Why do you insist on focusing on the differences rather than the similarities? — Metaphysician Undercover
How is mathematics mind-independent? — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, I think I see what you mean, some conventions are more universal than others. There are some conventions such as those of mathematics and logic which are accepted by the vast majority of humanity, while other conventions are accepted by a smaller proportion, and some by an even smaller proportion, and some which might only be accepted by a few people.
But this appears to assume a static point in time, at which time the conventions are judged for universality. X convention is accepted a by certain population at time T, and Y convention by a certain population at time T, etc. Don't you think that we need to add a temporal dimension? Say Z convention is a newly discovered mathematical principle. Since it is new, it is only accepted by a few. It doesn't fulfill the conditions for universality, it is just being accepted by a very particular, and extremely limited culture, despite the fact that within a hundred years or so, it might obtain universality.
So I don't think that explaining the difference between mathematical and moral conventions, in this way, properly represents reality. By looking at a static point in time, and judging the universality of a convention, one doesn't account for the evolving nature of conventions. I think that we should establish universality by referring to temporal extension, the longevity of the convention, rather than by looking at how widespread a convention is at any particular time. In this way, we don't get fooled by fads and fashions, which appear to have great universality, but from the perspective of temporal extension, they do not. — Metaphysician Undercover
How is mathematics mind-independent? Doesn't mathematics consist of humanly produced symbols, and rules? Either you must believe that the human beings didn't produce these symbols, or you believe that what is symbolized is not humanly produced. The former appears to be clearly false. — Metaphysician Undercover
And with respect to the latter, when I write an equation, doesn't it symbolize what I am thinking? How could the equation symbolize something other than what I am thinking? — Metaphysician Undercover
If some mathematical principles are cross-cultural, and persist through time, and some moral principles are cross-cultural and persist through time, how does this proposal provide a valid method for differentiating between the two? — Metaphysician Undercover
The idea that it's self-defeating is sophomoric, although admittedly, people who espouse sophomoric brands of relativism online don't help in this regard. — Terrapin Station
I don't see the difference which you are claiming. Mathematical principles come into existence, they have in the past come into existence, and from the point that they come into existence, they spread from acceptance amongst a small group of people to a large more widespread group, then they may persist, onward into the future. Moral principles, such as the abolishment of slavery, and the abolishment of stoning adulterers and homosexuals, have come into existence in the past, they start from a small group of people, then spread to a larger group, and may persist onward into the future. Where is the basis for your claim of a "false equivalency"? — Metaphysician Undercover
There can't be one without the other! — Wayfarer
Similarity is a combination of sameness and difference; it cannot be derived just from sameness. — John
The conventions by which we judge the truth or falsity of established math, logic, and science claims are universally agreed upon and once established persist. The conventions by which we judge the morality or immorality of behaviors are not universally agreed upon, but rather are situated historically and culturally, and are disputed between social groups, and demonstrably can evolve from being moral to immoral and vice versa. — Brainglitch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.