If you would accept the notion that each object in The Universe occupies unique coordinates and is subject to unique Universal forces, then one might conclude that each object in The Universe is "one of a kind," that is, unique in and of itself. If this is indeed the case, then what exactly does "2" mean? — synthesis

There are unique coordinates? I take it you mean two objects don't occupy the same space at the same time. What does "one of a kind" have to do with counting two apples, one red and one green?

You have to accept the fact that mathematics sort of avoids this reality and "pretends" that 2 or 3 (or whatever number you choose) exists because it works (until it does not). — synthesis

No I don't. Nor should you. But we each choose our paths. You might consider joining forces with Metaphysician Undercover. His concern is the supposed equality between 2+2 and 4. :roll:

Explanation #3 - People just get really excited about waves. They think they explain everything. Fields too. They just sound all sciencey and stuff. — T Clark

To say nothing of the nature of the waves, ocean waves vs probability waves - all the same stuff apparently. The more esoteric ones travel through the absence of the aether, as well! Spooky action, truly. :rofl:

And then, there are all those infinities . . . :scream:

My own thread may be far too obscure to be taken seriously on a philosophy forum — Jack Cummins

Actually, it's a refreshing departure from the babbling brook. :cool:

"I think, therefore I am" — Qmeri

I've always considered this nonsense. But his mathematical ideas had great merit. :cool:

But the situation for mathematics is not all good:
As the proof for the uniqueness of the prime factorization is no more valid,
there might be different factorizations in different layers. — Trestone

At first glance I might think, How absurd. But these days there are lots of things in highly abstract mathematics that are beyond my pale, so maybe there is something to your ideas. I'm curious what fishfry and fdrake might think of it. In a faint way it resembles Schrödinger's cat. Nice article on Blau.

I think it might actually be a particle that we can't see because it goes away too fast and gets here too soon. — James Riley

So, a particle of time has speed, which is defined by the particle of time?

Time, like space, simply is. How we perceive time can vary dramatically, however. And what of time dilation in special relativity? That goes beyond perception and is registered by clocks or machinery.

The greatest minds have pondered this question.

There's too much here for a professional physicist to deal with. No wonder they have left the premises. :sad:

Well, I gather you've had your three cups of coffee, Tim!

Thanks for explicating what should be axiomatic on a philosophy forum. :cool:

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? — BitconnectCarlos

Ignore them. Yes, this is easy to say, but could be difficult to do. It depends on how attenuated the community is regarding ethnic issues. Remember, "Why can't we all just get along?"

Suggestion: Put a click link to the paper on researchgate to facilitate reading it. Use the little handcuffs above the message space.

Conversations between those having interests in physics but not deep knowledge go on and on, and can be entertaining. Even arguments between actual scientists on interpretations. But I wonder if Feynman wasn't onto something when he argued to do the calculating, focus on the math and stop speculating.

When he introduced his Integral of all Paths concept to a room full of professional physicists most were taken aback and some startled by his explanations and were prone to discard his discovery. But as time went on and experimental evidence mounted his approach was adopted to a large extent. Even today, as a mathematician, I'm not sure of the nature or underlying soul of the functional-type integral he described. And I use the word "soul" in a context that only mathematicians can understand. It means not only superficial comprehension but deeper context, what lies beneath even the proof of the theory, a feeling of the actual substance of the concept.

I would not be surprised if future development of quantum theory might arise from going to the soul of the math that seems to predict so well. If so, philosophers may be chipping away at pretty hard marble.

Don't ask me to describe "soul". After many years of thinking about a particular aspect of dynamical systems in the complex plane I can "see" processes as they act to some extent, and this enables a glimpse into the undiscovered.

Or, ignore my nonsense entirely! :cool:

What does it mean to say a bat has an identity? That the bat knows who it is? That Baker knows it is a bat? What is it you think is taken for granted? — Banno

Salient points, and look how long this conversation has gone on. On the other hand, knowing what it is like to be be another human is another matter. We can imagine ourselves being someone else, at least to a certain degree. As we read along a first person narrative in a novel we do just that if the author is skilled enough. But to come awake as another is a different ball game entirely.

I get the impression that many if not most posters on this forum have little to say of their own experiences apart from those arising from studying philosophy. I've wondered, Do the philosophically inclined have fewer dimensions to their lives than normal? I would enjoy reading of interests that are either separate from or overlap philosophy that have meanings to posters lives. Maybe another topic, one that might go to Lounge.

I've mentioned an experience I had after several years of practicing Castaneda's Art of Dreaming in which I came partially awake as another person - someone living in a cottage in Ireland - with an entirely different feeling of personhood. Had the spell lasted more than scant seconds I've wondered if memories of that being would have come forth. What indeed does it mean to be who we are?

However we can say that ...."quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and [the] observed are interwoven"- Paul Davies. — 3017amen

Especially since the "observer" is a machine. :cool:

Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relate to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter, etc.. — 3017amen

nice summary. Thanks. Would you consider infinitesimals metaphysical?

. . . does much of science engage in some sort of metaphysical philosophy without actually knowing it (i.e. theoretical physics)? — 3017amen

When physicists speculate in the area of quantum mysticism, trying to find a real-world interpretation of what they observe rather than simply "doing the math", it seems to me they are engaging in metaphysics. But then again, I'm not clear on what the term even means. It would seem to go beyond reasoning. I think Leibniz was engaged in the practice when he postulated infinitesimals. .

The subject of this thread has an existential interpretation. If one creates meaning in their life by engaging in certain projects wholeheartedly, then, yes, to some degree you are what you do, and what you are transcends the biological creature accomplishing those functions.

. . . and in society generally. I think, ideally, it should make us better human beings. And if it isn't, then we're exactly like one of those mathematicians who, while perhaps brilliant in that domain, are otherwise not what one would aspire to be like. — Xtrix

You mean one-dimensional? You might be surprised. :cool:

I'll have to talk to jgill sometime. — Manuel

Don't expect much. :smile:

I retired over twenty years ago, but I still explore very limited and somewhat elementary areas of math and write notes as a hobby. fishfry and fdrake are modest, but they know a lot more about modern math than me, and express themselves well. As for Geometric Unity, I'm clueless.

Incidentally, you might think peer review certifies results that are published, but in math at least if what's being published is not of popular interest in mathematical circles you really can't be sure of complete accuracy. The other side of that coin is when a respected practitioner submits a paper, their colleagues who referee it might not look closely at every detail, assuming the author is quite competent.

A fellow mathematician from St Andrews U in Scotland and I created a minor journal thirty years ago for the purpose of quickly getting results to a limited community out - a little like arXiv.org now - calling it Communications . . .. We lightly refereed submissions. I'm sure some mistakes slipped by us, but we assumed legitimate journals would catch them when submitted. But even there you can't be certain.

Have a read of that first. — Banno

Is it worth the effort? :roll:

Bill Clinton clarified the Law of Identity in his unique way: "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

That should put an end to the discussion.

After all, he only wanted the sciences to be treated democratically, completely without authorities, so that, for example, both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in school. — spirit-salamander

Intelligent design is a science?

To answer the question posed in the title of the thread . . . with utmost caution. If a philosopher wishes to engage in scientific speculation (philosophizing) they should learn the science. (Beware of quantum mysticism) :chin:

It's an inherently arcane field - it takes years of study. — csalisbury

Yep. I'll trust those reputable physicists who doubt his claims.

I suspect the official inflation rate will not gibe with my personal expenditures. Virtually everything I have bought recently has cost 15-30% more than a year or so ago. Could be it's just me. What has been your experience? :chin:

Edit: Whoops! My wife, who is almost a professional shopper, informs me many grocery items remain at pre-pandemic levels. :yikes:

This is probably as good as it gets: Problems with Geometric Unity.

I was a math prof, but not a physicist. I had not heard of GU, so thanks for the thread.

I think you are talking about Algorithmic Information Theory rather than mathematics in general, where your enquiry makes little sense.

If you shake both boxes continuously, the pattern of change of all marbles in a box will most likely be different from the pattern of change of all marbles in the other box. — Daniel

Not deep. :roll:

There are things that exist, and they exist in a particular state; this particular state exists, and it is existence. — Daniel

I can't decide if this is deep or shallow. :chin:

Given any finite sequence whatever, it can be continued with absolutely any next number and fitted to a polynomial. — fishfry

Of course, but the point was the opinion that the use of such sequences in IQ tests is invalid, which I question. I don't think sequence puzzles are necessarily invalid in these tests. Such sequences are good for pattern recognition. We're not talking about fitting a polynomial to a set of points. I used to take the Denver Post, and each day there would be a puzzle created by, I believe, a Canadian math teacher. Frequently he would present a sequence and ask for the next term. Some were pretty clever and I got stumped occasionally. The idea is to find the simplest mathematical structure generating the next term. And, yes, sometimes there was more than one answer.

You can find them all over the internet, now. Polynomial interpolation is beside the point.

It's impossible with any sequence of numbers what comes next. The psychological / IQ tests that rely on this are all flawed. — god must be atheist

Maybe you could provide a citation for this assessment. :chin:

The sound of two hands clapping :smile:

Btw, do you buy the idea that a sequence is random if the next cannot be guessed from the series - which probably requires actually generating the next number? . — tim wood

I've been stumped by brain teasers that have you try to determine the next number in a sequence, so, no, not necessarily random. This is another math topic that not too many professionals give much thought to - unless you work in that area. If I need to generate a random sequence for a computer program I just go to that command and not worry about it. :cool:

it may be that the philosopher of the future will have to go in a direction which will leave the reader turning pages in suspense, as meaning leaps from the pages — Jack Cummins

Novelists like Hemingway write spell-binding stories that could be considered philosophical. I think you are on to something.

But it seems fairly easy to imagine a physical system that would produce series of random numbers. — tim wood

Back in my meteorology days one approach was to measure small changes in atmospheric pressure. But not a guarantee of randomness.

The sound of one hand clapping . . .

Don't you people want to be free again? — synthesis

At the age of 84, no. I'm relatively healthy other than arthritis and a really bad back, but when I have needed medical attention Medicare has treated me very well. I have a supplementary policy that includes Healthways and free admission to expensive fitness gyms. The thought of all that vanishing and having to spend really big bucks is not pleasing. And, yes, Medicare funding is questionable, but some sort of means testing might shore it up. I have a very wealthy friend who pays only a tad more than I do for the plan.

Dare I ask, What do you think of Medicare? :scream:

Let's start with this: does the earth revolve around the sun? — tim wood

So many posts on this thread. Here's a question for those who are entranced with the notion math should begin with continua: From the OP is there a continuum of discussion relating Gabriel's Horn with the Earth revolving around the sun? :chin:

I read Jaynes' book years ago and was very favorably impressed with his arguments. We all talk to ourselves from time to time and it's easy to imagine the internal discussions arising from godlike instructions long ago in the way Jayne's describes.

Probability means that out of a number of events each has the same likelihood of happening — EnPassant

You have a container in which there are ten black balls and five white balls. You reach in a pluck out a ball. What is the probability it is black? White?

According to the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman (Feynman 1997), mathematicians designate any theorem as "trivial" once a proof has been obtained--no matter how difficult the theorem was to prove in the first place. There are therefore exactly two types of true mathematical propositions: trivial ones, and those which have not yet been proven — A Realist

This is nonsense and probably Feynman at his best at satire. :cool:

Assuming there are universes to accommodate every possible position and spin of every subatomic object so literally all possible events and chains of events do occur in one of these universes. — TiredThinker

That's a whopper of a hypothesis! I can't get beyond it. :roll:

Of course, I asked the question of what is a 'real' philosopher, and it is possible that the academics may consider themselves to be the 'real' ones, especially if they have a title of professor. However, they write in academic journals and apart from students of philosophy it is unlikely that many read their writings, although that probably applies to maths. — Jack Cummins

That's true to some extent. I was in a small international group that met periodically at various universities, and when we published a piece I would guess twenty or thirty might have read it. Larger groups in more popular areas of math would have greater readerships. But intense specialization has made communication among mathematicians difficult sometimes. Maybe the same is true of philosophy.