hundred years of dominance. The equations and concepts are simple and elegant, and reality seems to abide by them; but on closer inspection, the laws are only "close enough for government work," as my friends used to say. They are nothing but very useful approximations.

All of this pretty much demonstrates there is no underlying metaphysical meaning to mathematics. At most, it is a tool that allows us to describe measurable properties and relationships in terms that are close enough to be useful. The closer we can approximate reality with mathematics, the more useful our model is; but in the end, it's still just a model.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Y'know

nigelTheBold wrote:
Y'know what'd be funny?

A debate between Paisley and Epistemologist. I'm giggling just thinking about it.

I doubt that would be possible. They would repel each other like two magnetic poles of the same polarity. Or like two negative charges. What I am giggling at is that Epistemologist won't get my analogy, since it refers to what happens in reality...