I believe in the philosophy of Kant, Fitche, Schelling, and Hegel. I interpret them all in terms of materialism (the soul arises from matter) and a combination of process philosophy and traditional ontology. Most philosophers now adays are process philosophers and therefore they don't object to the careless way physicists create philosophical paradigms out of thin air. I read the Tao of Physics last year and it is just ridiculous how a major physicists could have written that! You can't make philosophical claims of that magnitude from physics along. We can point a microscope on a lemon and understand something about the texture of it. But there is a threshold somewhere in there beyond which the microscope can't be proven to be capable of providing evidence of what it really LOOKS LIKE down there. And you are saying that there is nothing there at all unless we measure it. What kind of nonsense

Name calling doesn't win debates. — Ryan O'Connor

I am not intending to hurt your feelings but simply to attack your world view. It's a common world view these days, and it's kind of ridiculous for people to walk around on sidewalks with their legs while they claim the sidewalk and legs are really evanescent waves simply because scientists interpreted it that way because of how certain phenomena affected their measuring apparati. You can't do physics without philosophy, but a lot of times wrong philosophy comes about because of physics

Yes, to me it is fun to think about. I believe it's a good example of how our brain works in dealing with specifics (one grain of sand), and generalities (a pile of sand).

Try this approach: Start by imagining a single grain of sand. Now, add another grain of sand. We can easily imagine two grains of sand that are close together (not far apart). Add another grain - it's also easy to imagine three grains of sand that are close together. Now - when we try to add another grain - such that we would have four grains of sand - it gets harder to imagine. Do you visualize all four grains at the same time, or do you visualize two groups of two? The brain automatically tries to regroup numbers greater than three into new "visual" groups - hence; two groups of two. Adding more grains changes the image again, A group of five, or more, grains causes the brain to sub-divide the grains again into new distinct groups with a maximum of three grains each until one gets to three groups of three - or nine grains total. However, the brain simply can't visualize nine grains of sand in a group - only three groups of three. Try it yourself.

As a result of this simple "thought experiment" one could conclude that the maximum number of grains of sand (where one can visualize the individual grains) is nine. Any number of grains greater than nine results in an "image" of a pile - not individual grains. We have knowledge (math) that we can add more grains to the pile - or take grains away - but it's the image that will not change in our minds, not the actual number.

Ancient philosophers didn't have the knowledge of brain mechanics that we do today so they didn't think in terms of how the brain actually counts. However, they did understand the mechanics (math) of adding, or subtracting, grains of sand to a pile. They were just not able to "visualize" what was happening by adding or subtracting mentally. I believe the Sorites Paradox is a mental paradox - not a physical one. — Don Wade

Great post! I like working on questions relating to traditional ontology and modern psychology. Kant fits into the picture nicely as well I've found. His concept of schemata and such are very interesting

Is a tomatoe a field? Why not? You're throwing ideas out there that are philosophical and calling them science. This is a philosophy forum. We think critically about what scientists say if it in any way comes into the realm of philosophy. That's what we do! Maybe waves are particles and particles are waves. You can't disprove that. What we know is what our senses say, yet you say our senses and the paradigms they are in are close to having ZERO accuracy. Why trust your use of measuring equipment then? We have no real understanding of what stuff looks like at the quantum level. All we have are vague ideas (which are fine) and a lot of assumptions. But your solution to Zeno's paradox is that the quantum world doesn't exist unless we measure it. Which, well, is more paradoxical than what Zeno proved. But he DID end up being an idealist, so there's victory for you I guess

This is why I called you an idealist.

How QM works is a question for quantum physicists. WHY it works is a philosophy question. We can't see with the eye at that level so all the former can do is put philosophical labels on how atoms ect. affect the measuring device. There is no true ontology in that field of research and if you think your body is primarily empty space I'd have to say you have a cognitive distortion

Aristotle's "solution" was that the whole exists prior to parts. To which I ask:

1) do the parts of the whole exist

2) how many are there of these parts.

The answer to the first question is "yes," (you have an arm for example) and the second answer is "infinite". Even Aristotle agreed that discrete space is an oxymoron. The world exists as a paradox, a round circle right before our eyes. It gives wonder and awe to us who think like Kant and Hegel. You can't fully understand a plant, but saying its just amorphous waves because a quantum physicists says so after getting dizzy from quantum math is not a true, realistic position to hold

Yes. Spinoza had two attributes we know of. Thought and matter. Both come from God and work parallel to each other. If you want to believe, as he did, that your mind and body are two substances that emanate from the divine altar, that's fine. There is nothing wrong with that

I am going to talk on the phone tomorrow with my cousin, who is a high profile computer programmer in LA. I will tell him about your claim that infinities play no role in programs and see what HE has to say about that. I feel like you come at these questions from a very limited philosophical perspective and make broad claims about stuff you apparently aren't very familiar with. Expect a reply on this thread tomorrow night

The greatest error of modernity is saying that the world is information and is not as it appears to us. The world we see transcends any interpretation of QM and psychological studies on mind-matter interaction. What you see is what there is. There is more there, but not less. Any other position is insanity. Zeno's paradox will never have a complete solution, but it is a sign of a healthy position to be comfortable with a paradox

Spinoza got his idea of the soul from Descartes. Someone CAN be an epistemic Spinozian while remaining a materialist. I think Hegel was exactly that. Pansychism is a whole different question. If you struggle with mind coming from matter, maybe a spiritual tradition that subscribes to a "soul" is more to your taste. Remember, there are thousands of religions in the world. You can look on Wikipedia to find a comprehensive list of them

People who insist on a consciousness basis for understanding will never find an answer to the "hard" problem. For me its not a hard question at all. A brain doesn't make consciousness so much as it is consciousness. How does blue and red make purple? By combination of parts. There is nothing easier for me to think of than that consciousness comes from my body

Your ontology is weak. You say a table is one, yet it has 4 legs and a top piece. What number of parts do these have? This process is infinite and it takes a delicate balance to understand all it's intricacies. Motion passes through infinity and the finite, but you want to reduce the question to Aristotle's lame argument,: namely that parts are only potentially there. Bringing in QM isn't going to help your case mr. idealist. The world is real. "Ignore the world and the world will come to you"

When time is suspended in indeterminacy space is fluid and discrete. When space is seen as knowingly infinite is its parts it is suspended against the discrete nature of time. Motion has an aspect that is spatial and one that is temporal. We do talk of spacetime now, but we must speak of time and space separately in these examples. Saying we have points and instances which are infinite (which must be crossed by motion) is to forget that time is not space, space is not pure mathematics, and that even pi can only be understood as part of a finite number (3)

What about the halting problem?

.



In the transitions of time, motion covers space as if it is fixed ( "discrete") and as if it is undifferentiated continuity. It's two sides of a coin

There was a great thread here a couple weeks ago. Lots of great links cited in the question of "emergence" . It's a fascinating subject

Spinoza said neither God nor humans have free will. But they both have will, which is the desires of the thinking subject.

The difference between God and man is that we can't know anything positively about the interior life of God. What intellect and will are, in God's inner life, is not something we know of.

For Spinoza the soul creates consciousness in us. We are parallel to matter on one side and the Intellect (i.e.God). Matter is only conscious in that God thinks in it. A plant doesn't think. But God thinks in it

You're the one asking about the "hard" problem in relationship to Spinoza. Gee good luck k with that

Sure. (Remember I'm coming at this as a philospher). Pi specifies a a certain precision between the numbers 3 and 4. When it comes to a segment, the precision is at every spot of it. However these points are nothing but precision. They're "not-space" and therefore negative to the segment. But if we turn the segment upside down the finite nature of the points become a positive length of finitude in the segment. The negative can be positive as double negative and therefore we have a segment of a line. This same process happens as we go from dimension to dimension. But remember I think this is probably more philosophy than mathematics. There is not a true supertask in motion because there is not an infinite set of actual lengths being covered. But the division OF the length covered by motion has no end, and this is true of anything spacial
I really hope this was helpful. Space has a strange relationship to itself.

https://www.harinam.com/tao-te-ching-verse-2-being-and-non-being-create-each-other/

"Paul Cowen proved and then disproved that there is an infinite set in between the two of Cantor"

The continuum hypothesis has arguements for and against it too, as can be seen in the WIkipedia article on it. Organizing these ideas into something consistent is going to take work by hundreds of mathematicians and many many years of toil

Philosophy says that a point is a negation of a line, but if the points are ordered they create a double negative, and thus the positive of the line. The line does the same with the solid, and the solid in turn abrogates what comes before and creates dimensions greater than three. Philosophy and mathematics come onto these questions from very different perspectives and we philosophers can't expect our explanations and demands to be accepted by those with high math skills

The two biwords that define post modern thought are "consciousness" and " informstion". They actually lead to read ends and prevent us from reading philosophy of the past. "Emergence", in the other hand", is a concept modern philosophy understood. Spinoza says we have would united to an Intellect,: so two intellects thinking together when you do philosophy

Aristotle said infinity is "one". Modern mathematics say it's two (countable, uncountable) with perhaps subdivisions. A Philosophy Overdose audio on youtube said that Paul Cowen proved and then disproved that there is an infinity set between the two of Cantor. This is a challenge for mathematicians and they are not going to listen to a philosopher like you

Daoism at its founding taught that being and non-being create each other. Such dialectical logic is all over philosophy. Yet mathematics is a field that does not use such ideas

SEP has an article on Spninozian modes and one on Spinoza attributes. God for Spinoza was a phenomenal Intellect that can't see it own back. Aquuinas's God is the antithesis of the Kaballahs and I still maintain that Spinoza is closer to the later in more than terminology

If we can rearrange volume and thusly double the volume
And we can paint an infinite space with finite paint,

Then it's clear humans struggle with the union of mass and volume

Pure pantheism would have material modes and the infinite deity united perfectly as one being. Spinoza has infinite "attributes" subsisting between the Intellect and modes. He speaks of these in many elaborate ways (see the articles of modes and attributes in Spinoza on the Sanford website). Kaballah makes the attributes be described in 10 ways, and although Spinoza doesn't say that, we still have to understand him with the Jewish culture he was raised in. Speaking of God's attributes in these ways was very Jewish (and foreign to the Catholicism of the time)

I think so. "this is an illusion to an idea found in latter cabalistic philosophy. These 'shard', also called 'shells', form the ten counterpoles to the ten sefiroth, which are the ten stages in the revelation of God's creative power. The shards, representing the forces of evil and dafkness, we're originally mixed with the light of the sefiroth." ( Carl Jung)

Modes break like vessels and are really vessels of attributes which subsist in the simple Intellect

I'm not proposing we ban Infinity altogether. I'm proposing that we restrict ourselves to only use Infinity in a potential sense. — Ryan O'Connor

"The philosopher and theologian are conscious of infinity, but from the mathematician's view they do no use it so much as admire it. The mathematician also admits infinity; the great David Hilbert said of it that in all ages this thought has stirred man's imagination most profoundly, and he described the work of G. Cantor as introducing man to the Paradise of the Infinite. But the mathematician also uses infinities..." Leo Zippin

"Every since we first sought number in the object, the series of numbers has begun with 1. Making zero the first of numbers means no longer abstracting them from the object" Jean Piaget

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." Hermann Minkowski, 1909

"At a time when Minkowski was giving the geometrical interpretation of special relativity by extending the Euclidean three-space to a quasi-Euclidean four-space that included time, Einstein was already aware that this is not valid, because it excludes the phenomenon of gravitation. He was still far from the study of curvilinear coordinates and Riemannian geometry, and the heavy mathematical apparatus entailed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Euclidean_space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#cite_ref-14

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-a-non-mathematician-wrap-my-mind-around-the-Axiom-of-Choice: The reason the Axiom of Choice is (somewhat) controversial is that while it allows us to prove some very useful mathematical statements, it also allows us to prove some less intuitive statements (e.g., the Banach-Tarski paradox).

And finally:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Einstein

(Don't forget Kant's second antimony: (On Atomism)
Thesis:
Every composite substance in the world is made up of simple parts, and nothing anywhere exists save the simple or what is composed of the simple.
Anti-thesis:
No composite thing in the world is made up of simple parts, and there nowhere exists in the world anything simple)

Infinity creates a situation in this question about space that make the question of continua difficult (The reason being that discrete apace is an oxymoron). However in numeral mathematics infinities work ok. Paul Cohen found contradictory proofs in infinite mathematics in the 1960's but the subject simply is not understood properly enough. Maybe a theory of everything which provides the connection between discrete apace (a point) and finite geometry (solids) be found. But nonetheless banishing infinity from mathematics is a move of an ostrich

The Zeno effect and the anti-Zeno effect refer to how observation changes eternal states. The ancient Arrow paradox is just used to illustrated the effect and the effect does not resolve the Arrow paradox because its not specifically related to it

A particle is not the system. It passes through the system

Zeno's entire concern briefly demonstrated:

To go from A to B you have to go half that distance, since the distance is distance as space. Half of AB is a distance, otherwise you are at the half point instantaneously. So he must go the quarter. But the quarter is spatial it too has a half point mark, ... And a computer can run this activity to an uncountable infinity. There is no paradox as to how motion starts from energy. The question is how it is that the supertask is done in finite bounds (time and space)

You are making a claim about reality (i.e. it's made of events of information). Aristotle slumped into this when he said parts are potential. What exists is the whole composed of all it parts, which are bounded by points (finite) and limit in space (finite). A material body doesn't have math in it. We use imperfect mathematical formulations to understand to described in the field of physics. You can't draw philosophical conclusions from physics is the conclusion. You fell for the Parmedian world view by trying to figure out the logic of his disciple

For Spinoza a rock is God but God is not a rock. God has intellect and consciousness (will) but no free will because Spinoza doesn't believe in free will, be it in God or humans. The only consciousness are our souls and God's divinity. A rock is is only conscious in that it comes out of God, who is conscious. You simply can't approach a work like this with the so-called hard problem and all that. Spinoza doesn't talk in those terms

There is no true middle ground between physicalism and idealism. You say the nature of reality is mental and matter is the power to inform. I can not reconcile this with traditionalist materialism

"testimonies of the soul are as simple as they are true, as obvious as they are simple, as common as they are obvious, as natural as they are common, as divine as they are natual. I think that they cannot appear to any one to be trifling and ridiculous if he considers the majesty of Nature, whence the authority of the soul is derived. What you allow to the mistress you will assign to the disciple. Nature is the mistress, the soul is the disciple" Tertullian

Hegel's mystical logic of motion "That which is not may be what it was". He said about logic:

"The linear series that in its movement marks the retrogressive steps by knots, but thence went forward again in one linear stretch, is now, as it were, broken at these knots, these universal moments, and fall asunder into many lines, which, being bound together into a single bundle, combine at the same time symmetrically, so that the similar distinctions, in which each separately took shape within a sphere, meet again."

Hegel's presentation of Aristotle's view of the soul is also interesting: "Certainly what is really present as an individual is just this condition of being in sensuous form reflected out of sense into self; it is the visible as a sensuous presentment of the invisible, which constitutes the object of observation."

For him, the ultimate reality is the love of syllogism. Highly mystical but ultimately materialistic

In the chapter Reason as Lawgiver he says "self-consciousness cannot and will not again go beyond it's object because it is there at home with itself: it will not, because the object is all power and all being; it cannot, because the object is its self...We cannot ask for their origin or justification, nor is there something else to search for as their warrant, for other than this independent self-subsistent reality could only be self consciousness itself...which knows itself to be the moment of self-existence, independence, and self-determination".

We see objects as part of our experience as a material object

Ok I found the more relevant article:

https://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~rarthur/articles/lsi-final.pdf?fbclid=IwAR34tqTaNU4OY-YBbMA-ZpsGIxLFev1ZV8QRvHQF7UprFiXtdx9RgYoLHGc

Marx said Hegel was the best of mathematicians yet Hegel learned what little he knew of the subject from Leibniz, who could easily be the greatest of all mathematicians (so my intuition is saying).
This also relates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benacerraf%27s_identification_problem

I consider this thread to be about the "geometry of Godel" but nobody uses that phrase and it does spin out of control. Peop!e start talking about space being outside itself and such.
I have two links saved somewhere on Leibniz' relationship to this question. I'll go find them