Does (not "did") a mathematical truth obtaining depend on any mind? — Sapientia
What would happen to mathematical truths if there were no longer any minds?
Does (not "did") a mathematical truth obtaining depend on any mind? — Sapientia
What would happen to mathematical truths if there were no longer any minds? — Sapientia
Saying that some math principles persist through time sidesteps the fact that the vast majority of established math principles persist, and will continue to persist. That new math knowledge such as zero, calculus, non-euclidian geometries, etc are added to the math corpus is not the same phenomenon as the demonstrable evolution of moral conventions (such as slavery, divine right of kings, stoning adulterers and homosexuals, burning heretics at the stake ... .) — Brainglitch
Because the ability to make distinctions is fundamental to being able to argue a case. — Wayfarer
Yes, it depended on a mind to be produced, written on the paper, and without a mind to read and interpret it in the future, it is just symbols on the paper. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes,it depended on a mind to be produced, written on the paper, andwithout a mind to read and interpret it in the future, it is just symbols on the paper. — Metaphysician Undercover
Even if we assume that there is meaning inherent within the symbols on the paper, there is no truth there unless a mind judges that meaning for correctness. — Metaphysician Undercover
If there were no longer any minds, there would be just symbols on the paper. There is no truth to these symbols without a mind to interpret them, hence there'd be no mathematical truths without any minds. — Metaphysician Undercover
Similarity is a combination of sameness and difference; it cannot be derived just from sameness. — John
No, the question was whether it would be true. — Sapientia
A statement can be true or false. A statement is composed of symbols. — Sapientia
I gave a firm answer to that. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it would not be true, and gave reasons for that answer. — Metaphysician Undercover
You dismissed my reasons, which refer to both past and future, by claiming that my reasons just refer to the past. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then you proceeded to claim that I did not answer the question. — Metaphysician Undercover
If a statement is just a bunch of symbols, how can it be true or false without an interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover
Where do the symbols derive a meaning from? — Metaphysician Undercover
There are two very distinct meanings for the word "statement". One is the expression in words, which you refer to here, the second is the thing stated, which is the assumed meaning of those words. — Metaphysician Undercover
It appears like you are trying to equivocate. — Metaphysician Undercover
An answer isn't the same as an argument, whether it's firm or not. — Sapientia
Why would it need to be interpreted, at the time, for it to be true? That is demonstrably not the case now, so why would it be any different in the hypothetical future scenario? — Sapientia
I have made countless statements on here, and elsewhere, and they are either true or false, as the case may be - even when no one is interpreting them. There obviously isn't someone or other there constantly interpreting every statement that I've made. Yet, nevertheless, they are true or false, in correspondence with what is or isn't the case. — Sapientia
You asked me to answer the question, that I did. — Metaphysician Undercover
If you wanted an argument you should have asked for it. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's what I do, I ask you to justify your numerous assertions, which you very seldom are capable of doing. — Metaphysician Undercover
A bunch of symbols on a paper is neither true nor false without an interpretation. How many different ways must I spell this out? — Metaphysician Undercover
These statements that you've made here and elsewhere, consist of symbols. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you believe that these symbols correspond to anything without a mind to judge what they correspond to? — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you justify this? Does this symbol "to", automatically correspond to something without a mind to determine what it corresponds to? — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you believe that these symbols correspond to anything without a mind to judge what they correspond to? — Metaphysician Undercover
The original question was just an example question, as I made quite clear. But you chose to answer it of your own accord.
...
I'm interested in an explanation or an argument. — Sapientia
That's a very naive attack on the correspondence theory of truth. No, it doesn't work like that. Perhaps you should look it up. It's about a certain sort of statement, not a word. — Sapientia
Yes... — Sapientia
I want to know how there can't be mathematical truths without a mind, yet it remains truth there is paper with symbols on it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
OK, I gave you my explanation, concerning the nature of statements and symbols. What more do you want? — Metaphysician Undercover
One meaning of the word "statement" is to use it to refer to the symbols themselves as they exist. Another meaning of the word "statement" is to use it to refer to what the symbols mean. We should not conflate these two or equivocate.
All you are doing is conflating the two and equivocating. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, which are we talking about, a statement as a bunch of symbols, or a statement as the meaning, such that we can have "a certain sort of statement" — Metaphysician Undercover
As far as I'm aware, you haven't done that so far. — Sapientia
I've outlined an alternative theory which can explain that without the need of positing any mind being there. — Sapientia
Let me explain very slowly and carefully then. There's a bunch of symbols written on a piece of paper. These symbols could mean absolutely anything. — Metaphysician Undercover
For them to state a "truth" requires that the symbols have a determinate meaning, which corresponds to reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
For the symbols to have a determinate meaning requires a mind to determine that meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore without a mind there is no truth to those symbols. — Metaphysician Undercover
Here's another way of looking at it. There's something written on the paper. Whatever it is which is on the paper cannot be a "truth" unless it means something. — Metaphysician Undercover
It only means something to a mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore, only from the perspective of a mind, can what is on the paper be a "truth". — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't recall your alternative theory, I'd be interested in seeing it though. — Metaphysician Undercover
But if the writer wrote them in a certain way, with a certain meaning, then, I mean, that would be their meaning, right? — Sapientia
And if you or anyone else interpreted them in any other way, then that would be assigning them a different meaning. It would be to misinterpret them. And if the writer and everyone else died, then wouldn't it remain to be the case that there is - or would be - a correct way, as well as, by implication, incorrect ways, to interpret them? This would be what the writer meant when he or she wrote them - and this seems to be just as true today, even after the writer has ceased to exist, as it would be in the hypothetical scenario, when the writer, as well as everyone else, has ceased to exist. Of course, in the hypothetical scenario, there wouldn't be anyone there to do the interpreting - but why would there need to be? — Sapientia
I find this idealist way of thinking to be logically unsound and rather bizarre. It's like there's a school, and the school has rules, but the idealist thinks that whether or not the kids break the rules depends on whether or not there is a teacher there watching over them, rather than simply whether or not the kids break the rules. I mean, sure, you can add premises to make that a logically valid argument, but you'd be doing so at the cost of logical soundness. — Sapientia
For them to state a truth requires that the symbols have a meaning which corresponds to reality. Why would it need to be determinate?
And even if it does, then for the symbols to have a determinate meaning is for the symbols to have a meaning which is capable, in principle, of being determined. Which is to say that if they were interpreted, then there would be a meaning to be determined. Which doesn't necessitate any interpreter or determiner. So, the question would then be: why are you adding this unnecessary condition that there be an interpreter or determiner? — Sapientia
Why? The burden would be on you to justify that. It would mean something to a mind, if a mind was there, doing whatever it does for it to mean something to it. — Sapientia
That's not their meaning though, that the writer wrote the symbols in a certain way. The meaning is not the "way" that they are written, because this just refers to the specific symbols used, and the patterns formed with them. The "meaning" is what is intended by the author, and this is something other than the symbols themselves, and the patterns, it is what they refer to. — Metaphysician Undercover
So I agree with all of this, that there is a correct "what the writer meant" etc., with one fundamental difference. "What was meant" is something other than the symbols themselves, and the pattern itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
And so, as much as we can assume that there is a "what was meant", it's really not there in the symbols themselves, it's in the assumption of the mind which apprehends the symbols. A mind apprehends the symbols and assumes that there is a "what was meant". There is no "what was meant" within the symbols themselves, there is an assumption in the mind which apprehends the symbols, that there is a "what was meant". Therefore there is no "what was meant", without a mind which assumes that there is a "what was meant". The "what was meant" is only an assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where would these rules exist? Let's say that they are written somewhere in a book or something. — Metaphysician Undercover
Whether or not a kid breaks a rule requires that someone interprets what is written in that book, and interprets what the kids do, and draws a comparison. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is your argument which is unsound. You think that you can make a conclusion about whether or not any kids broke any rules without a statement of what the kids did, and a statement of what the rules are. — Metaphysician Undercover
Don't you realize that whether or not someone breaks a rule is something which is subject to interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover
That is why we have trial by jury, to give the defendant a fair trial. It is not a case of either the person broke the law or did not, it is a case of how the person's actions are interpreted in comparison to how the laws are interpreted. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, for the sake of argument, let's say that "determinate" implies "capable, in principle, of being determined". It actually means definite, and let's assume that definite necessitates that it is possible to determine it, and therefore determinable. The problem is that we have nothing more than an assumption that the symbols have determinate meaning. In order for them to state a truth, they must actually have a determinate meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do we get beyond this gap, from assuming that the symbols have a determinate meaning, to them actually having a determinate meaning? We might say, that the author, gave the symbols a determinate meaning through intention, as what was meant. But how is this something which is actually determinate, rather than just us assuming that the author gave them a determinate meaning? — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you understand the meaning of "meaning"? It is what is meant. And what is meant refers to what is intended. — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore meaning only exists in relation to minds. — Metaphysician Undercover
We can go back, and insist that the meaning was put there, in those symbols, through the intention of the author, but this is just an assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover
And assumptions only exist in minds. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes and no. If we assume that what the author meant is what they mean, then yes. And that is what I was assuming, so that's not a problem. The author intended to write them in a certain way, with a certain meaning. — Sapientia
I have to call you out on your use of present-tense here, though. You say that the meaning is what is intended by the author. But that isn't necessary, and, as a necessity, is demonstrably false. The meaning can be what was intended by the author. It is demonstrably the case that the author doesn't need to constantly intend that meaning. What would happen when the author dies, and can no longer intend anything, let alone the meaning of what he wrote? What he wrote would instantly become meaningless, and remain meaningless ever after? That is absurd. — Sapientia
The problem here isn't so much in what you've taken issue with. The problem here is that the above contains more tense errors. If, in key parts of your text, you were to speak in past tense ("was"), or in conditional tense ("would", "were", "could"), where appropriate, then that would remove the controversy. Your failure to do so basically means that you're begging the question again. So, you'd still need to provide an argument. — Sapientia
Yet it doesn't follow from any of this that there would need to be a mind for the symbols to have a meaning. So, that is what you'd need to support. — Sapientia
What was meant doesn't have to be in the symbols. It is a fact that the author intended a meaning. It is a fact that the author meant something with the symbols. When talking about this, one shouldn't use scare quotes. But if you're talking about what another mind guesses to be what the author meant, then yes, use scare quotes. That way one can distinguish between what was meant and "what was meant". What was meant isn't only an assumption, but "what was meant" might be. — Sapientia
Nonsense. If, for example, one of the rules is not to speak, and a kid speaks, then that kid has broken that rule. There doesn't need to be an interpreter. — Sapientia
Does (not "did") a mathematical truth obtaining depend on any mind?
— Sapientia
Yes. Truth in general does. — Terrapin Station
If truth is here understood by you as some kind of correspondence between mind and world, then it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that truth is mind-dependent (in the sense that there could not be any truths if there were no minds).
That said, I haven't fully digested the above discussion, so please excuse me if this has already been addressed by you. — Theorem
No, that's not my understanding. — Sapientia
Facts, statements, truth, the world... none of that seems mind-dependent in the relevant sense, namely that there can't be one without the other. — Sapientia
Galileo and Descartes made the crucial conceptual division by proposing that physical science should provide a mathematically precise quantitative description of an external reality extended in space and time, a description limited to spatiotemporal primary qualities such as shape, size, and motion, and to laws governing the relations among them. Subjective appearances, on the other hand -- how this physical world appears to human perception -- were assigned to the mind, and the secondary qualities like color, sound, and smell were to be analyzed relationally, in terms of the power of physical things, acting on the senses, to produce those appearances in the minds of observers. It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatiotemporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. — Thomas Nagel
This discussion was created with comments split from Religious experience has rendered atheism null and void to me — Sapientia
A bunch of symbols on a paper is neither true nor false without an interpretation. How many different ways must I spell this out? — Metaphysician Undercover
And don't think I haven't noticed your sly wording, taking advantage of the ambiguity in "without an interpretation". What does that mean? If there being an interpretation means there being a correct way for it to be interpreted, then I don't see why that would actually need a mind there interpreting it. — Sapientia
The relation between mind and world is an expression of spirit; so, more primordially, truth is of the spirit. — John
And again, these are both good mapping qualities which we have plenty of reason to suspect reality itself to possibly lack. So that is how we arrive at the conundrum of how to remove ourselves - the interested mappers - from our view of reality. What does reality look like if reality were to "map itself"?) — apokrisis
We can't transcend our epistemic conditions to inspect the world as it actually is. We are stuck with the internal signs we form as part of a modelling relation. — Apokrisis
The crucial thing is that minds form maps of the territory for themselves
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.