Coming out from under anesthesia one may be partially conscious for a period, recognizing a friend but unable to put thoughts together. Emerging from a deep sleep there may be a short period of partial consciousness, an inability to synchronize sensory input or think clearly. Before my daily two cups of coffee I am only partly conscious, unable to dredge up names to match faces, etc.

This thread is a little like a thread on the intricacies of quantum theory by those who do not participate in physics teaching, research or experimentation. What's needed are more posts by those who have actually engaged in mystical practices, such as experienced Zen practitioners.

Those who have had mystical epiphanies should contribute more. Please do.

I am because of the fact that consciousness does not admit of degrees — bert1

In humans, partial consciousness occurs frequently. The fundamental concept of consciousness may not, however.

Therefore, only those that have walked in madness can reflect on themselves in a later rational rime can know the most vibrant snippets of the descent, and even then it must be asked if a rational mind can ever really know the madness and despair of the journey. — bobcat

John F. Nash, Jr. (A Beautiful Mind) suffered from schizophrenia for years, but claimed to have cured himself by computer programming for his physics and math colleagues. So, yes, a rational mind can indeed really know about the journey. :cool:

Consciousness is an aspect of intelligence. — jacksonsprat22

Maybe not. Perhaps the other way around?

Wiki: Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

For example, growing and adapting plants. :chin:

A question that arises from time to time. If one were to accept Tegmark's Mathematical Universe concept the question is seen in a different context though an answer remains problematic. Apparently it's not known whether Tegmark himself has confidence in his ideas. As a retired mathematician, the MU seems far-fetched but intriguing. Other than that, who can argue with Einstein? :cool:

Virtual particles do not appear from nothing — emancipate

They seem to appear in calculations, but whether they exist as real physical entities may be questionable.

Philosophy strikes me as the fruit of intellectual dizziness, paralysis or crisis. A sense of urgency is key: an urgent or debilitating craving for intellectual illumination. There's nothing fun about a debilitating craving. Through philosophical devotion, the dizziness, paralysis or crisis may be overcome — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm here to enjoy reading delightful posts like this one. :cool:

Sorry. No.

I consider the constructs: adjective+substantive, where the substantive gets a substantially different meaning (often opposite), as an example of an intellectual illness. — philosopher4hire

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp

For a science you need to scientifically (that is: mathematically) move from one point to the next one. You need a mathematical PROOF — philosopher4hire

I'm not sure what you mean. For example, quantum phenomena can be modeled on mathematics that has not been proven valid. Feyman's path integral is a mathematical concept that functions well even when the functional integral involved is not completely understood. One uses what works in physics.

So we have a double tragedy, philosophical guidance is needed, but it's not heeded. — Metaphysician Undercover

This seems to be primarily an amateurs' forum - and I don't mean this in a pejorative way - in that few if any make their living as professional philosophers (probably requiring graduate degrees). Your ideas on the foundations of mathematics might receive a more serious scrutiny were you to post them on a site like https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=math+stackexchange . Yoiu might find some there who would agree with you. Just a thought. :cool:

So this statement implies that you misunderstand what the foundations of mathematics really are — Metaphysician Undercover

The result, modern mathematics is a disorderly mess. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know. It's a tragedy that requires competent philosophical guidance. Thanks for being there when we need you! :scream:

Mathematicians on the other hand seem to be disinterested, being more inclined to take the axioms for . . . — Metaphysician Undercover

Mathematics evolved over millennia and foundations are fairly recent. Most practicing mathematicians, especially those in classical mathematics, just do the math they are interested in and avoid arguments over the axioms that lie at the base of foundations. Of course, analytic philosophers, set theorists and other math people can be heavily involved in foundations, and keenly feel perturbations in that structure that would go unnoticed by the rest of us.

For me, arguments in transfinite mathematics seem far too abstract, but for others they may represent the soul of the subject. Personally, doing minor research in classical complex analysis I've never needed to go transfinite. But others in what is called modern or "soft" analysis have used debatable axioms like the Axiom of Choice for their investigative results.

If you are a person who feels strongly that the axiomatic structure of math contains flaws, the go for it. There's room for everyone. :cool:

It's not called the dismal science for nothing. The hard sciences are fairly good at predicting. Economics is better at analyzing the past.

I used to argue with a twenty year veteran of Zen about no-thingness. He would declare that he reached a state of "empty awareness" completely devoid of object, to which I would reply that could not be true since he was aware of empty awareness itself. But Zen knows best I suppose. :roll:

hoping to reveal the fact that ambiguity and equivocation are abundant in mathematics — Metaphysician Undercover

I'll take that under consideration since you obviously have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. :roll:

and don't comment. — Xtrix

I wasn't aware there is a rule about commenting. Seems peculiar for a forum like this one. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

Your comment on the other thread: "Interesting to read this thread, watching people gradually convincing themselves, once again, to elect Trump"

Not a good idea for a thread IMO.

I can't understand how people would so miss the point, and would take the above rhetorical question . . . — bongo fury

My point was accuracy of statement. Philosophical overthinking seems normal on this forum. :cool:

The problem is that there is no such thing as motion at time t — Metaphysician Undercover

True enough, if taking a photo of a moving object - which has the effect of freezing the motion. We use time = t in lots of formulae, and make accurate predictions. But in everyday affairs we experience time more as intervals, although we say things like "I'll meet you at three".

Is time flowing at time = t? I suspect it is.

To what extent will Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma affect the election? Do you believe "He did nothing wrong", as most of the media have stated? :chin:

Why does dividing things by three, into thirds, create an "infinite" number of threes after the decimal point, as if we can never get to an actual third of something? — Harry Hindu

6/3=2

Again, a major problem in philosophical discussions is exhibited. :sad:

What is not reasonable is to call any sort of velocity "instantaneous velocity" because any velocity requires a period of time, and "instant" implies a point in time. So that phrase is really self-contradicting, oxymoronic — Metaphysician Undercover

When you glance at your speedometer and it reads 60 mph, indeed that is based on an approximation made over a small interval of time. So you do have a point, although a rather insignificant one. "Instantaneous" velocity or speed is a shorthand for a limit process. What single word would you suggest be used in this context, rather than instantaneous?

The excitement just keeps building, doesn't it? :yawn:

Best to just do the science and not be concerned with the philosophy.

The fact is Since infinity is not an integer you can ever have such in successive addition, so an infinite past is impossible for event Infinite events from the past is impossible. — BB100

Please clarify this. :chin:

What is your native language?

There is no velocity at an instant. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because you confuse stopping a particle at a specific time and observing a particle at that time. Don't forget momentum. :roll:

But tell us: it seems to me when I've seen interviews with her - not very many nor for long - that she seems a little odd and strange. To you also, or not? — tim wood

When she dropped to the floor and did a bunch of push-ups she won my heart! :cool:

Don't care for the other females in the mix.

Any wagers on how much longer this thread will go? :chin:

Interesting that Wittgenstein considered Russell naive.

I might go with Tulsi Gabbard — Wolfman

She would be at the top of my list. But I'd be shocked if it happened.

An interesting thread in itself.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568

However, this thread is hopeless IMHO. :roll:

Joe is now hot on the trail for a running mate. What woman will he pick to shift the polling balance in the swing states? The excitement is palpable! :gasp:

where P is the present and E1 is the first event that occurred before the present, E2 the second, and then all the rest — BB100

So a hypothetical function generating these events is discrete rather than continuous? This is a little like saying "X is the first number to the left of 0". You are clearly assuming time is discrete and not continuous. See below.

Now let us say, since there is a real infinite past then we can list all past events with the Natural Numbers in their terms. — BB100

Therefore there exists some event in the past that is an infinite number of events from the present. — BB100

Why? Why not assume that if one specifies a time in the past, there will always be at least one event occurring before that time? And then at least one event occurring before that event, ad infinitum.

jgill? What sort of thing are numbers? — Banno

One is the sound of a single finger snapping. :cool:

Like staring at the sun, looking too hard into the foundations of mathematics can damage the mind's eye.

"Mathematics as Human Invention: According to the middle Wittgenstein, we invent mathematics, from which it follows that mathematics and so-called mathematical objects do not exist independently of our inventions. Whatever is mathematical is fundamentally a product of human activity."

More or less. We invent, but we also discover. Creating vs discovering is a topic of interest occasionally for math people. Once we have invented we have set in play a process of unraveling or discovering what logically follows. Along the way we invent again, and follow paths stemming from those activities.

"it follows that 'the mathematical infinite' resides only in recursive rules"

As an analyst, I agree. I am not prone to use the infinity symbol like any other.

I'll read more later and report back. :cool:

I open a math book and find a new definition. Is that not a thing I find? — jgill

Some one else put it there. — Banno

Tell me clearly what the word "find" means.

MW: "to discover by the intellect or the feelings" or "to come upon by searching or effort " or . . .

This thread is a good example of why philosophy appears sometimes to be "garbage in = garbage out"

When you start with a really shoddy definition things go downhill quickly. IMHO

:chin:

Maybe. It comes from Wittgenstein. Do you think him naive? — Banno

I made a small attempt to read him years ago but found little connection with the world of mathematics In which I lived.

Are not ideas things we "find?" — jgill


No, they aren't. — Banno

I open a math book and find a new definition. Is that not a thing I find?

Metal detectors find buried coins. I suppose that is the naive notion you entertain. :roll:

Put more simply, in hopes of engaging a few philosopher's attention-- philosophers are about as qualified to understand any aspects of the universe, themselves included, as Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd in a think tank full of carrots. — Greylorn Ell

A bit harsh, but colorful and provocative. :cool: