Absolutely agree. I think I was saying something like that in the “2+2=4” thread.

Ya der hey. I think I agree with that but you would have to spell it out for me.

I’m happy that you can dig it.

And since the lack of a difference is logically defined as a similarity, this means that the particular differences which A does not have from B are similarities it has with B, and the particular differences which A does not have from C are similarities it has with C. — Troodon Roar

I think this is logically necessary. My question is: what is the significance of this argument?

I think mind and matter are both necessary conditions of existence. (As an aside, there may also be something called “spirit”, but I don’t know if this isn’t just energy.) The dichotomy is false because the two interact inextricably where it doesn’t make sense to talk of one without the other. Subject/object dualism is true (if I understand what it is) because observation requires separate physical location.

Like I said earlier, I sort of jumped in without reading through the thread. What were people saying about subject/object dualism? I think subject/object dualism is true in the phenomenal realm.

I now realize what I originally commented with was something of a non-sequitir. You seem to know much more about maths than I do.

You’re right, though. What I said may not deal with the OP. I guess ”2+2=4” is always true (universally true). It’s just that it’s not possible without minds.

My point was that mathematical relations require a mind. “2+2=4” does not exist in the physical universe outside of minds.

@Baden is correct.

Btw, I edited my post if you have further comments.

What if all universes were incapable of supporting life? Would they still hold meaningful information?
— Noah Te Stroete

Obviously there could then be no intentionally meaningful information unless they were created by an intentional entity (God). Would there be any energetic relations, processes and differences or inorganic entities in your scenario? If so, I say they would still embody accidental meaningful information. — Janus

There very well could be energetic relations, etc. in these “sterile” universes. However, “relations” and “differences” and “entities” are observational qualities that assume a conscious observer. In such a universe, an observer would be impossible. Unless there is God there, there is no accidental meaning even (in my view). However, the matter would still exist, it just would have no meaning.

Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to talk about matter or energy without assuming an observer. Hence, my shared belief with you that the idealism/materialism dichotomy is false. How would observation work without a physical location for that matter?

As a spiritual person, I am open to the possibility of consciousness surviving the death of the brain, but the mind would have to live on as some kind of energy. I don’t really know, though.

I think acting requires a lot of intelligence. It requires thinking in counterfactuals and requires a level of emotional intelligence in that a good actor will convincingly put herself in the shoes of the character. I think good acting is one of the most difficult skills in all professions. Unfortunately there is a lot of bad acting on screen.

Didn't we get our math in the first place by abstracting from or generalizing about physical reality? We started making marks to stand for physical things. Obviously, the particular marks and sounds we make are simply a matter of convention. One could imagine, for example, that an alien civilization has a different way of representing these universal truths. But would you suppose that aliens could have a mathematics or logic that is simply irreconcilable with ours? — petrichor

With relativity, it requires a conscious observer with a particular location. Aliens are conscious as well. Without observers, would “location” even make any sense?

Ah jeez, Rick. I thought that you understood that this was just a bit of fun. Chin up, wipe those tears from your vagina.@Hanover would have known. Why can't you be more like Hanover? — S

I can have fun just as well as the next bloke, but it got to a point where I wasn’t sure if this was pure fun or if you really harbored animosity towards me. I can get [belch] shwifty, too. Wubba lubba dub dub.

A mathematician friend of mine did his dissertation on something that was over my head. I asked him if it referred to anything in the physical universe, and he said he didn’t know.

Now if math isn't something inherent in reality we should be seeing some exceptions which I presume we haven't.

It's like someone who sees a theme in a storyline and discovers that all other stories have the same theme. Is it coincidence? Is it God?

What do you think? — TheMadFool

There is math that doesn’t refer to anything in reality. For example, if String theory is correct, then the fundamental units have a minimum size which isn’t zero. This would imply that zero-dimension points don’t actually refer to anything? Then again, the entire theory and it’s mathematics could very well be pure fiction.

I believe our minds are mathematical, and our minds being a part of the natural world, then I guess in a sense the world is mathematical. Theories and language describe our perception of the universe, however. If the universe couldn’t sustain life, then I think mathematics wouldn’t exist.

For clarification, is having a vagina a bad thing? — Hanover

It’s a perfectly fine thing. Vaginas are actually tougher than testicles, but telling a male chauvinist they have a vagina is like using their own gun against them. It’s poetic justice.

2+2=5

Subtract 4 from each side give:

0=1

That implies false=true. — Devans99

But you didn’t start with a true statement. “2+2=4” is true given the conventional meanings of the terms used. “2+2=5” is false given the conventional meanings of the terms used. The operative word is “convention”.

I believe that mind and matter are both necessary components of reality. Math is inherent in minds but not matter. Math is used by minds to describe how the physical world appears to minds, but matter would be quite different without minds.

You’re absolutely correct. My brain works by grouping things into categories more so than stringing together different entities. It’s a fault of my neural network that I was just arguing against!

You’re right. All Western countries have similar provisions in their constitutions. I assume we all live in the West? I don’t think Saudi Arabia has that compunction.

A law cannot be written for Noah or Brett personally. It’s in the Constitution.

good movie. :)

Just as a curiosity, do you worry about getting enough iron and other vitamins and minerals as a veggie/vegan? I have too much to stress about in my own mind, let alone worrying about that. I was mostly vegan for six months a few years ago, but I don’t think I could do it again. I know the ethical reasons for it, but I don’t think I can live that way again. God bless you for your efforts!

People in groups often say 'we should present a united front'...but that isn't always possible....you should/or might have seen arguments within veggie and vegan groups over things like 'is honey vegan?'...for example...to most people outside the group who are quite happy to much on a cheeseburger, will get the impression that the group is dysfunctional...but that sort of thing is true within a lot of groups. — wax

I think that’s where a little bit of tolerance goes a long way.

I wonder, for example, what internal conflicts there may be in groups like gun hobbiests...? Which lubricant is best for lubricating the gun barrel? — wax

Which militia is the most gay-friendly? lol

I think it’s productive to recognize differences, but I don’t know if it’s healthy to emphasize differences. Certainly there are group politics. But there are also huge differences within groups reflecting the uniqueness of all individuals. Laws cannot be written for individuals, however, so grouping people is still necessary, I suppose. Perhaps rights shouldn’t be infringed upon due to differences, but agendas should be pursued by what people have in common? I don’t know.

I meant just what you suggested. The world needs welders and other tradespeople, and the education system should and does reflect this. Most hard-working people don’t have the time or energy to read “The History of Western Philosophy” or “The Fabric of the Cosmos” after a long day of installing plumbing in new construction or driving freight for 12 hours a day.

My point was there are no easy solutions, and in a free society, requirements of an informed public are and should be left to the individual. Perhaps shows like Bill O’Reilly’s should be given a required “this is purely my opinion” disclaimer.

I’m not saying that the term “race” has no use. I think I’ve granted that. I just think that identifying with a particular race in politics causes problems. I grant that dissolving all racial talk causes problems of its own. I agree that people should read more. But, they also have to be careful what they read and what they believe. I guess there are no easy solutions. A knowledge of history from various perspectives is necessary but not sufficient. Science, philosophy, math, the humanities and the social sciences are all necessary for a healthy education, but the world also needs welders.

Apathy and anhedonia are things I’ve dealt with, too. Perhaps it’s inevitable in any intelligent creature’s life?

Never mind that minds may be inherent or at least inevitable in at least this universe. That’s another discussion, though.

I went off my medication for seven months in my twenties and started running and doing push-ups and sit-ups. I lost 50 pounds in that time. Had to go back on my meds because my shrink threatened to commit me. I’ve been on various medications consistently for the last 13 years and some are worse than others for weight gain and energy levels. I started Loxapine five months ago and added thirty pounds when I was already pretty overweight, but I feel better mentally on Loxapine than on Thiothixene. It’s a trade-off. Either you are somewhat sane on meds but physically worse-off, or you are physically fit off meds but you live in an asylum. There’s nothing good about schizophrenia.

I think math is a tool to describe reality just as physics is. Math isn’t inherent in reality. It’s inherent to our minds in describing reality.

I think Crazy Diamond was illustrating the point that “2+2=4” doesn’t say anything about the universe itself but is a useful language game tool in certain arenas.

I read that in India doctors often ask which cast a patient has come from, because the different casts have historically been so separate that they have ended up with different genetic sets. And the difference is important I think due to the different reactions to certain drugs. — wax

Genome sequencing would do away with these diagnostic tactics and would result in much more accurate diagnoses and treatments. Not everyone in even isolated populations will be homogeneous.

Individuals shouldn’t identify too strongly with race, in my opinion. It causes social problems (to put it mildly). If everyone had their own genomes sequenced, then medicine wouldn’t have to rely on race factors in diagnoses, for example, and it would show how we are all unique and yet still related.

Furthermore, you are now conflating “race” and “species”.

Aren’t their offspring sterile?

Yes but that is off-topic, or it is an off topic. :joke: — Janus

One thing I’ve learned in my 39 years of life is we’re all a little “off”.

Sure, I guess “race” has some useful meaning, but when it engenders identity politics it becomes a problem.

Certainly there is much genetic variation among Africans, but my illustration was meant to point out how we’re all related, making the term “race” effectively meaningless.