God and time and space

[Underseer]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVDaSgyi3xE[/YOUTUBE]

Platonism? Really?

In a discussion about what is real you bring up a goofy philosophy that posits that ideas exist in reality independent of sentient minds?

 

[Horatio Parker]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVDaSgyi3xE[/YOUTUBE]

Platonism? Really?

In a discussion about what is real you bring up a goofy philosophy that posits that ideas exist in reality independent of sentient minds?

The OP is about god and time. What do you expect, quantum physics?

 

[George S]

In a discussion about what is real you bring up a goofy philosophy that posits that ideas exist in reality independent of sentient minds?

There are concepts and physical things. The concept of the triangle is clear enough. Can't build one though. The sides have no width.

The idea, the concept, was discovered, right? Or was it invented. If we posit a kind of concept-space then all of Plato's perfect geometric forms reside therein. Goofy things too, of course. The concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and The Trinity are there. Strangely, you are too as a self-concept.

Is being a self-concept ... existing in concept space enough to make something (you, in particular) real? Ask Descartes.

Perhaps the concept of a concept-space (which is in the set of all sets which contain themselves) is infinite. But of a lesser infinity by far than the class of all things -- Cantor calls it Omega; Rudy Rucker calls it God -- which is so large it cannot contain itself. In "naive" (a technical term, not a pejorative) set theory a Set is something you can wrap your mind around and place within braces {}. Omega is of such a high cardinality (the highest) that when you try to describe it you, quite literally, run out of superlatives. It is the end of the sequence: "No, not only that, there's something bigger" ... ad infinitum. It cannot be reached (mathematically) from below. It is bigger than all the multiples and subsets of all the infinities of lesser cardinality no matter how combined. It is too big to be a Set. Too big to "wrap your mind around."

It is existence bare. Unjustified.

Just another concept: The concept of Reality-as-a-whole. Including all degrees from zero on up of supernatural, supersupernatural, and so on which are real. We might call each of these a higher dimension with no loss of generality. Yahvist scientific theory would be that a denizen of a containing universe created ours as an artifact in his. An experiment he's running for his own purposes. Or perhaps a bit less real: A simulation of a universe he can play with. A novel for his peers.

We ourselves, have an exponentially growing sphere centered right here called our observable universe. We took its picture: CMBR. To peer beyond that sphere is literally impossible. That stuff we see as CMBR was plasma like the sun once. Brighter by far. All the locations in the observable universe (including right here) were like that. It cooled. When it got 100,000 years old it had cooled enough that it was no longer plasma. It was a transparent gas which could freely pass the last free photons from before it changed state. Those energetic photons lost steam over 13.72 billion years due to the stretching of space and have red-shifted all the way to microwaves. They cook everything. 2.7 degrees. You, Mars and empty space is, at a minimum, 2.7 degrees. Your body temperature would be 2.7 degrees less if it were absent. That's not theory; that's fact. The problem is to develop a theory that explains why that last scattering surface is so damn flat. Inflation theory works, but so do others.

Is Omega a concept in concept space? Or is it reality independent of any mind.

 

[Juma]

The idea, the concept, was discovered, right? Or was it invented.

Neither. It was given to us by evolution.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Then, for all these reasons, we must not neglect this study, but must use it in the education of the best endowed natures.” “I agree,” he said.
“Assuming this one point to be established,” I said, “let us in the second place consider whether the study that comes next2 is suited to our purpose.” “What is that? Do you mean geometry,” he said. “Precisely that,” said I. “So much of it,” he said,
[526d] “as applies to the conduct of war1 is obviously suitable. For in dealing with encampments and the occupation of strong places and the bringing of troops into column and line and all the other formations of an army in actual battle and on the march, an officer who had studied geometry would be a very different person from what he would be if he had not.” “But still,” I said, “for such purposes a slight modicum2 of geometry and calculation would suffice. What we have to consider is [526e] whether the greater and more advanced part of it tends to facilitate the apprehension of the idea of good.1 That tendency, we affirm, is to be found in all studies that force the soul to turn its vision round to the region where dwells the most blessed part of reality,2 which it is imperative that it should behold.” “You are right,” he said. “Then if it compels the soul to contemplate essence, it is suitable; if genesis,3 it is not.” “So we affirm.4”

From the Republic

 

[Underseer]

In a discussion about what is real you bring up a goofy philosophy that posits that ideas exist in reality independent of sentient minds?

There are concepts and physical things. The concept of the triangle is clear enough. Can't build one though. The sides have no width.

The idea, the concept, was discovered, right? Or was it invented. If we posit a kind of concept-space then all of Plato's perfect geometric forms reside therein. Goofy things too, of course. The concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and The Trinity are there. Strangely, you are too as a self-concept.

Is being a self-concept ... existing in concept space enough to make something (you, in particular) real? Ask Descartes.

Perhaps the concept of a concept-space (which is in the set of all sets which contain themselves) is infinite. But of a lesser infinity by far than the class of all things -- Cantor calls it Omega; Rudy Rucker calls it God -- which is so large it cannot contain itself. In "naive" (a technical term, not a pejorative) set theory a Set is something you can wrap your mind around and place within braces {}. Omega is of such a high cardinality (the highest) that when you try to describe it you, quite literally, run out of superlatives. It is the end of the sequence: "No, not only that, there's something bigger" ... ad infinitum. It cannot be reached (mathematically) from below. It is bigger than all the multiples and subsets of all the infinities of lesser cardinality no matter how combined. It is too big to be a Set. Too big to "wrap your mind around."

It is existence bare. Unjustified.

Just another concept: The concept of Reality-as-a-whole. Including all degrees from zero on up of supernatural, supersupernatural, and so on which are real. We might call each of these a higher dimension with no loss of generality. Yahvist scientific theory would be that a denizen of a containing universe created ours as an artifact in his. An experiment he's running for his own purposes. Or perhaps a bit less real: A simulation of a universe he can play with. A novel for his peers.

We ourselves, have an exponentially growing sphere centered right here called our observable universe. We took its picture: CMBR. To peer beyond that sphere is literally impossible. That stuff we see as CMBR was plasma like the sun once. Brighter by far. All the locations in the observable universe (including right here) were like that. It cooled. When it got 100,000 years old it had cooled enough that it was no longer plasma. It was a transparent gas which could freely pass the last free photons from before it changed state. Those energetic photons lost steam over 13.72 billion years due to the stretching of space and have red-shifted all the way to microwaves. They cook everything. 2.7 degrees. You, Mars and empty space is, at a minimum, 2.7 degrees. Your body temperature would be 2.7 degrees less if it were absent. That's not theory; that's fact. The problem is to develop a theory that explains why that last scattering surface is so damn flat. Inflation theory works, but so do others.

Is Omega a concept in concept space? Or is it reality independent of any mind.

Like I said. Goofy.

What pray tell is the mechanism by which these real entities from thoughtspace warp from their dimension into our dimension, and then enter our brains? Do magical pixies escort the ideas on their way to our brains, or are these thoughts/ideas completely self-guided? How do the ideas/pixies know which mind to go to once they enter our reality?

 

[Horatio Parker]

There are concepts and physical things. The concept of the triangle is clear enough. Can't build one though. The sides have no width.

The idea, the concept, was discovered, right? Or was it invented. If we posit a kind of concept-space then all of Plato's perfect geometric forms reside therein. Goofy things too, of course. The concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and The Trinity are there. Strangely, you are too as a self-concept.

Is being a self-concept ... existing in concept space enough to make something (you, in particular) real? Ask Descartes.

Perhaps the concept of a concept-space (which is in the set of all sets which contain themselves) is infinite. But of a lesser infinity by far than the class of all things -- Cantor calls it Omega; Rudy Rucker calls it God -- which is so large it cannot contain itself. In "naive" (a technical term, not a pejorative) set theory a Set is something you can wrap your mind around and place within braces {}. Omega is of such a high cardinality (the highest) that when you try to describe it you, quite literally, run out of superlatives. It is the end of the sequence: "No, not only that, there's something bigger" ... ad infinitum. It cannot be reached (mathematically) from below. It is bigger than all the multiples and subsets of all the infinities of lesser cardinality no matter how combined. It is too big to be a Set. Too big to "wrap your mind around."

It is existence bare. Unjustified.

Just another concept: The concept of Reality-as-a-whole. Including all degrees from zero on up of supernatural, supersupernatural, and so on which are real. We might call each of these a higher dimension with no loss of generality. Yahvist scientific theory would be that a denizen of a containing universe created ours as an artifact in his. An experiment he's running for his own purposes. Or perhaps a bit less real: A simulation of a universe he can play with. A novel for his peers.

We ourselves, have an exponentially growing sphere centered right here called our observable universe. We took its picture: CMBR. To peer beyond that sphere is literally impossible. That stuff we see as CMBR was plasma like the sun once. Brighter by far. All the locations in the observable universe (including right here) were like that. It cooled. When it got 100,000 years old it had cooled enough that it was no longer plasma. It was a transparent gas which could freely pass the last free photons from before it changed state. Those energetic photons lost steam over 13.72 billion years due to the stretching of space and have red-shifted all the way to microwaves. They cook everything. 2.7 degrees. You, Mars and empty space is, at a minimum, 2.7 degrees. Your body temperature would be 2.7 degrees less if it were absent. That's not theory; that's fact. The problem is to develop a theory that explains why that last scattering surface is so damn flat. Inflation theory works, but so do others.

Is Omega a concept in concept space? Or is it reality independent of any mind.

Like I said. Goofy.

What pray tell is the mechanism by which these real entities from thoughtspace warp from their dimension into our dimension, and then enter our brains? Do magical pixies escort the ideas on their way to our brains, or are these thoughts/ideas completely self-guided? How do the ideas/pixies know which mind to go to once they enter our reality?

The same process as 2+2=4 or e=mc². Except for the pixie part, which is highly unlikely.

 

[Underseer]

Like I said. Goofy.

What pray tell is the mechanism by which these real entities from thoughtspace warp from their dimension into our dimension, and then enter our brains? Do magical pixies escort the ideas on their way to our brains, or are these thoughts/ideas completely self-guided? How do the ideas/pixies know which mind to go to once they enter our reality?

The same process as 2+2=4 or e=mc². Except for the pixie part, which is highly unlikely.

OK, walk me through this one step at a time.

How do you get from "2+2=4" to "therefore ideas exist in an alternate dimension independent of sentient minds, and those ideas somehow get transferred from that alternate dimension to minds in our reality"? How do you get from "E=mc²" to the same place?

You still have not given us a reason to believe that ideas exist independently of sentient minds, you have not given us a reason to believe in this magical dimension in which ideas exist without minds, nor have you managed to posit a reasonable mechanism by which those ideas travel from their alternate dimension to minds in our reality. Saying "The same process as 2+2=4" provides no answers to any of those questions. This is frankly the most bizarre non-sequitur I've heard in a while.

 

[George S]

There are concepts and physical things. The concept of the triangle is clear enough. Can't build one though. The sides have no width.

The idea, the concept, was discovered, right? Or was it invented. If we posit a kind of concept-space then all of Plato's perfect geometric forms reside therein. Goofy things too, of course. The concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and The Trinity are there. Strangely, you are too as a self-concept.

Is being a self-concept ... existing in concept space enough to make something (you, in particular) real? Ask Descartes.

Perhaps the concept of a concept-space (which is in the set of all sets which contain themselves) is infinite. But of a lesser infinity by far than the class of all things -- Cantor calls it Omega; Rudy Rucker calls it God -- which is so large it cannot contain itself. In "naive" (a technical term, not a pejorative) set theory a Set is something you can wrap your mind around and place within braces {}. Omega is of such a high cardinality (the highest) that when you try to describe it you, quite literally, run out of superlatives. It is the end of the sequence: "No, not only that, there's something bigger" ... ad infinitum. It cannot be reached (mathematically) from below. It is bigger than all the multiples and subsets of all the infinities of lesser cardinality no matter how combined. It is too big to be a Set. Too big to "wrap your mind around."

It is existence bare. Unjustified.

Just another concept: The concept of Reality-as-a-whole. Including all degrees from zero on up of supernatural, supersupernatural, and so on which are real. We might call each of these a higher dimension with no loss of generality. Yahvist scientific theory would be that a denizen of a containing universe created ours as an artifact in his. An experiment he's running for his own purposes. Or perhaps a bit less real: A simulation of a universe he can play with. A novel for his peers.

We ourselves, have an exponentially growing sphere centered right here called our observable universe. We took its picture: CMBR. To peer beyond that sphere is literally impossible. That stuff we see as CMBR was plasma like the sun once. Brighter by far. All the locations in the observable universe (including right here) were like that. It cooled. When it got 100,000 years old it had cooled enough that it was no longer plasma. It was a transparent gas which could freely pass the last free photons from before it changed state. Those energetic photons lost steam over 13.72 billion years due to the stretching of space and have red-shifted all the way to microwaves. They cook everything. 2.7 degrees. You, Mars and empty space is, at a minimum, 2.7 degrees. Your body temperature would be 2.7 degrees less if it were absent. That's not theory; that's fact. The problem is to develop a theory that explains why that last scattering surface is so damn flat. Inflation theory works, but so do others.

Is Omega a concept in concept space? Or is it reality independent of any mind.

Like I said. Goofy.

What pray tell is the mechanism by which these real entities from thoughtspace warp from their dimension into our dimension, and then enter our brains? Do magical pixies escort the ideas on their way to our brains, or are these thoughts/ideas completely self-guided? How do the ideas/pixies know which mind to go to once they enter our reality?

There are entities in thoughtspace (the term is "concept space"). Those entities are ideas -- concepts. The concept of numbers and all of number theory is there. The concept of a concept space, a thoughtspace, is, itself, a concept. The concept of a concept is in this concept space.

Is this concept "space" a real space? Nope. It is as real as Plato's concept of a Universe of Perfect Forms.

Identity of self is a concept, too ... a self concept. The concept of self includes mind and body. Here is where thoughtspace intersects reality.

The concepts of mathematics are in concept space. Included in there is the concept of God. The concept of extraterrestrial intelligence, and the concept of an infinite universe. The concept of a 10 dimensional reality is there a few times in differing details.

Reality is not in concept space, but the idea of reality whole is. The concept of Omega. The philosophers' Category of Everything. It defies mathematics, in a sense. Omega has the largest cardinality. That which no greater can exist. The cardinality of finite sets is the size of the set ... a count of the number in the set. The relative size of infinite sets is arrived at without counting. If two infinite sets can be put in a 1-1 relationship they are the same cardinality. Omega which includes everything in its scope cannot be put in a 1-1 relationship with anything else. It has a higher cardinality than all existing (real) sets finite and infinite. The concept includes everything real.

So the Omega conundrum is that Omega is both everything and an entity in concept space. Clearly the concept of Omega is a part of concept space. A part, a subset of concept space. But, no, it cannot be a subset of anything because it is reality-as-a-whole which has but 2 subsets, both trivial. {} {Omega}. Nothing and everything. Reality independent of any mind.

Pixies that escort the ideas from concept space to human minds is a strange concept. Where did that concept originate? In reality or in a human mind?

The concept of being a human self originates in human minds. (See Descartes) The concept of there being distinct entities originates in the human mind due to experience. I don't know if dogs have the concept of being a dog in their minds but they do have a self-concept. They can obey orders; they do. "They" do. Our concept of a dog intersects reality.

Does Omega (not the concept of Omega) exist in reality? It is existence bare. Beingness in any way. Beingness in every way. Yes rather than no. On rather than off. Not nothing. And cannot be a set at all. Proposing the {Omega} we find we've missed a thing. It is too big to be a set. It is called a class to distinguish it from a set. The class Omega is so big it cannot be contained in brackets ... it overflows all bounds. Reality as a whole cannot be corralled mathematically. Does that make it unreal? Hardly. I know reality is, well, real. At least I think I do. I think I am real. I think: I am.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The same process as 2+2=4 or e=mc². Except for the pixie part, which is highly unlikely.

OK, walk me through this one step at a time.

How do you get from "2+2=4" to "therefore ideas exist in an alternate dimension independent of sentient minds, and those ideas somehow get transferred from that alternate dimension to minds in our reality"? How do you get from "E=mc²" to the same place?

You still have not given us a reason to believe that ideas exist independently of sentient minds, you have not given us a reason to believe in this magical dimension in which ideas exist without minds, nor have you managed to posit a reasonable mechanism by which those ideas travel from their alternate dimension to minds in our reality. Saying "The same process as 2+2=4" provides no answers to any of those questions. This is frankly the most bizarre non-sequitur I've heard in a while.

We live with many abstract ideas. Beauty, truth etc. do not exist empirically any more than God. Systems such as Plato's are a way to structure such ideas.

Mathematics is a special case because in certain respects, it appears to be exactly that: existing independently of sentient minds. It has it own rules and properties and presumably any math another intelligent species used would be comprehensible to us.

It's apparent from your references to magic and pixies that you like to throw rocks at these ideas, ok, everybody needs a hobby, but realize none of this is intended to legitimatize in any way the supernatural. Divinity, as an idea, can exist without the supernatural.

 

[Juma]

any math another intelligent species used would be comprehensible to us.

Most definitely not! Math is very much a language/model created in response to how our neural system models what we experiences.

 

[Horatio Parker]

any math another intelligent species used would be comprehensible to us.

Most definitely not! Math is very much a language/model created in response to how our neural system models what we experiences.

Irrelevant reductionism. The entire universe as we understand it, that is to say it's intelligibility, is a response to how our neural system models our experiences.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that math is proof that intelligibilty exists independently of the mind, only that it's the best argument.

 

[fromderinside]

Most definitely not! Math is very much a language/model created in response to how our neural system models what we experiences.

Irrelevant reductionism. The entire universe as we understand it, that is to say it's intelligibility, is a response to how our neural system models our experiences.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that math is proof that intelligibilty exists independently of the mind, only that it's the best argument.

My first impulse is that you give to much ground Horatio Parker.

Juma overstates when he says our knowledge, and by derivative our mathematics, is limited to what our neural systems model directly or by extension.


As for your response, reduction doesn't end at neural systems of those who model what they observe. Reductionism ends at verified things postulated by those who try to connect the dots from what is observed. Those thing come from a community of minds and data found using things well beyond the nervous systems. Sure a mind conceived it. But, as we've found, many things create things beyond themselves. Like what the mind creates for instance

Whether intelligibility exists re the world at time t is an empirical question which has no human answer.

Now if what we see in our time in our place in the world is true for the world is one that may be incrementally answered if we go far enough to make our model hold generally to that extent which is more than one statistically verifiable significantly beyond chance. You know, where 1040 randomly chosen interviewees can model the opinion of a nation of 300 million on a topic that day.

If a mind separate from ours, say a robot we created which uses other means than our neural system, independently on some other place at some other time comes to the same conclusions that do we should be proof enough to dispel what Juma claims.

 

[Kharakov]

any math another intelligent species used would be comprehensible to us.

Most definitely not! Math is very much a language/model created in response to how our neural system models what we experiences.

There are certain basics that would be comprehensible to us. 1+1+1+1... 1-1-1-1-1... 2*2*3= (2+2)*3=4+4+4... 12/3/2.. the basic operations would then generate various ratios, such as Pi, square root of 2 would come up, a^2+b^2=c^2, volume of a sphere, etc.

They might use different symbols, they might not have various prime number theorems (are primes useful for anything other than cryptography and some esoteric QM theories?), but the fundamental relationships (e, log, pi, e^(i pi)+1=0) that are consequences of the foundations of mathematics (axioms of arithmetic) would remain the same.

 

[Juma]

If a mind separate from ours, say a robot we created which uses other means than our neural system, independently on some other place at some other time comes to the same conclusions that do we should be proof enough to dispel what Juma claims.

Can you give example of what you mean by "same conclusions" and how the needed comparison is to be performed?

 

[Juma]

Most definitely not! Math is very much a language/model created in response to how our neural system models what we experiences.

There are certain basics that would be comprehensible to us. 1+1+1+1... 1-1-1-1-1... 2*2*3= (2+2)*3=4+4+4... 12/3/2.. the basic operations would then generate various ratios, such as Pi, square root of 2 would come up, a^2+b^2=c^2, volume of a sphere, etc.

They might use different symbols, they might not have various prime number theorems (are primes useful for anything other than cryptography and some esoteric QM theories?), but the fundamental relationships (e, log, pi, e^(i pi)+1=0) that are consequences of the foundations of mathematics (axioms of arithmetic) would remain the same.

Only if they use discrete objects and grouping of objects, addition etc.

You fail to realize that your imagination may not be enough to see how different the world could be modelled by an intelligent agent.

 

[Horatio Parker]

As for your response, reduction doesn't end at neural systems of those who model what they observe. Reductionism ends at verified things postulated by those who try to connect the dots from what is observed. Those thing come from a community of minds and data found using things well beyond the nervous systems. Sure a mind conceived it. But, as we've found, many things create things beyond themselves. Like what the mind creates for instance

I like your response, but I wonder if you may have gotten ahead of yourself a bit. Before we discuss the end of reductionism, let's try to understand what reductionism is.

The definition I learned is when you define a thing in terms less than itself. So if I apply reductionism to pitching in baseball, I might say " the pitcher throws the ball".

Whether intelligibility exists re the world at time t is an empirical question which has no human answer.

Yes. Thoughts and ideas clearly exist, but persistence is another question.

 

[Kharakov]

Only if they use discrete objects and grouping of objects, addition etc.

That's math- if they use symbolic logic to relate various measurements to one another, they are going to end up with the same ratios and relationships between lengths (pi, complex exponential function, etc.) even though they won't necessarily call the Pythagorean theorem <-- that.

You fail to realize that your imagination may not be enough to see how different the world could be modelled by an intelligent agent.

Math is the science of quantity: math is used to relate quantities to other quantities. Volume to area/lengths, area to lengths, lengths of certain objects to lengths of other objects, mass to energy and velocity, ratios of lengths of certain things to others (Pi, sin/cosine/hypotenuse, exponential function, log, etc.), etc.

So Horatio is correct:

It has it own rules and properties and presumably any math another intelligent species used would be comprehensible to us.

Math is not simply a modeling method- it is the study of quantity and relationships between quantity. More titty= better, up to a point. What if you literally get smothered and die so you cannot enjoy them any more? It's a careful line we must walk between immersion and death.

 

[Underseer]

Like I said. Goofy.

What pray tell is the mechanism by which these real entities from thoughtspace warp from their dimension into our dimension, and then enter our brains? Do magical pixies escort the ideas on their way to our brains, or are these thoughts/ideas completely self-guided? How do the ideas/pixies know which mind to go to once they enter our reality?

There are entities in thoughtspace (the term is "concept space"). Those entities are ideas -- concepts. The concept of numbers and all of number theory is there. The concept of a concept space, a thoughtspace, is, itself, a concept. The concept of a concept is in this concept space.

Is this concept "space" a real space? Nope. It is as real as Plato's concept of a Universe of Perfect Forms.

Identity of self is a concept, too ... a self concept. The concept of self includes mind and body. Here is where thoughtspace intersects reality.

The concepts of mathematics are in concept space. Included in there is the concept of God. The concept of extraterrestrial intelligence, and the concept of an infinite universe. The concept of a 10 dimensional reality is there a few times in differing details.

Reality is not in concept space, but the idea of reality whole is. The concept of Omega. The philosophers' Category of Everything. It defies mathematics, in a sense. Omega has the largest cardinality. That which no greater can exist. The cardinality of finite sets is the size of the set ... a count of the number in the set. The relative size of infinite sets is arrived at without counting. If two infinite sets can be put in a 1-1 relationship they are the same cardinality. Omega which includes everything in its scope cannot be put in a 1-1 relationship with anything else. It has a higher cardinality than all existing (real) sets finite and infinite. The concept includes everything real.

So the Omega conundrum is that Omega is both everything and an entity in concept space. Clearly the concept of Omega is a part of concept space. A part, a subset of concept space. But, no, it cannot be a subset of anything because it is reality-as-a-whole which has but 2 subsets, both trivial. {} {Omega}. Nothing and everything. Reality independent of any mind.

Pixies that escort the ideas from concept space to human minds is a strange concept. Where did that concept originate? In reality or in a human mind?

The concept of being a human self originates in human minds. (See Descartes) The concept of there being distinct entities originates in the human mind due to experience. I don't know if dogs have the concept of being a dog in their minds but they do have a self-concept. They can obey orders; they do. "They" do. Our concept of a dog intersects reality.

Does Omega (not the concept of Omega) exist in reality? It is existence bare. Beingness in any way. Beingness in every way. Yes rather than no. On rather than off. Not nothing. And cannot be a set at all. Proposing the {Omega} we find we've missed a thing. It is too big to be a set. It is called a class to distinguish it from a set. The class Omega is so big it cannot be contained in brackets ... it overflows all bounds. Reality as a whole cannot be corralled mathematically. Does that make it unreal? Hardly. I know reality is, well, real. At least I think I do. I think I am real. I think: I am.

The pixie suggestion is no less absurd than any other mechanism you could possibly propose to transport ideas from this magical other dimension to the correct human minds in this dimension.

Mathematical truths are not absolutes. They are axiomatic truths and thus they are the creation of sentient minds and can be nothing more than the creation of sentient minds.

We can say 2+2=4 because we defined what 2 means, we defined what 4 means, and we defined what the plus operator does. 2+2=4 is not some magical absolute truth transported from another dimension into our brains, it is simply something that is true because we all agreed to follow certain rules (namely counting).

 

[Horatio Parker]

The pixie suggestion is no less absurd than any other mechanism you could possibly propose to transport ideas from this magical other dimension to the correct human minds in this dimension.

Mathematical truths are not absolutes. They are axiomatic truths and thus they are the creation of sentient minds and can be nothing more than the creation of sentient minds.

We can say 2+2=4 because we defined what 2 means, we defined what 4 means, and we defined what the plus operator does. 2+2=4 is not some magical absolute truth transported from another dimension into our brains, it is simply something that is true because we all agreed to follow certain rules (namely counting).

Pixies are mental images; a product of the imagination. They do not in any way constitute or contribute to any understanding resulting from a dialectic; they are trivial.

That you insist on such absurdities in a serious discussion is proof of your insincerity. If you choose to live in a metaphysical know-nothing universe, go ahead. But don't expect your spoutings and rock throwing to be taken seriously.

BTW, I don't see why an axiomatic truth couldnt be either absolute or not. Axiomatic truth is what it is regardless of the metaphysics involved. Hence, if One is at the metaphysical center of the universe, it can also be a numeral in a counting system.