• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

God and time and space

bilby said:
[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]
Click to expand...
(Thanks for having squared things up)2.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Juma said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Proof is in the pudding. No pudding, no truth.
EB
 
Bronzeage said:
remember that time and space are human constructions to help us see order in the universe
Click to expand...
I think you shall find that they exist independent of our ability to construct them. Because apart from
anything else if that were true then we would have no problem understanding everything about them
If they are human constructs then how did they manage to exist before we did and for so long as well
 
Togo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I still don't see that we need this notion of abstract concepts at all. In other words, it is not clear to me that they are necessary things.

And if these abstractions somehow existed, I still don't see how they could possibly be relevant to either the physical world or our representations of it.

We may need something else than what we think of as the physical world but I don't see that what we need is these abstractions. Possibly, there is such a thing as identity of ordinary objects or perhaps more likely of elementary ones, like, say, electrons etc. From that we clearly conceive of mathematical relations such as number (e.g. n identical particles), but I don't see that from this we can deduce the existence of abstractions as you seem to imagine them, i.e. not existing in our minds or in the physical universe. Instead, I think that it may be that abstractions, concepts, including mathematical ones all are physical things. Why not?
EB
 
Horatio Parker said:
Juma said:
Horatio Parker said:
any math another intelligent species used would be comprehensible to us.
Click to expand...
Most definitely not! Math is very much a language/model created in response to how our neural system models what we experiences.
Click to expand...
<snip>
I'm not arguing that math is proof that intelligibilty exists independently of the mind, only that it's the best argument.
Click to expand...
Contrary to what you said, we certainly don't know that any math another intelligent species used would be comprehensible to us. Perhaps we would understand some, and be unable to understand others. I fail to see any good reason to accept otherwise.

Also, while you accept that beauty doesn't exist objectively, you failed to notice that large groups of people do nonetheless agree on particular things being beaufiful. If you had, you could have also noticed that many other people would fail to agree with them and see any beauty in these things, much as I say we might not be able to understand the mathematics of some aliens.
EB
 
Juma said:
George S said:
The idea, the concept, was discovered, right? Or was it invented.
Click to expand...

Neither. It was given to us by evolution.
Click to expand...
Good one!


Or maybe by something else more fundamental than evolution. Evolution is really just another kind of brain so something else would have given a precursor of the concept to evolution.

Ultimately, the concept has to come from something else; but what?
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
Togo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I still don't see that we need this notion of abstract concepts at all. In other words, it is not clear to me that they are necessary things.

And if these abstractions somehow existed, I still don't see how they could possibly be relevant to either the physical world or our representations of it.

We may need something else than what we think of as the physical world but I don't see that what we need is these abstractions. Possibly, there is such a thing as identity of ordinary objects or perhaps more likely of elementary ones, like, say, electrons etc. From that we clearly conceive of mathematical relations such as number (e.g. n identical particles),
Click to expand...

We can, yes... But for those identities to have meaning they need to be shared, and to have meaning independently of the people who hold them.

Speakpigeon said:
but I don't see that from this we can deduce the existence of abstractions as you seem to imagine them, i.e. not existing in our minds or in the physical universe. Instead, I think that it may be that abstractions, concepts, including mathematical ones all are physical things. Why not?
EB
Click to expand...

You can make them physical if you want, but I don't feel its a helpful move. The point is that these abstractions are not limited to a single person's head. A single person can be wrong about an abstraction, and there is no contradiction to say that they have an idea in their head that corresponds to the abstraction, but is incorrect. Thus we can't claim that the abstraction is simply the contents of a single mind. At best it's shared amongst many such minds (although I regard such a description as inadequate) and at worst its' another kind of beast entirely, that does not neatly correspond to neural processing at all.

You can claim such a thing is phyiscal if you feel motivated to do so. However, all that happens is you have to abandon any idea that physical things are objects, geographically located, have mass, etc. There's nothing contradictory in doing so, but it makes the label of physical a lot less useful.
 
Speakpigeon said:
Also, while you accept that beauty doesn't exist objectively, you failed to notice that large groups of people do nonetheless agree on particular things being beaufiful. If you had, you could have also noticed that many other people would fail to agree with them and see any beauty in these things, much as I say we might not be able to understand the mathematics of some aliens.
EB
Click to expand...

Where did I say that beauty doesn't exist objectively?

The question is what is objective? If you say physical or empirical, then I say I'm agnostic. But I would argue that psychic realities are indeed realities.

The existence of the intelligible is the basis for concepts such as beauty to exist objectively. In Plato, the Good, the One and the Beautiful are the same.

And these concepts are unchanging, hence eternal, hence outside of time. And because they exist as intelligible as opposed to physical, they're outside of space. What dimensions, parallel universes etc might be involved I'm not addressing.
 
Speakpigeon said:
George S said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
It was more like ... What would Aristotle think of this Platonic view.

I can take a materialist view and assert that this is what it feels like to be a biological robot. One of my self-concepts only though.
 
Depressing thought for some, to be a robot. Controlled by outside input.

Not that kind. The kind that has built-in empathy. That knows, too, just what it is like to be a human being being human no matter how described.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Speakpigeon said:
Also, while you accept that beauty doesn't exist objectively, you failed to notice that large groups of people do nonetheless agree on particular things being beaufiful. If you had, you could have also noticed that many other people would fail to agree with them and see any beauty in these things, much as I say we might not be able to understand the mathematics of some aliens.
EB
Click to expand...

Where did I say that beauty doesn't exist objectively?

The question is what is objective? If you say physical or empirical, then I say I'm agnostic. But I would argue that psychic realities are indeed realities.

The existence of the intelligible is the basis for concepts such as beauty to exist objectively. In Plato, the Good, the One and the Beautiful are the same.

And these concepts are unchanging, hence eternal, hence outside of time. And because they exist as intelligible as opposed to physical, they're outside of space. What dimensions, parallel universes etc might be involved I'm not addressing.
Click to expand...

What is beatiful is depending on our genes and individual culture/history. Not really unchanging and definitely not outside time.
 
Juma said:
Horatio Parker said:
Where did I say that beauty doesn't exist objectively?

The question is what is objective? If you say physical or empirical, then I say I'm agnostic. But I would argue that psychic realities are indeed realities.

The existence of the intelligible is the basis for concepts such as beauty to exist objectively. In Plato, the Good, the One and the Beautiful are the same.

And these concepts are unchanging, hence eternal, hence outside of time. And because they exist as intelligible as opposed to physical, they're outside of space. What dimensions, parallel universes etc might be involved I'm not addressing.
Click to expand...

What is beatiful is depending on our genes and individual culture/history. Not really unchanging and definitely not outside time.
Click to expand...

Everyone finds different things beautiful, sure. But the experience of beauty is the same.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Juma said:
The experience of beauty is not shared by all. It is similar between similarly constructed agents.
There is nothing objective, eternal etc about it.
Click to expand...

Who does not share the experience of beauty?
Click to expand...

First: we doesnt share a common experience. We have at most similar experienced. Second: why would a monkey, frog, ant etc experience beauty?
 
Horatio Parker said:
Juma said:
The experience of beauty is not shared by all. It is similar between similarly constructed agents.
There is nothing objective, eternal etc about it.
Click to expand...

Who does not share the experience of beauty?
Click to expand...
How would we know that exactly?

I would agree with you only that we know (I certainly know but I can only assume that other people do as well) the things we happen to have in mind (and only at the moment we have them): pain is my favourite example, but beauty when I have the impression of beauty is just as good an example; colours; feelings; so many other things we may not even have names for them. However, it does not follow that the pain I experience today is identical to the something else I have the impression of remembering also as pain. The thing is, what I experience now is the memory of something I take to be pain, not pain itself (which is fortunate since memory of pain is already unpleasant enough). So, how could I possibly know that the two are the same sort of things? Same for beauty. I think that what matters is that we believe (not know) they are the same. This is good enough for practical purposes. This also explains behaviours. Now, if we move away from the requirement of knowing, and look at our beliefs, it is also interesting that the things we believe are beautiful in the material world, say a flower, are actually never identical. So we have to assume for it to work at all that people somehow code for beauty. So, presumably, we not only know beauty as the immediate impression of beauty, but we also probably have some reference inside our brain, whatever this is exactly. This doesn't seem to be much different from how computers work. They have certain codes that stand for certain things in the material world. What the computer knows is the code. So we may have what amount to a code inside our brains that stands for beauty. However, if we assume that this code can only have come to my brain through the material processes of the material world, we have no good reason to claim that the code in my brain is really identical to the one in your brain, let alone that of Plato. All that is needed is that we somehow believe we broadly understand what other people say. If so, contrary to your claim that there is such a thing as Beauty, somehow identically and magically accessible to each of us as to Plato, we may only have access to particular codes in our brains standing for particular experiences individually determined by our body and our environment as we move through life. We are naturally very easily fooled by the uniqueness of our individual experience of our own personal beauty code so that we tend to take it for some sort of absolute, or universal. But there is no evidence for this. The only evidence is beauty as we may experience it now, probably just a code. And then a very interesting system of beliefs whereby we work out a model of what we think is the real world, which we then take for the real world itself.
EB
 
Juma said:
Horatio Parker said:
Who does not share the experience of beauty?
Click to expand...

First: we doesnt share a common experience. We have at most similar experienced. Second: why would a monkey, frog, ant etc experience beauty?
Click to expand...

Similar, common, whatever. Can we say all humans experience beauty?

As for monkeys et al I don't know that they do or don't know beauty. Our means of communication are too limited. I'm limiting my points to humans.
 
Speakpigeon said:
Horatio Parker said:
Who does not share the experience of beauty?
Click to expand...
How would we know that exactly?

I would agree with you only that we know (I certainly know but I can only assume that other people do as well) the things we happen to have in mind (and only at the moment we have them): pain is my favourite example, but beauty when I have the impression of beauty is just as good an example; colours; feelings; so many other things we may not even have names for them. However, it does not follow that the pain I experience today is identical to the something else I have the impression of remembering also as pain. The thing is, what I experience now is the memory of something I take to be pain, not pain itself (which is fortunate since memory of pain is already unpleasant enough). So, how could I possibly know that the two are the same sort of things? Same for beauty. I think that what matters is that we believe (not know) they are the same. This is good enough for practical purposes. This also explains behaviours. Now, if we move away from the requirement of knowing, and look at our beliefs, it is also interesting that the things we believe are beautiful in the material world, say a flower, are actually never identical. So we have to assume for it to work at all that people somehow code for beauty. So, presumably, we not only know beauty as the immediate impression of beauty, but we also probably have some reference inside our brain, whatever this is exactly. This doesn't seem to be much different from how computers work. They have certain codes that stand for certain things in the material world. What the computer knows is the code. So we may have what amount to a code inside our brains that stands for beauty. However, if we assume that this code can only have come to my brain through the material processes of the material world, we have no good reason to claim that the code in my brain is really identical to the one in your brain, let alone that of Plato. All that is needed is that we somehow believe we broadly understand what other people say. If so, contrary to your claim that there is such a thing as Beauty, somehow identically and magically accessible to each of us as to Plato, we may only have access to particular codes in our brains standing for particular experiences individually determined by our body and our environment as we move through life. We are naturally very easily fooled by the uniqueness of our individual experience of our own personal beauty code so that we tend to take it for some sort of absolute, or universal. But there is no evidence for this. The only evidence is beauty as we may experience it now, probably just a code. And then a very interesting system of beliefs whereby we work out a model of what we think is the real world, which we then take for the real world itself.
EB
Click to expand...

Do you require evidence to know if you have experienced beauty?

Similarly, when others speak or write of their experiences with beauty, do you believe them?

I'm not concerned with the mechanics of beauty, codes, genes or neurons, I'm talking about the mind. Call it subjective if you like. We can discuss subjective things on an abstract level, can't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom