Of course Science is not religion. No one would argue about that. My point was, that the way that Science can mislead the ordinary folks' perception at times is the same as religion. — Corvus

Yes. The ordinary folk should not be deceived, in any way. It would be immoral to do so.

Are you conveying here that you accept a version of non-dualism? Viz., the idea that there is some substance which unites both the mental and physical and of which is neither? — Bob Ross

I accept a version of non-dualism (I accept several versions of non-dualism, actually), yet I disagree that there is some substance (if by that, you mean something like an Aristotelian substance) which unites both the mental and the physical (because the mental, as far as I'm concerned is physical). If by "the mental" and "the physical" you are speaking non-scientifically, as a mere folk would, then yes, I'm saying "something like that", if you will. The absolute is not a object, it is not one more thing in the world like this stone on the floor or this table. And it is not a subject, it is not like you, and it is not like me. It is something else. Or, again, perhaps I am deluded.

Oh, are you an ontological idealist? — Bob Ross

No, I am not. I will tell you what I am, and you can call me deluded all you want: I won't change the following five premises of my personal philosophy. Those are:

1) Realism
2) Materialim
3) Atheism
4) Scientism
5) Literalism

Those are my axioms, my "premises", if you will. I am not an idealist, as Hegel was, since I am a materialist. As for the term "ontological", sure, you could call me an ontological materialist, if that makes any sense to you.

This may make sense to you because you are familiar with the ‘Absolute’; but I have no clue what you are trying to say here. — Bob Ross

Well, I'm trying to explain it to the best of my ability. I'm not the best philosopher in the world, you know. And "Explain the Absolute to another human" is not exactly the type of question that I would expect for a midterm exam or whatnot.

Hi @Bob Ross, welcome back, glad to see that you haven't given up on this Thread.

What does this mean?!? What is a “speculative essence”?!? — Bob Ross

We (as in, Meillassoux's typical readers) honestly don't know. I don't think Meillassoux ever defines what he calls "speculative essence". Not as far as I'm aware of, anyways. And in the interviews that Meillassoux has given, I don't think he ever clarified that point.

What I think the are, the speculative essences (and this is just my interpretation) is something like "objective ideas", in the manner of the German Idealists of the 19th Century, especially Schelling. But I could be wrong about that, of course. I see Meillassoux leaning more towards Fichte or Hegel than Schelling, but again, I could be wrong about that.

What?!? That’s just jibberish. Facticity is the noun for anything pertaining to facts; and so everything that pertains to facticity pertains to facts. Give me example where the facticity of a proposition cannot be thought of as a fact or non-fact. — Bob Ross

Hmmm... so let's reconstruct your argument, a bit more formally. As far as I can see, these are your premises so far:

1) Facticity is the noun for anything pertaining to facts.
2) Everything that pertains to facticity pertains to facts.

Is that right?

As for the example that you ask, let me check After Finitude real quick. I don't know if the following words count as an example, but maybe they'll help clarify what Meillassoux is trying to say when he uses that word, "factiality":

Thus factiality must be understood as the non-facticity of facticity. We will call 'non-iterability of facticity' the impossibility of applying facticity to itself - this non-iterability describes the genesis of the only absolute necessity available to non-dogmatic speculation - the necessity for everything that is to be a fact. — Quentin Meillassoux

Does that mean anything to you?

Pfft... there are a lot of things that are "incompatible with the demands and expectations of the worldwide public of the 21st century," and I think a king or queen is less harmful to the people, honestly. — javi2541997

Sure. And you're right. Kings and Queens, Princes and Princesses, generally have no actual influence in efficient matters. Except for Lady Di, also known as Diana, Princess of Wales. Not only was she "less harmful to the people", as you say, I would go even further: she was more beneficial to the people.

Ethics and a Republic either. :wink: -- — javi2541997

Hmmm... Well, it's the Royalty vs Republic debate, isn't it? Man, that one is really tough just from a philosophical standpoint. Is it possible for one to be both a Republican and a Royalist? I don't think so, that doesn't make sense to me. You're either a Republican or a Royalist, you have to choose. Right? Or am I wrong about that? It's an "either, or" type of thing. (O lo uno o lo otro, como decía Kierkegaard).

Is Maduro an ethical politician to his own people? — javi2541997

No idea. I don't think so, because Republicanism is not the only type of political philosophy that characterizes the situation of Maduro, politics, and his own people.

It is an old classic debate. Yes, there are strong republics such as Germany or Ireland, but also monarchies that represent the welfare like Denmark and Japan. I mean, it is obvious that the Japanese system (a monarchy) is by far more ethical than Ecuador or Mexico. But, at the same time, our royalty — javi2541997

But see that's my point. Argentina does not have a royalty. Let me ask you this: in your honest opinion, should every country in the world have a royalty? Should there be, for example, a "King of the Planet"? Or should every country have its own royalty?

EDIT: La última parte, en Castellano. Ves, ese es mi punto. La Argentina no tiene una realeza. Así que permitime preguntarte esto: en tu honesta opinión, acaso debería cada país en el mundo tener una realeza? Debiera haber, por ejemplo, un "Rey del Planeta"? O debiera cada país tener su propia realeza?

Do you really think you can get consistency between 3 citizens picked at random from each of the world's countries ( so, less than 600 citizens of the world) as to their demands and expectations regarding compatibility of monarchies as a form of government? 600 out of 7-8 billion people? Good luck! — kazan

Thanks, I'll need it. The luck, that is.

if you restrict your statistical base to those that are interested in this area of governance and choose by the same method i.e. 3 at random that are interested per country, you may get lucky.... — kazan

Hmmm... do I agree with this? It sounds like a reasonable thing to say, but I should test it to accurately quantify its degree of scientificity.

In short, the 21st Century worldwide public has more pressing interests in their own neighbourhood. — kazan

I know, that's true. But I'm asking you (I'm asking everyone, really) how does that make sense? It makes no rational sense.

Not having a shot at you — kazan

Republics, autocracies, oligarchies etc. etc, all have executive problems — kazan

Which is why monarchies exist to "dignify" the three efficient powers: the executive power, the legislative power, and the judicial power. Argentina has the latter but not the former: we have the three powers (executive, legislative, judicial) but no fourth power (the royal power) to dignify them (the three efficient powers). It's an odd thing, is what I'm saying.

Maybe,the question to ask is "What governance works best for which country's people at any given time?" and give it a name or categorize it when it's working. — kazan

Right, but then you end up with scientific problems, because maybe (for example) slavery worked better than capitalism in some specific town of the 19th century in the state of Tennessee or whatever. That doesn't mean anything to me, I'm against slavery on purely moral and Ethical grounds.

The realization that politics/policies in some/most countries have world wide effects is another whole bowl of goldfish teetering on the edge of the ledge as well.

Just a thought. — kazan

It's a nice thought.

Will leave it up to Banno to explain the position/relationship of the Gov - General, Charlie and the Aust parliaments in this constitutional monarchy.... that is what we still call it, isn't it?
Banno's more verbally cost/time efficient.

Tolerant, but not superior, smile — kazan

Yeah but he doesn't wanna talk about it, "mate".

Because once eaten they are no longer "in themselves" but in us? — Janus

Hey, could be. Why not?

Fifty posts a day is a lot. Make sure you take time to step away from the screen. — Banno

That's actually really good advice. I'll try to do that. Thanks.

Australia has the moral responsability to declare its independence from the rule of a Crown, if only for the simple reason that the existence of monarchies are incompatible with the demands and expectations of the worldwide public of the 21st Century. Monarchies, even constitutional monarchies, are conceptually ill-equipped to adequately dignify the executive power in certain strategic, key decisions that must be taken purely in terms of cost-effectiveness. Whatever those are, they must be considered case-by-case. Ethics and Royalty do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

Thank you very much, fdrake.

There is only the Permanent Existence; its rearrangements into temporaries are still It. — PoeticUniverse

Hmmm...

We can eat oysters only insofar as they are brought under the physiological and chemical conditions which are the presuppositions of the possibility of being eaten.

Therefore,

We cannot eat oysters as they are in themselves. (Stove, 1991, 151, 161) — Franklin

I agree with the conclusion of that argument, really. We cannot eat oysters as they are in themselves. That is true. I only wish the premises were true as well.

unless you want to explain to me what “factiality” means. — Bob Ross

Yes, I choose this option of the dilemma that you are presenting me. I already gave you a link to the dictionary definition for the word "factiality". I will quote the definition of that word:

factiality
Noun (uncountable)
(philosophy) In the philosophy of Quentin Meillassoux, the principle that things could be other than they are — we can imagine reality as being fundamentally different even if we never know such a reality — part of a critique of correlationism.

Related terms: factial

factial
(philosophy) Of or relating to factiality. — Wiktionary

And here is Meillassoux's own definition, in After Finitude:

Let us settle on a terminology. From now on, we will use the term 'factiality' to describe the speculative essence of facticity, viz., that the facticity of every thing cannot be thought as a fact. — Quentin Meillassoux

Those are the literal words, Bob. Tell me what you think of them, please.

I want to know what "The Absolute" means to you, in whatever sense you mean it. You keep saying the ultimate truth is the Hegelian concept of the Absolute; and I have no clue what you mean by that. — Bob Ross

The Absolute, as I understand it, is what is ontologically greater than subject and objects. It is better than them, in some sense of the term. It is similar to what Lao Tzu calls Tao. It is the symbol of the ying and the yang. It is the Holy Spirit in Christianity. It is the number 3 in some sense of the term. It is what truly, properly transcends. "Transcends what?", you might ask?

Everything. Including itself. It is why there is an External World, called Nature, in the first place. The Absolute Spirit is the realization of this as a brute fact, as something that one simple "encounters". It is a presence of some sort, but in the way that Derrida spoke about Heidegger's "metaphysics of presence". It is the phenomenon of oddness itself as a psychological phenomenon. And it is a great source of poetry (how could it not be?), at the same time it is a great source of philosophical perplexity (how could it not be?), and of scientific inquiry (could it not be?).

Now, if you ask me personally if I just happen to like the number 3, then I well tell you no, that I prefer the number 4. After all, it is literally Hegel's concept of the Absolute, not mine. Therefore, my personal commitment to the number 4 is greater than my personal commitment to the number 3.

@Wayfarer @Banno @Joshs @Janus and whoever wishes to express some opinion on the Ultimate Truth about Reality.

The idea was morally true {a term in maths scholarship}. — fdrake

Hi @fdrake, How are you? Would it be possible for you to explain to me, a non-mathematician, what that means, to mathematicians? I don't understand the underlying concept here. Is it a mathematical concept, or a moral concept? I'm not seeking to debate this point with you at the moment (though I might, in another Thread, in the future). All I'm asking for is a bit of clarification for the readers in general, including myself. Thanks in advance.

So, all I'm saying is that I think what I outlined is the best way to understand the situation regarding what is a given in mathematics—that there are infinitely many integers. — Janus

But the question of the OP literally asks if they exist in a "Platonistic" (sic) Platonic way.

Tomorrow's Newspaper will say "Newsflash: Up next, we'll take a look at why some Australians don't believe in reality, and -according them- neither should you. Stay tuned."

I did just that, but you're in such a hurry to reply that you didn't notice. — Wayfarer

I disagree, I considered it, and I arrived at the logical conclusion that this specific example that you quote is not indicative of the behavior you claim to observe in the visual recognition of my writing habits and patterns. Therefore, I claim that what you have presented does not qualify as evidence in the way that you intend it.

Sure thing. Hope you enjoy your time here, but might serve not to spread yourself too thin. — Wayfarer

I'm having a great time here, it's the best Forum I've ever seen. A bit "rambly" at times, but it's a nice atmosphere. I like the colors, green is actually my favorite color.

So are you an Australian Realist, yes or no? — Arcane Sandwich

Philosophy in Australia is not that simple. — Banno

That doesn't answer my question though.

↪Arcane Sandwich
I'm beginning to form the view that you're too confused to debate with. — Wayfarer

Then don't debate with me. No one's forcing you.

You will jump in with an appeal to Mario Bunge, who you mention frequently, who is a textbook scientific materialism and professor of scientism, yet when those ideas are criticized, you will say, 'hey that's not me, that's him!' - even though you're the one who introduced him and appeared to argue for his position. What gives? — Wayfarer

I disagree. Give me a specific example of such behavior on my part. With quotes.

You will say things that I find quite agreeable with, and then a couple of sentences later, say the opposite. Maybe your screen name is well-chosen. :chin: — Wayfarer

Sure. I'm allowed to agree on some points, and to disagree on some other points, about anything, with anyone. You have the same basic right. Everyone does.

The point I've made, which indeed you haven't wrapped your head around, is that the world within which materialism is true, is one created by the brain/mind — Wayfarer

So what? Materialism and scientism are not the only premises of my personal philosophy. One of my other premises is realism. So, I don't need to take your word for it, or anyone's word for it, for that matter. I am free to believe whatever I want to believe, even if my beliefs are mistaken. What I am not allowed to do, is to utilize my mistaken beliefs as mere tools to be strategically and tactically deployed in any given context. Conversation simple does not follow those rules, it does not abide by them.

I'm saying materialism gets it backwards or upside down, in pursuit of so-called scientific certainty. — Wayfarer

And I'm saying that you get it backwards or upside down, in pursuit of so-called anti-scientific certainty.

↪Janus
Yep. The way we do integers is such that there is no largest integer. — Banno

Who cares? There's no set that contains all of the other sets, and no one in their right mind would say that "sets exists" in the same sense that you folks are discussing "do infinitesimals exist?"

The solution to this is to say that there are potentially infinitely many integers. Once the logic of iteration is in place, there are potentially infinitely many integers just because there is no inherent logical limit to iteration. — Janus

I don't know, maybe. But if so, then you're no longer doing mathematics, you're doing something else.

2/4 = 1/2 — Arcane Sandwich


That's an equivalence, not a reduction. — Banno

(spit to the side, now with a Yankee tone): That's an opinion, not a fact.

The sort of reduction in question occurs when one language game is thought of as a part of anther. In this case you are in effect claiming that mathematics is a game within biology, and not a distinct, seperate activity. — Banno

So are you an Australian Realist, yes or no? You speak Australian English, you don't exactly strike me as the sort of person that would be allowed to speak to King Charles himself. Sup' dawg.

Seems pretty plain to me that this is a mistake. Maths is no a variation of biology any more than Chess is a variation of Poker. They are very different activities. — Banno

False. You're comparing biology to Poker, and that's a fallacy.

The 'solution' on offer not only agrees with this but explains how it comes about. "Counts as..." illocutions set up new games to play. If you decide to move your Bishop along a row, you have ceased to play Chess, and your piece no longer "counts as ..." a Bishop. If you decide that 3+4=8, then you have ceased to do maths, and your "3" and "4" no longer count as 3's or 4's. — Banno

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. Math has to be objective and absolute. As in, it has to have rules, and if you break those rules, then you're not doing math. But that's trivial, because the only rules in math are syntactical, at the end of the day, anyways. For example, if I say:

= 7 2 + 9

That's not math. It uses mathematical signs, but that's not math. It's not a mathematical formula to begin with, from a purely syntactic point of view. Why not? Because the rule itself as a concept say so, just like the rules of Chess say that you can't move the bishop horizontally. It's a rule, in the sense of "regulation" (Reglamento). A correct formula in this case would be the following one:

7 + 2 = 9

Or the following one:

2 + 7 = 9

Or the following one:

9 = 2 + 7

Or the following one:

9 = 7 + 2

We then say that all of these expressions are, in turn, equivalent to each other. And so, and so forth, and welcome to the lovely world of the Foundations of Math. It is a barren landscape, much like a desert. So, are we just going to pretend that this is a "community thing?" No, because "community things" as you understand them, are not isolated from biology, as you seem to suggest. Like, if someone has severe brain damage, from blunt force trauma, in such a way that it causes a specific type of dementia, that person might not believe you when you tell that person that the formula 2 + 2 = 4 is mathematically correct. They "take your word for it", they "trust you" that this is indeed a mathematical formula, but they just don't believe you. Or perhaps in other cases, they try to convince you that 2 7 = + is a legitimate mathematical formula, it just so happens that it's not "Conventional Math", and that the "Community of Professional Mathematicians" have a bias, and that such a bias justifies their discriminatory practices towards people who think that 2 7 = + is a legitimate mathematical formula, and so forth.

↪Arcane Sandwich
Fluff. Let me lay it out for you. Bunge et al, the scientific materialists want to bring mind under the ambit of the neurosciences - firm, objective, and measurable. Thoughts are brain patterns - what could be more obvious? But their problem is, that try as you might, you will never find a thought in the neural data. It is just as Leibniz said - blow up a brain to the size of a mill and stroll through it. You will never find a thought inside it. — Wayfarer

And the usual scientistic, materialistic retort to that is that if you perform an autopsy, and you open a stomach, you won't find the feeling of "I'm hungry" anywhere, on your anatomy table. It does not follow from an assumption of that nature, that the mind should not be studied as biologically and as mathematically as possible. To say nothing of how it should be studied in a philosophical sense, including our beloved Phenomenology and, more generally, our beloved Continental Philosophy. Among other philosophical traditions, of course.

Hang on, you will say. What about those amazing devices which allow science to reconstruct images from neural data? Subject thinks 'yacht', and lo, a yacht appears on the monitor. — Wayfarer

I've never heard of such a thing. I don't think that's possible, I would have heard of it, since I follow the latest developments in the field of cognitive neuroscience, as Bunge did himself.

What has actually happened is the cognitive science, not neuroscience as such, — Wayfarer

Why are you against the very concept of cognitive neuroscience to begin with? That's the part that I can't seem to wrap my head around. Like, it's not that crazy as you make it sound, man. Bunge himself said that one of the cutting edge sciences of today is cognitive neuroscience. Gosh man, it's not that hard to explain it to people: you take Cognitive science, you take Neuroscience, and you combine them into a single, new academic discipline called cognitive neuroscience. Why are you even opposing those two concepts to begin with, @Wayfarer. Why don't you believe in their "Dialectical Synthesis", so to speak? You can be a Dialectical Idealist, like Hegel, if you want. No one's stoppin' ya. I'm not the "Philosophy Police".

. Of course, one of Bunge's nemeses, Arthur Schopenhauer — Wayfarer

He's not one of my nemesis, Wayfarer. Why are you throwing around crazy implications like that? I'm not Bunge. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Bunge has been dead for several years. And I don't know about you, but I can't speak with ghosts. I love Schopenhauer by the way, extremely funny and witty.

↪Wayfarer
That by way of agreement? Can we cure Arcane Sandwich of his reductionism? :wink: — Banno

Alright, let me phrase it like this then: consider a fraction, any fraction, I don't know, two fourths, for example: 2/4.

You with me? Good, don't get lost. One must be very concentrated for this. Now, picture another fraction, like 1/2.

OK? Now, Imagine that I said that 2/4 is reducible to 1/2.

Why? Well, take a look:

2/4 = 1/2

And here is where I say "right"?

And you say "I don't agree with you, that looks like nonsense to me. You shouldn't be a reductionist. Why would you reduce two fourths into one half. What happened to the other half? Did you lose it? Is it lost in the world, somewhere? Poor thing, it must be very hungry, especially without the other half."

That's what you sound like to me. Now, you're free to believe whatever you want, but that's just my honest impression of your beliefs in the Philosophy of Mathematics.

There is also a war of competing ideas. This is metaphorical in a way, but it is being fought out as ideologies. — Jack Cummins

I'm sorry, I don't want to be mean or rude to you in any way, but, does this somehow surprise you? At what point in the history of warfare was that not the case?

If a species evolves to the point where it can recognise 'the law of the excluded middle', does that entail that 'the law of the included middle' can be understood as a product of biology? — Wayfarer

Hmmm... what a clever question. Are you sure that this isn't your first rodeo, partner? Let's see.

(spit to the side) The question that you're asking, Sir, is the question that John Dewey asked of the philosophies of both Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. The three of them were Pragmatists, you see, and today they are something like "The Holy Trinity of Classical Pragmatism". Make of that what you will, I just made it up because it sounded pleasing to my ear before I even said such a thing. Not that I take it back, though. Because I do not.

Right, so what did Dewey himself answer? Well, Dewey was of the opinion that, yes, effectively so. If a species evolves to the point where it can "recognize" what we, humans, call "the law of excluded middle", that does indeed effectively entail that "the law of the included middle", as you so cleverly call it in opposition to "excluded", can be understood as a product of biology. And if you simply made a mistake there, intending to say "excluded" instead of "included", that too, dear Sir, can also be understood as the product of biology.

And Dewey held that opinion. What was Bunge's opinion on that matter? I would not know. I'm afraid that no one would, apparently. It seems to be an issue that Bunge himself struggled with as a philosopher and as a scientist, so he was somewhat "silent" or "agnostic" about it.

↪Arcane Sandwich
So you are now saying that there are not infinity many integers?

We can quantify over things that are not physical. You appeared to understand this, a few days ago. But it's late in your party of the world. — Banno

Alright, let me phrase it in communitarian terms, then, to speak your dialect for a moment. The only person (to my eyes, at least) that has attempted, in the last few days, to solve the question presented in the OP, is you. And the only person that you managed to convince, was me. These other fine people here with us in this Thread, are working on their own solution to the problem presented in the OP. As in, you have not convinced them of your solution in that sense, you've only convinced me. So, simply as an act of courtesy towards you, I'm now disagreeing with you. But I do it for two reasons:

1) Firstly, because no one is even challenging your solution to the question of the OP in the manner that I am, and;
2) Secondly, because in that specific sense, my solution is better than yours, because my solution is technically Bunge's solution to the problem. If this is reduced to community terms, I prefer to agree with Bunge than with you on that point. So, you see why there's a problem with the very notion of "community Math" to begin with as a concept. Math has to be absolute, in the formal sense that "it's not up for debate", it's not for the community of mathematicians to decide. Whatever is said in formal languages, such as Logic and Math, has to be said in such a way as to be objective and unambiguous as possible. That cannot be done in ordinary talk, no matter how sophisticated. It must be done formally, in a purely formal language, such as the language of first order predicate logic, or set theory, or some other sort of formal language.

Now, what is the explanation for that? What is the "underpinning" of it, so to speak? It is biology, apparently. As in, it is the biology of the brain of a member of the human species.

So, do numbers exist out there in the world? What exists, at most, is a visual sign, such as this two-stick looking thing that we call "seven": 7

Is that meaningless sign a number? I would say no. That's not a number, that's a numeral. And there are no numbers when you count ordinary objects: there are ordinary objects, and each of them has a "oneness" that makes it an individual object. But that is not Math, and it is not Logic, it is Ontology.

We don't pretend that there are infinitely many integers, because there are infinitely many integers. — Banno

Where are they, then? Are they under my table? Maybe some of them are there, I should check. Are they inside a box in my living room? Are they growing in the tree in my back yard, as if they were fruits? You say there are, emphatically. So, I ask you: where are they?

I'll repeat a simple argument against this.

If π is a brain process in your brain, and also a brain process in my brain, then it is two different things.

But if that were so, when I talk about π I am talking about a quite different thing to you, when you talk about π.

When we each talk about π, we are talking about the same thing.

Therefore π is not a brain process in your brain — Banno

And here is the Bungean retort to your argument:

Ideas, then, do not exist by themselves any more than pleasures and pains, memories and flashes of insight. All these are brain processes. However, nothing prevents us from feigning that there are ideas, that they are "there" up for grabs - which is what we do when saying that someone "discovered" such and such an idea. We pretend that there are infinitely many integers even though we can think of only finitely many of them - and this because we assign the set of all integers definite properties, such as that of being included in the set of rational numbers. — Bunge, Ontology II: A World Of Systems, page 169)

Hello @ucarr and @Metaphysician Undercover, how are you? Mind if I jump in at this point? I'll just go for it, since I seem to be having the same problem that you two are having. Let me see if I can look at this from a different angle:

qualification | ˌkwäləfəˈkāSH(ə)n |
noun
3 a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute
-- The Apple Dictionary — ucarr

Let's take the dictionary's word for that. And let's read that literally, as in, it is not open to interpretation. That being the case, if a qualification is literally a statement or assertion that makes another (statement or assertion) less absolute, then, by definition, it makes them (the statement or assertion in question) more relative. In general, to be less absolute is to be more relative, and to be less relative is to be more absolute. That, from a purely technical, formal standpoint.

I didn't know your theory is not only a theory of the timeline of time. That's just one component of a broadly inclusive and intricately detailed theory of physics. — ucarr

I agree with this. A broadly inclusive, intricately detailed theory of physics, would include a theory of the timeline of time. But the former cannot be reduced to the latter, and this is also presumably by definition.

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement. — ucarr

Hmmm... do I agree with this? I'll tell you what I think. I accept Mario Bunge's definition of space and time. He says the following:

So much for our outline of a relational theory of spacetime. Such a theory is not only relational but also compatible with relativistic physics, in that (a) it assumes the structure of spacetime to depend upon its furniture, and (b) it does not postulate a global structure. However, the theory is not relativistic: it does not include any of the special laws characterizing the various relativistic theories, such as for example the frame independence of the velocity of light, or the equations of the gravitational field. The relational theory of spacetime sketched above is just a component of the background of any general-relativistic theory- if one cares to add such an ontological background. Physicists usually don't: they are in the habit of postulating the four-manifold without inquiring into its roots in events. — (Bunge, 1977: 308)

What I find surprising is that what is happening is not questioned more, as being a militant form of control. — Jack Cummins

Well, look at it like this: there are people that believe that the Earth is flat. I find that far more surprising, if we're comparing what surprises us about other people's beliefs.

as a professional metaphysician (I think I've earned the right to call myself that, I have enough metaphysical publications in professional journals to qualify as such), — Arcane Sandwich


Now you've got me curious! Would you be willing to share a link to one of them with us? — J

Hmmm... I don't know. However, I will say this: I've left enough "clues" throughout this Forum, since I joined a few days ago. If you look for them, you'll be able to piece everything together, in such a way that you will arrive at my publications. If this is too much of a hassle, then just send me a Private Message, and I'll happily share some links. Sound fair?

Do you see what I mean? — Bob Ross

Yes, of course. I've been seeing it ever since you joined this Thread (without even saying hello, as I've already pointed out. You see, you are rude, objectively speaking. I mean that simply as an objective description of your moral character (which I do not claim to know) from the point of view of mere etiquette. And this, what I just said in this paragraph, is what I call "rambly talk". I prefer to avoid it, but sometimes that is not the wisest course of action. So, let us "carry on", so to speak.

A motion of order.

@Bob Ross has suggested that the title of this Thread should be changed. The new title will be:

an investigation into “factiality” as understood in After Finitude. — Bob Ross

Moving on, you then say:

For example, right now, your OP asks a question which doesn’t reference “factiality”: it just asks about “factual properties” as it relates to the identity of yourself. With the clarification above, my response that “factual properties” make no sense may be misguided since I have no clue how “factiality” is being understood and used in After Finitude. — Bob Ross

I have already addressed this point, Bob. See above. For reference:

Consider the first comment of the OP, from now own, "Version Zero" of this document (this Public Thread, which is now at page 5).

Henceforth, we will begin with "Version One" of the document from now on. I have the authority to make that call (as in, I am legitimized in my capacity to make that decision), for I am the author of the OP of this Thread.

Question of this Thread: What is factiality? — Arcane Sandwich

Carrying on, you say:

“What is factiality?” would be a superb discussion board title for this OP. — Bob Ross

Hmmm... But you seemed to suggest another title: "an investigation into “factiality” as understood in After Finitude.". That would be the title. Instead, "What is factiality" is the question of the OP. I am using the Forum suggestion for this format, Bob, specifically the Thread titled How to Write an OP.

So, although you could mention why it matters, I would say that, first and foremost, an elaboration on what you mean by “factiality” and what you want to know about it would be essential to the OP. When someone reads “What is factiality?”—as the title—they get an inkling into something about “factiality” but since is a coined term—I am presuming—by the author of After Finitude it is critical to elaborate (at least briefly) on what the term refers to. It could be as brief as “I would like to get everyone’s take on “factiality” as understood in <author’s-name>’s After Finitude’. — Bob Ross

Yes, I think you're exactly right about that. I will write such things afterwards, in this discussion, and if they "look good" to you, then (and only then) I will edit the original OP, so as to incorporate all of the changes (such as the change of title, the change of question, etc.)

Then, I would suggest elaborating on what exactly about it you would like to discuss. I can’t offer help meaningfully on this part because I have no clue what “factiality” means in that book because I have no read it nor am I acquainted with it in any significant sense. — Bob Ross

This part will be incorporated as well into the original OP once we approve the suggested changes throughout this discussion. And by that point, you will have a full understanding of the concept of "factiality". And once you do, we can begin the "real talk", so to speak.

Socrates may be the role model of martyrdom. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps, though a lot of people would say that Jesus would be a better example, or perhaps the samurai that dies by his own hand due to his dishonor, would be an even greater example.

It may come down to cultural relativism in politics, which may give rise to a swing between totalitarian control and anarchist solutions. — Jack Cummins

That is exactly what it is. It is more complicated than that, in "how it works", but that is essentially it, what you just said there.

I mean “explain” in the basic, common use of the term. If you can’t describe it, then that’s a huge issue which begs why you even believe it in the first place; and, no, I am not denying the idea of ineffability. — Bob Ross

Hmmm... Fair enough, what do you want me to explain, then? Do you want me to explain why I believe that the Ultimate Truth about Reality Itself is Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit?

Or are you asking me to explain why I, Arcane Sandwich, truly believe that Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit really exists?

It is Hegel's concept of the Absolute Spirit.


Again, which is what exactly? Can you explain it? — Bob Ross

That's a difficult question to answer, really, because it presupposes that the very concept of Hegel's Absolute Spirit is something that could be explained, that "someone can explain it", and all I'm saying is that I'm not so sure about that. In other words, I can tell you what it is, but I'm not so sure that I can explain it. What do you mean by "explaining"? Let's start with that if you don't mind.

And please try to pay little if any attention to the sort of Mind-Flayer-ish tone that my words seem to adopt from time to time, for no particular reason, apparently. Frustratingly so, one might add.

. I am still as of yet not entirely sure what you believe, which is fine—it takes time. — Bob Ross

My belief about what? About the Absolute Spirit, in the Hegelian sense? I believe that it is real, and that it exists. For those two notions, to wit, reality and existence, are not the same thing, as far as I'm concerned. However, the Absolute Spirit happens to have both: it is real, and it exists.

There is, of course, another possibility: that I am deluded.

Hello again to everyone,

Since it seems that no one other than myself is voting for the answer that @Banno offered as a response to the question of the OP, please allow me to attempt to answer it in my own way. I have already suggested my answer in the preceding pages, but now I will express it in a clearer way.

Do infinitesimals exist (in the platonistic sense)? — Michael

No, they do not. Nothing exists in the platonistic sense, if by "platonistic sense" you mean ideal existence. It can be argued (as Mario Bunge has argued in print) that all numbers, including infinitesimals, are really just brain processes occurring in the brains of living humans. That goes for infinitesimal as well as for the set of the natural numbers. It goes for every mathematical object in general, including the objects of geometry, algebra, arithmetic, number theory, mathematical analysis, logic, and the very foundations of mathematics as such. It's not just a "Do numbers exist?" sort of question.

1. If they don't exist then any number system that includes them is "wrong". — Michael

False. For one can declare that mathematical objects in general, and infinitesimals in particular, have "conceptual existence", as opposed to "real existence", which is precisely what Mario Bunge argues in his book from 1977 called "Ontology I: The Furniture of the World".

2. If they do exist then any number system that excludes them is "incomplete" (not to be confused with incompleteness in the sense of Gödel). — Michael

False. They exist only in a conceptual sense, not in a real sense, as I have just said. They have "conceptual existence", and what that means is that they are just useful fictions in a quasi-Nietzschean sense. This is precisely what Bunge argues. What infinitesimals really are, is a series of processes occurring in the brain of a living human. If you ask Bunge if "there is a number right there" and you point to a visual sign like "3", which you can physically see with your eyes, Bunge would say no, that's not "a number", that's simply a numeral. It's a meaningless visual shape, and we, humans, have agreed to give it a meaning. It means "three". Three what? Three x, whatever x may be. But all of this is conceptual existence. Numbers, understood "like that", as in realistically, are just a series of brain processes, as I've pointed out earlier.

3. Infinitesimals exist according to some number systems but not others. This would be fictionalism, — Michael

False. This is because the entire explanation that I gave before, which is Bunge's explanation, can be accurately characterized as adhering to mathematical fictionalism. Bunge himself sees it that way, and he has manifested that belief in print, in an unequivocal way.

Thank you very much @javi2541997.