Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

That's the stuff, Steve!

[3017Metaphysician]

So let's use the example of mathematical truths. These are truths that are unchanging, much like the idea or concepts of eternity. And those kinds of truths describe ( and to some extent 'explain') the cosmos and/or physical and non-physical existence so effectively. Paradox?

I'd say mathematical truths are true because we define them as such. So they're unchanging because we choose not to change them. We created them as abstractions of our observations of patterns in what we observe. Starting with positive integers as abstractions of the process of counting discrete objects and going from there. So, no I see no paradox. Mathematics is useful for describing our observations of the universe because we made it for that purpose.

Steve!

Does that mean mathematical truths are primarily subjective truths? If so, what other subjective truths are out there?

I'll get to your other comments soon!

[Steve3007]

Does that mean mathematical truths are primarily subjective truths? If so, what other subjective truths are out there?

No, I wouldn't call them subjective truths. I'd call them tautologies. To me, a subjective proposition is one whose truth conditions are not publicly verifiable, because they're about our own state of mind, and an objective proposition is one whose truth conditions are publicly verifiable by observation of an extra-mental world. So an example of the former would be "There is an elephant in my garden" and an example of the latter would be "I am experiencing a perception that I call 'an elephant in my garden.'"".

Mathematical propositions are not wholly either. To my mind, as I said, their origins are in abstractions we create from our observations of the real world, starting with concepts like positive integers to represent discrete objects that we've observed and extrapolating from there.

[Steve3007]

Typo in the first paragraph: Former and latter examples should be reversed.

[Steve3007]

Other examples of subjective propositions: I am sad. I am happy. I like ice cream. etc.

[Terrapin Station]

1. When we travel from east coast to west, why don't you get to have back the lost time?

You don't literally "lose" any time in that situation.

2. Is the Twin Paradox really a paradox, and can it be resolved?

Not a paradox. Changes can happen at different relative rates.

3. What is considered 'present' time (how big of a slice of time represents ' the now' )?

The changes/motion that are occurring from a particular point/frame of reference. (Contra the changes that have occurred but that are no longer occurring, or the changes that will occur but have not occurred yet.) "How big of a slice" that amounts to depends on the frame of reference in question--the scope of the frame and how quickly relatively changes or motion occurs in the frame in question.

4. Is Time itself a metaphysical feature or quality of existence, and/or reality?

Yes. It's change or motion.

5. Is time just a human calibration (clocks) of change?

"Just"? No. That's just one example of changes or motions.

6. Are unchanging truths like mathematical truths paradoxical vis-à-vis a contingent/determinate world of causation?

There's no such thing as "unchanging truths." Truth is subjective. It's a judgment that an individual makes about the way a proposition relates to something else (like the way that it corresponds to states of affairs, or the way it coheres with other propositions, etc.). Mathematics is an abstracted and extrapolated way of thinking about relations.

The video you posted didn't actually present anything I'd consider a paradox.

[3017Metaphysician]

Does that mean mathematical truths are primarily subjective truths? If so, what other subjective truths are out there?

No, I wouldn't call them subjective truths. I'd call them tautologies. To me, a subjective proposition is one whose truth conditions are not publicly verifiable, because they're about our own state of mind, and an objective proposition is one whose truth conditions are publicly verifiable by observation of an extra-mental world. So an example of the former would be "There is an elephant in my garden" and an example of the latter would be "I am experiencing a perception that I call 'an elephant in my garden.'"".

Mathematical propositions are not wholly either. To my mind, as I said, their origins are in abstractions we create from our observations of the real world, starting with concepts like positive integers to represent discrete objects that we've observed and extrapolating from there.

Steve!

Okay. If I am then "experiencing a perception" of mathematics, which happens to somehow describe or explain reality, here's (at the very least) what must be considered:

1. How, why, what and where are physical structures explained by non-physical means? Where did the non-physical means come from (matter--->mind)?
2. How do the 'unchanging' truths of 'objective mathematics' (publicly verifiable) explain/describe the world of 'change'?
3. If mathematics is unreasonably effective in describing/explaining the initial cosmological conditions prior to the BB, are they transcendent laws?
4. Explain how the theory of evolution incorporates abstract cognitive structures (mathematics) in the emergence of the intellect?
5. If we "create" abstractions, what other abstractions are real?

Those are all for now. I'm still trying to sift through the other stuff, thank you Steve!

[3017Metaphysician]

1. When we travel from east coast to west, why don't you get to have back the lost time?

Because you haven't lost any time. You've just travelled to a part of the world where the sun is at a different position in the sky.

2. Is the Twin Paradox really a paradox, and can it be resolved?

No, it's just an illustration of a property of Nature that is described by General Relativity.

3. What is considered 'present' time (how big of a slice of time represents ' the now' )?

Depends on your purposes.

4. Is Time itself a metaphysical feature or quality of existence, and/or reality?

It's the thing that clocks measure. Alternatively: it's an abstraction of the real phenomenon of change.

5. Is time just a human calibration (clocks) of change?

Yes, roughly. I'd say it's a human abstraction of change.

6. Are unchanging truths like mathematical truths paradoxical vis-à-vis a contingent/determinate world of causation?

No.

7. Add your own questions with logically possible solutions...

Why is the past different from the future? Because of the statistical properties of large collections of particles that give rise to the second law of thermodynamics, leading to the curious conclusion that the arrow of time is a statistical phenomenon.

Steve!

Let's take some of the problems with your replies one at a time (no pun intended). Looking at the most obvious first:

"3. What is considered 'present' time (how big of a slice of time represents ' the now') ?"

And your reply was: "Depends on your purposes"?

Are you suggesting that somehow the illusion of time is manifested by the simple fact that time goes by faster when "your" busy? In other words, what do you mean by "your purposes"?

[Steve3007]

Let's take some of the problems with your replies one at a time (no pun intended). Looking at the most obvious first:

"3. What is considered 'present' time (how big of a slice of time represents ' the now') ?"

And your reply was: "Depends on your purposes"?

Are you suggesting that somehow the illusion of time is manifested by the simple fact that time goes by faster when "your" busy? In other words, what do you mean by "your purposes"?

No, I mean that the length of the slice of time that we use depends on what we're trying to predict or measure about whatever time-dependent phenomenon we're considering. For example, if we're using differential calculus to examine the rate at which something happens with respect to time then the time slice is infinitesimal, because that's how differential calculus works.

I'll have a look at your previous reply tomorrow.

[Steve3007]

Okay. If I am then "experiencing a perception" of mathematics, which happens to somehow describe or explain reality, here's (at the very least) what must be considered:

OK.

1. How, why, what and where are physical structures explained by non-physical means? Where did the non-physical means come from (matter--->mind)?

If by "non-physical means" you mean abstract concepts, they're explained in the same way you'd explain something with words. The abstract concept is mapped to reality. If you use words, such as English words, to describe something real then that's what you're doing. But that doesn't mean abstract concepts exist independently of matter. Software can't exist without hardware.

2. How do the 'unchanging' truths of 'objective mathematics' (publicly verifiable) explain/describe the world of 'change'?

By saying things like "My car is currently travelling at 40 m/s and accelerating at 5 m/s²." That sentence isn't a physical object is it? But it describes a change in a physical object.

3. If mathematics is unreasonably effective in describing/explaining the initial cosmological conditions prior to the BB, are they transcendent laws?

What do you mean by a "transcendent law"? Is, for example, Newton's law of universal gravitation an example of one?

4. Explain how the theory of evolution incorporates abstract cognitive structures (mathematics) in the emergence of the intellect?

Individuals which have traits that tend to help them to survive tend to live long enough to pass those traits to their children. As I said in the previous topic in which this came up, in humans at least it's clear that one of those traits is the capacity for abstract thought - being able to work things out in your head before actually doing them. Being able to make mental maps.

5. If we "create" abstractions, what other abstractions are real?

Abstractions, by definition, aren't real. In my usage, "real" is the antonym of "abstract". If you're just asking for other examples of abstractions, we could choose this conversation.

Those are all for now. I'm still trying to sift through the other stuff, thank you Steve!

No problem. Don't worry trying to sift through too much. It was mostly just me and Belindi chatting about your "travelling from east to west" question!

[3017Metaphysician]

Let's take some of the problems with your replies one at a time (no pun intended). Looking at the most obvious first:

"3. What is considered 'present' time (how big of a slice of time represents ' the now') ?"

And your reply was: "Depends on your purposes"?

Are you suggesting that somehow the illusion of time is manifested by the simple fact that time goes by faster when "your" busy? In other words, what do you mean by "your purposes"?

No, I mean that the length of the slice of time that we use depends on what we're trying to predict or measure about whatever time-dependent phenomenon we're considering. For example, if we're using differential calculus to examine the rate at which something happens with respect to time then the time slice is infinitesimal, because that's how differential calculus works.

I'll have a look at your previous reply tomorrow.

Steve!

What are your examples of calculus viz time?

And can you explain why the perception of time changes?

Then we you get a change, talk about how thick the present is, and be sure to provide objective answers... .

Happy Friday Steve!

[3017Metaphysician]

Okay. If I am then "experiencing a perception" of mathematics, which happens to somehow describe or explain reality, here's (at the very least) what must be considered:

OK.

1. How, why, what and where are physical structures explained by non-physical means? Where did the non-physical means come from (matter--->mind)?

If by "non-physical means" you mean abstract concepts, they're explained in the same way you'd explain something with words. The abstract concept is mapped to reality. If you use words, such as English words, to describe something real then that's what you're doing. But that doesn't mean abstract concepts exist independently of matter. Software can't exist without hardware.

2. How do the 'unchanging' truths of 'objective mathematics' (publicly verifiable) explain/describe the world of 'change'?

By saying things like "My car is currently travelling at 40 m/s and accelerating at 5 m/s²." That sentence isn't a physical object is it? But it describes a change in a physical object.

3. If mathematics is unreasonably effective in describing/explaining the initial cosmological conditions prior to the BB, are they transcendent laws?

What do you mean by a "transcendent law"? Is, for example, Newton's law of universal gravitation an example of one?

4. Explain how the theory of evolution incorporates abstract cognitive structures (mathematics) in the emergence of the intellect?

Individuals which have traits that tend to help them to survive tend to live long enough to pass those traits to their children. As I said in the previous topic in which this came up, in humans at least it's clear that one of those traits is the capacity for abstract thought - being able to work things out in your head before actually doing them. Being able to make mental maps.

5. If we "create" abstractions, what other abstractions are real?

Abstractions, by definition, aren't real. In my usage, "real" is the antonym of "abstract". If you're just asking for other examples of abstractions, we could choose this conversation.

Those are all for now. I'm still trying to sift through the other stuff, thank you Steve!

No problem. Don't worry trying to sift through too much. It was mostly just me and Belindi chatting about your "travelling from east to west" question!

Steve!

1.
a. Are saying that abstract's are objectively real? (I ask that because you said you explain them with words.)
b. You seem to be saying software and hardware are analogous to some kind of subjective/objective truth (not sure just guessing broadly speaking). If that's the case, explain what's in the design of the 'hardware' and 'software' analogy relative to the thing-in-itself (the thing-in-itself being 'abstracts'). An example that may help is the philosophical question of 'what is the nature of mathematics'.
c. You said abstracts don't exist independently of matter. What do you mean?
d. If mathematical truths are abstract, are they also objective?

We'll parse your other replies shortly. I'll number them to try and maintain some continuity. Thanks again Steve for your thoughts.

[Steve3007]

What are your examples of calculus viz time?

Are you broadly familiar with how differential calculus works? It's all about describing rates of change - how one quantity changes with respect to a second quantity. The second quantity is often time. For example, the movement of an object with constant acceleration (constant rate of change of velocity) could be described like this:

^dv/_dt = some constant.

The 'd' notation indicates an infinitesimal (vanishingly small) quantity.

And can you explain why the perception of time changes?

My guess would be that it has to do with how much is going on in our minds. In highly stressful situations time appears to go more slowly because our thoughts are going more quickly. Something like that. What's your guess?

Then we you get a change, talk about how thick the present is, and be sure to provide objective answers... .

I don't really know what you mean by "how thick the present is". You seem to be talking about "the present" as if it's an object!

Happy Friday Steve!

Happy Friday to you too. What's the weather like there? Nice and sunny here. The leaves on the tree outside my office window are just starting to turn golden.

[Steve3007]

a. Are saying that abstract's are objectively real? (I ask that because you said you explain them with words.)

Abstractions, by definition, aren't real. In my usage, "real" is the antonym of "abstract".

Why would explaining abstract concepts with words make you think that I'm saying they're real?

[3017Metaphysician]

a. Are saying that abstract's are objectively real? (I ask that because you said you explain them with words.)

Abstractions, by definition, aren't real. In my usage, "real" is the antonym of "abstract".

Why would explaining abstract concepts with words make you think that I'm saying they're real?

Steve!

Great question. Because the logic of language is objectivity, no? Surely you're not suggesting language is metaphysical and/or paradoxical in some way are you?