According to the solipsists over in another thread, @apokrisis is a figment of my imagination. In that vein I'll take a shot at responding.

So circles and numbers are the idealised limit of physical reality? — apokrisis

I said no such thing. Circles and numbers are abstractions. Limits have a technical definition and I would never use that word imprecisely in a mathematical discussion. This is not the first time you've quoted me as saying something I never said.

They represent perfect symmetry — apokrisis

I never said that nor do I agree with the statement. Modular forms are said to be the most symmetric mathematical objects but they're beyond me. Circles have lots of symmetries but I don't know what a perfect symmetry would be.

and to "physically exists" means always to be individuated - a "materially" broken symmetry. — apokrisis

Not something I would have said nor do I understand what you mean. If someone asked me if I believe that material objects are broken symmetries I'd first try to figure out if the questioner was a crank; and if not, to ask them what they meant by that. Maybe I'd learn something.

Surely I don't have to explain to you the difference between abstract and physical objects. You're just being disingenuous.

Therefore mathematical forms are not real. — apokrisis

Mathematical forms are real, they're just not physical.

There is only imperfect matter and its approximations of these forms - always inevitably marred by "accidents". — apokrisis

I would not say that matter approximates forms; rather I'd say that mathematical forms are often (but not always) abstracted from familiar physical objects.

I don't know what you mean by the accident bit.

Every physical circle is a bit bent. — apokrisis

In the British usage of the word?

Any collection of things may be given a number, but no two things are actually alike. — apokrisis

This I do believe. Unless you go along with Wheeler's idea that there's only one electron that hurries around a lot. I don't think you can distinguish electrons. But of course electrons are right on the border between the physical and the abstract. I do understand your point that saying that physical things are "really there" is a stretch once we get into the higher realms of physics. Still, one can distinguish between a number and a rock, one being abstract and the other physical. Even you would agree to this distinction, yes?

This is certainly a familiar ontological view. — apokrisis

It should be. It's yours, not mine. But then again the solipsists do seem to have a point.

Surely you can understand that my response was to someone claiming that the number pi proves that numbers are physical or have material existence. I'm not on any soapbox about the ontology of physics. I understand the traps therein.

I really can't comment on the rest of it. If I understand your point (and I so rarely do) it's that if I'm pressed to say what's physical, I'll say a rock. Then you'll ask me about electrons, quarks, strings, and quantum amplitudes, and I'll be forced to admit that I don't really know what a physical thing is. Then you'll say, Aha! Then the number pi is just as real as a rock!

That your point?

Ok. I don't disagree.

But the number pi is a lot different from a rock.

I'm going back into my vat now. It's nice and warm in there.

ps --

A substance ontology is what we experience, and any mathematical notions about form seem so clearly an abstraction produced by the creative human mind. — apokrisis

Wait!! It seems you agree with me after all. I completely agree with this statement.

So far I'm up 60%. — Michael

Have you converted your holdings back into cash and successfully moved it back into your bank account? You might be surprised at how difficult that is. Now imagine everyone wanting to get out at once.

Also, what were your total fees? To get in with cash, buy some btc. move it to a wallet, move it back from the wallet to an exchange, sell it, and move the cash back to your bank account? Probably 20% or more.

If consciousness isn't the product of the brain then why can we get knocked unconscious? — Panzerfaust

When an anesthesiologist wants to knock you out he gives you an IV (intravenous drip) in the hand. What do you say about that?

how can we know He exists? — Panzerfaust

Faith. Isn't that how it works? Belief that requires evidence is science. Belief that does not require evidence is religion. If you require evidence, you're doing science, not religion.

In other words: God does not need a "friends and family" data plan. You know God exists and your knowledge does not require evidence.

Well, according to physicist Max Tegmark, there's no difference between physical and mathematical structures. — litewave

That's a speculative idea, not physics. And besides, he's also suggested a stricter idea of the computable universe. If the universe is a computation, then it's not continuous! Because most real numbers are not computable, so the real number line is full of holes. These are interesting ideas but they are not physics.

If you don't understand the distinction between abstract mathematics and the actual, physical world that we live in, that's something you should try to understand. You've fatally weakened your own argument by admitting you don't know the difference between the two.

It seems to be no problem in mathematics. What do you mean by "physical"? — litewave

The physical world. The object of study of physicists.

The current refugee crisis is Europe is caused by America's endless wars in the Middle East. You can't separate the migration problem from US foreign policy.

I don't know. If the axiom of choice is consistent with Euclid's axioms — litewave

Ah. Interesting point, sort of a category mismatch. When you say Euclidean you mean Euclid's axioms of geometry. When I say Euclidean I mean modern Euclidean space $\mathbb R^n$. The axiom of choice of course applies to the latter (unless one chooses to accept its negation) but not to the former.

Our space is generally not Euclidean but in everyday life the curvature is usually negligible. — litewave

It's not the curvature that's the problem, it's the idea of dimensionless points. There's no such thing in physics except as conceptual abstractions.

Dimensionless points are common to both classical and modern definitions of Euclidean space.

How do you justify the idea of dimensionless points as physical entities? Even in an alternate universe?

And of course, as I said, there may actually exist continuous Euclidean spaces, even though we don't live in one. — litewave

Do you suppose that the axiom of choice is true in such a space? Then the Banach-Tarski paradox is true as well. Then matter could be created, contrary to the laws of physics.

Is it possible that you (like me, like Kant, like everybody) have a strong intuition of Euclidean space, yet that intuition is simply misleading? And that in fact mathematical Euclidean space is inconsistent with physical reality?

Then, I ask to reread the TLP passages I posted. He makes solipsism compatible with pure realism. — Posty McPostface

I clicked on your Wittgy link and read the yellow highlighted part and I confess I didn't understand at all how that has anything to do with solipsism. Can you break this down for me? I'm not a Wittgy scholar.

But, then it must be true! — Posty McPostface

It might be true. But it's nihilistic. We should dismiss it because it's boring. Why did the sun rise today? My vat programmers did it. Why didn't the sun rise today? Vatprogs again.

It fails as a philosophy because it's not interesting.

All that you know about this world is from your experience — Michael Ossipoff

Berkeley's subjective idealism, right? The world "outside" is irrelevant, all I know is my sensory impressions. And why do my sensory impressions seem consistent from moment to moment? God did it.

Berkeley was a Catholic bishop so we can understand his point of view. What was Descartes's excuse? "God makes everything work out" is not much of a philosophy either.

You can't logically refute solipsism but it's pointless. It doesn't give you insight into anything. The world's a mess because that's how my sadistic vat programmers set it up. They know I'm a liberal and they programmed Trump to troll me all the days of my miserable vat life. But why am I a liberal? Because they programmed me that way too. It's a nihilistic viewpoint. Nothing means anything.

Descartes asked in 1641 how he could know that all his experiences aren't illusions caused by an evil demon. He concluded that since God is good, God would not let such a thing happen.

Cold comfort in our secular age. But it's not a new idea.

If our space or at least some part of it is continuous — litewave

That's a wild assumption with very little evidence for it, and considerable physical evidence against it.

and flat — litewave

Ditto.

But surely you are not making the claim that mathematical Euclidean space is actually the literal truth about the physical world? If not, please explain what you are claiming. And if so ... well, frankly the burden's on you to provide evidence.

Let me give you some thought questions. If the universe the same as Euclidean space, and points in physical space are like points in Euclidean n-space where I don't care what n is, then is the Continuum hypothesis true or false? That is, how many points are in the unit n-cube?

If anyone seriously believed that physical space was Euclidean space, then set theory would become an experimental science. When the physics postdocs start getting grants to determine the truth value of the large cardinal axioms then maybe you'll have a remote hope of my believing this absurd claim.

Is this the line of argument you are putting forward? If not, then what are you saying exactly?

ps -- I apologize if I sound too emphatic. The physical world and mathematical Euclidean space are very different things. The idea of mathematical continuity is an abstraction.

I will also note for the record that even a discrete space can have a notion of continuity. In fact imagine that the universe consists of a lattice of bowling balls with nothing between them. So there is no continuity as you might think of it.

Nevertheless we can put a metric on a discrete space, and say that the distance is 0 from a point to itself, and 1 between any two distinct points. With this metric, every function whose domain is this discrete space is continuous, by the formal definition of continuity. In topological terms this is the discrete topology, in which every subset is an open set. Math gives us the tools to create many universes; but math can't tell us which model is our universe. My guess would be none of them. Or all of them.

But the major point here is that there are no circles in the real world. Do you believe in the physical reality of dimensionless points?

I guess the circumference of a circle was just as many times longer than the diameter before the discovery of irrational numbers as it was after the discovery. — litewave

Yes but there is no such thing as a circle in the world. The circle whose circumference divided by its diameter is exactly pi is not any object that can exist in this mortal world of ours. The circle of mathematics is an ideal circle, a pure mental abstraction.

It's the set of points, whatever they are, in the plane, whatever that is, that are all exactly the same distance from some other point.

Before there were humans, there were round-ish things like planets and stars. But there were no circles. There were no circles until human beings came along and conceived them as an abstraction.

Pi already has abstract mathematical existence. But you can't argue that pi is any realer than that by invoking idealized circles. Circles have exactly the same mode of existence as pi: as idealized mathematical abstractions. Circles and pi are contingent on the evolution of abstract reasoning in humans.

tl;dr: Were there circles before humans?

Right to suicide, yes. Requirement that the State must assist? No. Based on the State I'm most familiar with, they'd be all too eager to help. They might not wait for you to ask. Can't you all keep the bloody State out of every little thing?

Ripped from today's headlines. A couple of gamers got into a dispute. One of them "swatted" the other, meaning called up the cops and caused the cops to dispatch a SWAT team. Only the gamer gave a fake address ... the address of some perfectly innocent and totally uninvolved guy. When the cops showed up at the guy's house, he simply answered the door, unarmed. The cops blew him away. Father of two. Ages 2 and 7.

What is it with you Statists? Don't you read the papers? Why the hell do you place so much trust in the homicidal and amoral State? Why do you place ANY trust in the State? The State is not your friend. The State may well be a necessary evil. But definitely evil. It doesn't take much encouragement for the State to show up at your house and kill you. Don't give them any more excuses than they already have. "Oh sorry, it was the guy next door who wanted to suicide. Honest mistake. Our officers followed departmental procedures."

http://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-swatting-prank-police-kill-man-gamers-say-765329

https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/newspaper-man-killed-in-call-of-duty-swatting-incident-w514820

It's just an Internet forum, not the proceedings of the Royal Society.

Then again when Newton was the president of the Royal Society, he ordered the destruction of the last known portrait of his great rival Robert Hooke. If these geniuses of the past were online today they'd be snarling and snarking at each other all day long.

Newton said that he deliberately wrote his Principia in an obscure manner so as "to avoid being baited by little Smatterers in Mathematicks." Old Isaac could flame with the best of 'em.

By Variable I meant something which is subject to change. — bahman

So then your argument is circular. "Things that change require a variable. Why? Because a variable is something subject to change." Circular, right?

Besides, aren't constants variables? The function f(x) = 3 is constant, yet x is the independent variable. You are using a technical term with a different meaning than normal but not fully defining your new meaning.

You seem to contradict yourself here. You state the "Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany" (which I agree with if we define "legitimate" as "lawful") but then you seem to contradict your statement by saying that legality (I'm assuming you're talking about the legality of the Nazi party) doesn't impart legitimacy — czahar

Yes good point. The Nazis were the lawful government of Germany but they were not moral. Legitimacy is a technical term and I'm not using it correctly. Probably what I should have said is that the Nazis were in fact the lawful (legitimate??) gov of Germany but their laws and behavior were immoral.

Then my main point would still go through. Just because a government is lawful or legitimate, that in itself does not morally justify their violence.

That wasn't my argument. The consent of the majority of voters as my argument for the legitimacy (e.g., legality) of government violence. — czahar

Yes you're right. Everything the Nazis did was lawful. That's the problem with the argument from law. You may remember the case of a cops who busted into a house looking for a low-level meth dealer who turned out to not be there. They tossed a flashbang grenade into the crib of a sleeping baby, blowing open the baby's face and chest. The Sheriff said they were "following procedure," and nobody was ever held accountable. The county never even paid for the medical bills. Awful case. Legal and lawful, but most definitely immoral.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/insider/kevin-sack-no-knock-baby-bou.html

If time just is what it is, then why does it move at different speeds at different places? Or are we not allowed to enquire why, because it just is? — tom

You're taking my remark completely out of context. @bahaman said

This means that we need a variable to allow this to happen. — bahman

and I merely pointed out that variables are human constructs, and relatively recent ones at that. Whereas time has been going on a long ... well, time. Therefore time does not require variables. Rather, variables are what we use to model time.

You are taking exception to my statement that "time is just what it is?" Are you denying the law of identity?

I can't think of any gang that operates today with majority support. — czahar

The government. That's your own example!

But as I noted earlier, the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany and had broad popular support for their deeply immoral activities. Legality does not necessarily impart legitimacy. If your only argument for the legitimacy of government violence is that they're the government, that's refuted by the many examples of the immoral acts of governments throughout history.

In this post, I will argue that taxation is not theft, as many libertarians and anarcho-capitalists argue. — czahar

Taxation is theft. If a street gang said, "Give us 30% of your income and we'll protect you from the other gangs," that's a crime. But when the government does the exact same thing, it's regarded as legitimate.

Why is that? Well one reason is that the State is defined as the entity that has a local monopoly on the use of violence.

As the defining conception of the state, it was first described in sociology by Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is the "only human Gemeinschaft which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Saying that taxation is a legitimate function of the State is circular logic. Taxes are collected under threat of force. The State is defined as the entity possessing a local monopoly on the use of force. Therefore when the State collects money from you under threat of force, their actions are legitimate only by the very definition of the State, but for no deeper reason.

If one steps back and takes a moral view, violence from a street gang and from the State is indistinguishable. One need only read about the many police abuses of citizens in the US and elsewhere to understand that point.

Taxes are collected under threat of force. The State claims its violence is legitimate, but I see no moral basis for that claim. As the cops say: There's no justice. There's just us.

This sounds a bit like the line of questioning in the House Unamerican Activities Committee..."Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Communist Party?" — Bitter Crank

Nothing pejorative intended. Just noted some of your previous comments.

I do agree that Marx identified many of the problems of late stage capitalism that we are experiencing now. I don't trust the almighty State. That's why I don't support income redistribution. In theory if the State taxed the rich to provide opportunity for the poor, that would be good. But if you look at the condition of the public schools in poor neighborhoods, you see that it's not working.

We no longer have a functioning system of capitalism. As many have observed, gains are privatized and losses socialized for the politically connected "too big to fail" institutions. The massive money printing by central banks in the past decade is causing massive asset bubbles while the infrastructure collapses and economic inequality worsens.

We need a revolution. I just don't think Marxism is it. But I'd agree with you that something's terribly wrong with our current system.

This means that we need a variable to allow this to happen. — bahman

I think that's confusing the map with the territory. Time, whatever it is, just is. The modeling of time via mathematics requires a variable often labelled 't'. Time existed long before the letter t. Variables are a historically contingent abstract idea of humans. In fact letters of the alphabet used as symbolic variables in mathematical expressions didn't come about till relatively recently, in the 13th or 14th centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_algebra

The nazis made a sham of the law, replacing it with the rule of persons like Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, et al. — Bitter Crank

On the contrary. Everything the Nazis did was strictly according to the law. Of course the law itself became corrupt. Perhaps that's what you meant. But that shows that even the "rule of law" can be problematic. We see such instances in the contemporary news from time to time.

Also I wanted to ask you about your remarks earlier ... are you a classical Marxist? Labor theory of value and all that?

(double post)

Labor creates all wealth. — Bitter Crank

Marx? Perhaps we'd have to agree to disagree. Marxism has been a disaster everywhere it's been tried. Seen Venezuela lately?

I think you will find that a lot of children of the super rich are not all that productive — Bitter Crank

I'm not thinking of the super rich here. Just the regular rich. The silicon valley CEO married to the Palo Alto physician. Their kids go to good schools and learn to start businesses in their teens. Those are the people I'm talking about. The super rich will take care of themselves. You can't take their money. They buy the politicians.

The last step is to distribute the tax revenue among the workers in the form of inexpensive college costs, excellent trade school programs, guaranteed government loans for tuition where needed, supplementation of local school budgets, infrastructure, solid public health programs, research programs into major diseases, social security, and so forth — Bitter Crank

If it worked out that way in practice I might not be so opposed to the idea. But those tax revenues will end up in the hands of government bureaucrats and rent-seeking corporations whose CEOs pay the right bribes to the right politicians. You know this is true.

And as far as guaranteed loans for tuition, we've had those for years. They've resulted in a huge student debt bubble and a huge spike in tuition. If you subsidize tuition, colleges raise tuition to pay for bloated administrations, the banks make a government-guaranteed profit lending the money, and the kids get stuck with the bill. You know this is true as well. The numbers already provide the proof.

Infrastructure? I'm all for it. You think the government doesn't have enough money for infrastructure? They blew trillions on obscene wars. Wars which the left no longer even bothers to oppose. And why is that, by the way? Does it perhaps go back to the day Hillary stood on the floor of the US Senate and spoke passionately for 30 minutes in favor of invading Iraq? That was the end of the anti-war left.

No I am not willing to give the government more money for more crony capitalism and warmongering. I say no.

All I am saying is that the scales are tilted towards the wealthy in that they have an unfair advantage over people who aren't wealthy who work equally hard, and that negatively effects the poor. — Purple Pond

Now that I can agree with. One of the recent trends is "assortative mating," in which upscale professionals mate and create privileged offspring. We have rampant inequality, worse even than the gilded age of the 1920's. This is getting to be a real problem in our society.

Limit the amount of inheritance outside of spouse to a maximum, say $1 million dollars for entire estate. — Cavacava

This only makes sense if you think the government should be allowed to confiscate the work of someone's lifetime. Only a committed Statist would think this is a good idea. For one thing, it would not solve the problem. The offspring aren't only getting money from their parents. They're getting the best education, the best work ethic and values, and so forth. Your solution is nothing more than a government grab of the assets of productive citizens that does nothing to solve the underlying problem of growing inequality.

In a fair society everyone would get the same amount of slices. — Purple Pond

Isn't that assumption open to question?

You are saying that in school, the kid that works hard, studies every night, forms study groups with his or her peers, attends all office hours, and works his or her ass off; deserves the same grade as the kid who slacks off and plays video games and skips class.

The business owners who works 20 hours a day to build their business, cares for their employees, provides genuine value to the community, deserves the same as the business owner who rips off his customers and cheats his employees.

Your vision seems like an extremely unfair society to me.

This is the kind of question that gives philosophy a bad name — T Clark

It gives physics a much worse name. There are people who take this idea seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

But there's is no cloned pair before the cloning process has begun. There's only one person yet to be cloned. — Purple Pond

Right ... and the clone is a new person identical (for a brief period of time, before the clone's experience starts diverging) to the original, right? That's what I mean by the cloned pair. I'm confused as to why this conversation got so confusing.

You can talk about two things that happen to be one, like Hesperus (the evening star) and Phosphors (the morning star). Both of which incidentally turns out to be Venus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesperus — Purple Pond

That's an example of two different names for the same thing. But under the assumption of the multiverse, these are two distinct, separate universes containing separate piles of atoms. So any two creatures in the respective universes must be distinct creatures, even if they are atom-by-atom or even quark-by-quark copies of each other. Isn't that the basic assumption here? If the universes are disjoint, they can't have any objects in common.

I'll add that this common example of the morning star and the evening star is ironic, since Venus isn't a star.

When did the cloned person come into existence? If it's the moment of cloning then he couldn't have shared all the experiences up to the moment of cloning. — Purple Pond

I suppose if the cloning operation takes a small interval of time, we can talk of the experience of the cloned pair being identical before the cloning operation takes place and beginning to diverge after, with the during-cloning-operation state being indeterminate. Nobody knows what you experience when you're being cloned.

I'll leave this thread in shame. — Posty McPostface

LOL! I think I'll join you.

Two humans with different memories and experiences must be different people. Got it. — Purple Pond

Well if they're two humans then they're not one human. So your statement's a bit unclear.

If a human is cloned, that results in two different people who shared all experiences, inner and outer, up to the moment of cloning.

If they live in different universes, they are different humans even though they always have the same experiences. After all they are made of different atoms that exist in different universes. That must be so, no?

So having different experiences is sufficient for there to be two distinct people; but not necessary.

But the idea that there are two universes that are identical seems a little different from the usual conception of the multiverse, in which each universe represents a different state of matter. Does multiverse theory allow for identical yet distinct universes?

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again." — apokrisis

Dude you're losing it. Again.

I answered to OP. I was merely pointing out that your observation about traffic lights was at best incomplete which then leads to further incomplete observations — Rich

I made no observation. I tossed out a casual example of the kind of specific example OP might be thinking of.

The point is too observe if one really wants to understand Nature. Nature doesn't behave like as answer to multiple choice questions. — Rich

OP said nothing about that. You're tilting at a windmill where there's no windmill. You want to argue with me about a thesis I haven't put forth.

Only a person who has never driven a car in their life believes that a traffic light can only be red, green, or yellow. I'm not going to think for you. — Rich

You are trying too hard to make something out of a very loose point that I tossed out as an illustration of the kind of example the OP might consider.

Again, what determines the sequence of a set of traffic lights. Is it a physical determinism or an informational one? Or do you think causally the two are the same? — apokrisis

You too.

OP asked a vague question then several posts later expressed uncertainty as to why he was not being understood. I suggested that he give a specific example, and tossed one out. The efforts of @Rich and @apokrisis to make a federal case out of this are way off target.

Are human beings like a process? If so, what would be analogous to the single "program code"? — Purple Pond

DNA perhaps. Although you could say that DNA is more like a programming language so that's not a great example.

The analogy I'm trying to get at is that at the moment of cloning/replicating, you have two individual humans who have the same memories and experiences. Their experiences immediately start to diverge.

But whatever it is that makes us human, we all share that. We're all expressions of that. DNA isn't the best example.

Unless you want to claim nature is literally a finite state machine, then what you’re missing is that is what you appear to be claiming. — apokrisis

It's impossible for me to respond to a comment that's so far from anything I said that it appears to be directed at someone or something else. I have no idea what you're talking about.

OP was puzzled as to why people are unclear about his question. I suggested that he supply a specific example. I gave the simplistic example of a traffic light that has three possible output states and achieves them all.

@Rich suggested that I "consider all possibilities." What does that mean? And you ask if I'm suggesting nature is an FSA. When did I say that? Your reading comprehension is awful.

Does the fact we can make machines mean that nature is mechanical? — apokrisis

What?

These are not all possibilities. There are literally an infinite possibilities. When describing the nature of the universe over must be very precise and about simplicities as one does for practical purposes. — Rich

Can you explain what I'm missing about the basic operation of a traffic light?