God and time and space

[Togo]

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?

Can I try a few steps?

Clearly it's possible to solve E=mc² incorrectly, yes? You could by accident do E=(mc²) instead.
If it is possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is incorrect, and possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is correct, then there must be some sense in which the equation consists of more than merely the conception of the person thinking it? Or else what is the correct version you are comparing it to?

So you would agree that there is a sense in which an equation is more than merely the idea in a particular person's head? Note that I'm not suggeting weird parallel dimensions, or similar in which perfect equations float, merely that there is more to it than is contained in the head of a particular speaker. With me so far?

 

[bilby]

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?

Can I try a few steps?

Clearly it's possible to solve E=mc² incorrectly, yes? You could by accident do E=(mc²) instead.
If it is possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is incorrect, and possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is correct, then there must be some sense in which the equation consists of more than merely the conception of the person thinking it? Or else what is the correct version you are comparing it to?

So you would agree that there is a sense in which an equation is more than merely the idea in a particular person's head? Note that I'm not suggeting weird parallel dimensions, or similar in which perfect equations float, merely that there is more to it than is contained in the head of a particular speaker. With me so far?

[pedantry] E=mc² and E=(mc²) are mathematically identical.

E=(mc)² would be incorrect. But E=(mc²) just includes redundant parentheses - it is still correct. [/pedantry]

 

[Juma]

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?

Can I try a few steps?

Clearly it's possible to solve E=mc² incorrectly, yes? You could by accident do E=(mc²) instead.
If it is possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is incorrect, and possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is correct, then there must be some sense in which the equation consists of more than merely the conception of the person thinking it? Or else what is the correct version you are comparing it to?

So you would agree that there is a sense in which an equation is more than merely the idea in a particular person's head? Note that I'm not suggeting weird parallel dimensions, or similar in which perfect equations float, merely that there is more to it than is contained in the head of a particular speaker. With me so far?

Eh. The equation is "correct" if using it gives you good enough result. Thus the question is what "using it" means. And the "use" of a mathematical equation is a human action.

 

[George S]

Can I try a few steps?

Clearly it's possible to solve E=mc² incorrectly, yes? You could by accident do E=(mc)² instead. <-- fixed
If it is possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is incorrect, and possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is correct, then there must be some sense in which the equation consists of more than merely the conception of the person thinking it? Or else what is the correct version you are comparing it to?

So you would agree that there is a sense in which an equation is more than merely the idea in a particular person's head? Note that I'm not suggeting weird parallel dimensions, or similar in which perfect equations float, merely that there is more to it than is contained in the head of a particular speaker. With me so far?

Eh. The equation is "correct" if using it gives you good enough result. Thus the question is what "using it" means. And the "use" of a mathematical equation is a human action.

In the video below is a thought-experiment. Einstein saw the nonsense implication -- spooky action at a distance -- these equations implied. He objected to the idea that Reality was probabilistic at its core.

Some equations of QM which violate common sense nevertheless are experimentally verified. This video uses "color" as a proxy for a measurement of a physical property making it one of the most understandable presentations of how QM violates common sense. How Reality violates common sense. Simple, ordinary, everyday logic. It is presented with zero advanced mathematics. Anyone who can understand that 2+2=4 has enough math. One possible interpretation of the experimental results is parallel worlds. Another alternate interpretation is that Reality is not sure of itself (Schrodinger's Cat). There are yet others that also fit the experimental data. There is no settled consensus.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta09WXiUqcQ (suggestion: start at timestamp 9:00 after the long introductions)

 

[Togo]

Eh. The equation is "correct" if using it gives you good enough result.

Then why did my mistaken parentheses draw so many instant corrections? No use was specified, people instantly spotted the equation was wrong. How then, can 'correct' be contingent on a specified use? We've just demonstated the opposite. That people have opinions about whether or not an equation is correct even in the absence of a specified use.

 

[Kharakov]

One possible interpretation of the experimental results is parallel worlds. Another alternate interpretation is that Reality is not sure of itself (Schrodinger's Cat).

Or... "Reality" keeps options open til the last moment. The more options one keeps open, the more one can influence events. Hmm.. this thought tastes like lime jello.

 

[Horatio Parker]

One possible interpretation of the experimental results is parallel worlds. Another alternate interpretation is that Reality is not sure of itself (Schrodinger's Cat).

Or... "Reality" keeps options open til the last moment. The more options one keeps open, the more one can influence events. Hmm.. this thought tastes like lime jello.

One questioner brought up the anthropomorphizing in the experiments. There was always an observer. The lecturer said he didn't want the role of the observer removed. So there is no external empirical reality, but we require a reality to live our lives. 2+2=4 may exist independently of the mind but there's no way to perceive 2+2=4 without a mind.

 

[Juma]

Eh. The equation is "correct" if using it gives you good enough result.

Then why did my mistaken parentheses draw so many instant corrections? No use was specified, people instantly spotted the equation was wrong. How then, can 'correct' be contingent on a specified use? We've just demonstated the opposite. That people have opinions about whether or not an equation is correct even in the absence of a specified use.

What? Your error was a syntactic one. That a titally different matter. My answer was for what i assumed you wanted to discuss: equations that give different results.

 

[Togo]

Then why did my mistaken parentheses draw so many instant corrections? No use was specified, people instantly spotted the equation was wrong. How then, can 'correct' be contingent on a specified use? We've just demonstated the opposite. That people have opinions about whether or not an equation is correct even in the absence of a specified use.

What? Your error was a syntactic one. That a titally different matter. My answer was for what i assumed you wanted to discuss: equations that give different results.

Why is it a different matter? You're saying that equations are 'correct' if they give a good enough result, but that's simply not true in mathematics. Equations can be recognised and discussed as things-in-themselves without any discussion of the results, or the use to which those results might be put. And they can be correct or incorrect on that basis.

 

[Underseer]

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?

Can I try a few steps?

Clearly it's possible to solve E=mc² incorrectly, yes? You could by accident do E=(mc²) instead.
If it is possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is incorrect, and possible to have a view of a mathematical equation that is correct, then there must be some sense in which the equation consists of more than merely the conception of the person thinking it? Or else what is the correct version you are comparing it to?

So you would agree that there is a sense in which an equation is more than merely the idea in a particular person's head? Note that I'm not suggeting weird parallel dimensions, or similar in which perfect equations float, merely that there is more to it than is contained in the head of a particular speaker. With me so far?

Everything in math is true because it is internally consistent with a set of rules we all agree to follow.

Math is necessarily the product of sentient minds because sentient minds have to come up with the rules and agree to follow the rules before you can arrive at any truth that derives from following those rules. Math is thus necessarily the product of sentient minds, and thus it is absurd to use math to prove that ideas can exist independent of sentient minds, which is the aspect of Platonism I'm making fun of here.

Are you defending Platonism? If not, then what point are you trying to make here?

If so, describe how ideas can exist in reality independent of sentient minds. If you do not believe that ideas exist in an alternate dimension before being transported to our minds, then explain where and how you think they do exist and how they get from wherever they start to our minds. Personally, I think ideas are transported into our minds in tiny chariots pulled by magical gophers. Or at least, the magical gophers make about as much sense as anything else I've heard from the defenders of Platonism.

 

[Togo]

Can I try a few steps?
<snip>
So you would agree that there is a sense in which an equation is more than merely the idea in a particular person's head? Note that I'm not suggeting weird parallel dimensions, or similar in which perfect equations float, merely that there is more to it than is contained in the head of a particular speaker. With me so far?

Everything in math is true because it is internally consistent with a set of rules we all agree to follow.

Math is necessarily the product of sentient minds because sentient minds have to come up with the rules and agree to follow the rules before you can arrive at any truth that derives from following those rules. Math is thus necessarily the product of sentient minds, and thus it is absurd to use math to prove that ideas can exist independent of sentient minds,

Nah, not so much.

Let's say a guy measures a loop of string, stretched tight into a line, and it turns out to be 30cm. Based on that, he estimates that if he cuts the loop, the resulting length of string will be 60cm.

Then they fall into a volcano. Their mind, every trace of it, is entirely destroyed.

100 years later, someone comes along, and measures the loop again. Are they still gonig to estimate the length after the loop is cut as 60cm?

Clearly yes.

The point of this is that maths is an abstraction, and using that abstraction, the universe is consistently treated. In abstract, the length of the cut loop is twice the length of the uncut loop, and there is no continuity of mind or sentience or conscious thought needed to maintain thin sat state. It's not a feature of an observing mind, because we can eliminate all such observing minds. It's not, in any sense, stored in someone's head.

30+30 is 60. It's 60 not because there is an eternal 30 floating around in space, and not because there is someone, somewhere, thinknig about 30+30=60 in order to keep the flame of it's existance alive. It's 60 because that is how mathematics handles these abstract concepts.

So from Maths to Platonic forms. Platonism is a abstract system concerned with the classification of concepts. The Platonic ideal of a horse is not floating off in space somewhere, nor is it a running thought process in someone's head. It's an abstract concept. Like mathematical concepts, it can have attributes, it can have qualities, and so on.

This idea is very troubling to certain philosophical schools of thought, which rely on relationship to the phyhsical world as the cornerstone for how they definine things. The idea of a non-physical concept with attributes is problematical to them, since only phyiscal objects should have attributes. And thus, we get people attempting to ridicule particular philsophical ideas, such as Platonis forms, so that they can remove these problems from discourse without all the bother of having to deal with them.

Now clearly, if you characterise concepts with attributes as 'things' within a 'realm of ideas' then someone could, intentionally or otherwise, misunderstand you and start going on about mystical sub-dimensions, but that would be a mis-characterisation of the original ideal.

 

[Juma]

Everything in math is true because it is internally consistent with a set of rules we all agree to follow.

Math is necessarily the product of sentient minds because sentient minds have to come up with the rules and agree to follow the rules before you can arrive at any truth that derives from following those rules. Math is thus necessarily the product of sentient minds, and thus it is absurd to use math to prove that ideas can exist independent of sentient minds,

Nah, not so much.

Let's say a guy measures a loop of string, stretched tight into a line, and it turns out to be 30cm. Based on that, he estimates that if he cuts the loop, the resulting length of string will be 60cm.

Then they fall into a volcano. Their mind, every trace of it, is entirely destroyed.

100 years later, someone comes along, and measures the loop again. Are they still gonig to estimate the length after the loop is cut as 60cm?

Clearly yes.

Because that someone is a human being,( with a similar culture using cm)

A alien might not even see that it is loop.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've heard it argued by apologists on youtube, ect that God exists outside of time and space. How can that be? If he has substance then he has space and is inside a space and if he thinks or does anything he is acting within time.

I guess that presented like this it doesn't seem to make much sense. However, look again. You write "outside of time and space" which suggests we are talking about our time and our space. But surely we can say that a god that wouldn't exist entirely within our space and time would exist outside our time and space. Suppose there is another space and time, a larger space and a larger time containing ours or a different space and a different time altogether. Things that exist there could be said to exist outside our space and our time while still existing also inside our space and time.

Unless someone can find flaws with the logic of this interpretation.

The problem I see would be that we wouldn't know that such time and space outside our own would exist at all or even could possibly exist, so claims of a god existing there are just plain vacuous.
EB

 

[Testy Calibrate]

God could be simply higher dimensional. That or we don't really have a handle on what time and space really are and so project what it's like to be within time and space as attributes since we have no other way to understand.

I'm just tossing out ideas. It is pretty fair to say that time and space are severe unknowns in our models anyway. Why realizing that it was impossible to know anything about god ought to reinforce someone's belief in said deity is plenty beyond me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

According to George S, Stephen Hawking agrees with me that from known physics it is not valid to infer an origin of the universe.

And right here, we see the extent of your delusion. Have you actually read any of Hawking's recent books? He's willing to go a step further than most other physicists and strongly express the opinion that there was an actual singularity at the moment of creation, and then draw further conclusions from that.

Allow me to nitpick on the logic of the case (I'm incompetent on the science).

Bomb#20 made the point, rightly or wrongly, that Stephen Hawking's view is that from known physics it is not valid to infer an origin of the universe. I will assume that by "infer" here Bomb#20 (and presumably Hawking) meant "deduce" since it is unclear that any induction can ever be claimed to be valid or invalid. At least, the case wouldn't be worth aving an argument about.

So assuming that Bomb#20 and Hawking meant "deduce", your reply while interesting on its own is not an effective rebuke to Bomb#20's point. This is because Stephen Hawking may both have the view that from known physics it is not valid to deduce an origin of the universe and yet be of the opinion that there is such a thing as an origin to the universe (the man is entitled to his opinions). If so, he may also want to investigate possible inferences from there. It may be then possible to draw some conclusion, as you say Hawking did, from the premise that there is an origine to the universe and still recognise that from known physics it is not valid to deduce an origin of the universe. In other word, one can speculate about X and then draw conclusions from X. These conclusion would then have the same intrinsic weakness as X, as speculation, but the conclusion could perhaps be used to do interesting, aven good, science if it were falsifiable, as long as you understand it's still speculative.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Smart point but your implicit interpretation of Descartes here seems wrong.

The Cogito is "I think therefore I am", not something like "I am a self-concept therefore I am". Somebody could have said that but it's quite a different argument from the Cogito. Of course to think "I am a self-concept" one has to think and therefore would be able through the Cogito to assert that one also necessarily exists. However, the premise "I am a self-concept" may well be wrong, or even meaningless, so that the deduction "therefore I am" would be vacuous.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

God could be simply higher dimensional.

Yes, that might be one way for God to be, if he's smart enough.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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."

Er... but you just did described Omega, and quite effectively, as the class of all things.
EB

 

[OLDMAN]

skip it

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

This is what happens when equivocation rules.
EB