Mathematical objects do not have isomorphism either, for each is it own particular concept. 2+2=4 is not the same as another, different concept of 2+2=4. One mathematical rule is not another. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The very point of a description, theory or definition is it accounts for one specific thing. None of these things are everything, so a ToE will always fail. — TheWillowOfDarkness
There is no isomorphism within the Platonic realm either, each concept is unique.
The formalisation of 2+2=4 as just symbols is different to the concept of two plus equals four, which is turn different from another concept using the symbols 2+2=4, which is in turn different to a translation of two equals two equals four form one language to another.
I'm not speaking about a correspondence to the physical realm, but rather the distinction and identity of different concepts or meanings within the Platonic realm. One concept is never another, is not doing the same thing as another. I'm talking about the necessary distinctions of the platonic realm, which render isomorphism incoherent.
To assign isomorphism in Platonic realm is to tell a falsehood about the distinctions of the Platonic realm. — TheWillowOfDarkness
A ToE is impossible because it cannot cross distinction. Whether in the physical or Platonic realm, any proposed ToE is but one distinction of reality. In being the ToE, as opposed to everything else, it necessarily leaves something out. It always fails to cover of something the distinction which are not it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The problem isn't given in the particular length or cycles a representation might have or not, it is that the representation is never thing it describes. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Any thing, physical or Platonic, can only be given by itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Our descriptions only give an account of this thing when it describes it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The False Argument of Faithappealing to the "Faith Argument", that i find stupid and misleading — Gus Lamarch
Perhaps you are experiencing a delusion right now. If you met God, how would you know it wasn’t a delusion? You would need to have faith in your experience or faith in yourself. — praxis
emotional argument — Philosophim
we are inherently beings that rationalize our desires, and rarely use rationality to create our desires. — Philosophim
I suppose if one factors in Pyrrhonism, every belief is faith-based in way or another. The only difference then between faith-based beliefs and justified beliefs is in spirit and not in letter, if that makes any sense? — TheMadFool
no one really believes in Pyrrhonism — David Mo
Pyrrho is a character of philosophical joke or a way of putting sticks in the wheel of absolute rationalism. It should not affect anyone with common sense (even if they are rationalists). — David Mo
That said, even if we admit that the basis of all knowledge is in some kind of belief, not all beliefs have the same kind or degree of justification. Belief in the flat Earth is less justified than belief in the law of gravity. This is due to a unanimously accepted criterion: that empirical evidence carries weight in justifying a belief. — David Mo
The problem with justifying a belief lies in the ability to rely on beliefs that meet certain requirements. We call these beliefs 'knowledge'. I do not believe that belief in God is counted among them. In any case, not if it is based on "faith" . — David Mo
What on earth is an "emotional argument"? :chin: — TheMadFool
Yeah, I need to clarify that. What I should have typed was, "An argument motivated for an emotional outcome". Such things only need rationalizations to support. Certain feelings, like social ties, may cause us to do "irrational" things. Take family for instance. Lets imagine an adult person you know has a severely abusive mother that utterly devastates them emotionally whenever this person visits their parent.
Telling a person in such a situation that they should never speak to them again, might be "rational" from an outside perspective. After all, you would do the same with a stranger. But most people will not respond positively to this if they are looking to justify their emotional bond with their mother. You could give every reason in the world why the person is wrong in seeking to have a relationship with their mother, if you do not address this emotional bond that is the true motivation of a person's actions.
For many people, religion is not a rational belief, but an emotional belief that is built by the bonds of family, friends, ideals, and "God". These are strong motivators that a person will continually seek to rationalize, while ignoring "rational" arguments that destroy them.
Saying to a person, "Faith is not a rational argument" misses the point. Its not the faith in the technical aspects of a God that people often hold. Its faith in the emotional bonds, that are expressed through particular statements and rules. Saying, "Ha, there's a contradiction on page 5 and 10 on the bible!" is worthless. The bible is simply a rationalization tool to support the emotional framework. It doesn't need to be air tight. People didn't start believing in God because of page 5 or 10. They believed due to the emotional feelings and social bonds it gave them.
This applies in more than just religion. Sports, politics, and even beliefs in "ideologies and frameworks". Many people hold to their philosophical beliefs to satisfy emotional needs rather than rational needs. Its just the way people work. The adage of "People being rationalizing beings first, rational beings second" has been said in many forms and many ways over the centuries. Its a well worn hat. =) — Philosophim
All knowledge is based on faith. — Keenan
Are you absolutely certain? Between 0% and 100%, what is the level of your certainty in the statement you just made? — TheMadFool
Agreed but is there a kind of justification that guarantees with absolute certainty the truth of anything, anything at all? — TheMadFool
There is no absolute certainty outside the formal sciences. In any case, my certainty about almost everything is not quantifiable. I am not speaking in mathematical terms. — David Mo
Its not that they don't understand, they don't care. — Philosophim
...every belief is faith-based in way or another. — TheMadFool
But then why did you refer to Pyrrho as a "joke"? To my knowledge, Pyrrho is all about uncertainty, expressible mathematically as confidence levels regarding the conclusions of arguments with values less than 100%. — TheMadFool
Don't buy into that. It's an ad hoc fallacy used to defend religious fervour. Your belief in the device on which you are reading this and their belief in an invisible friend are not of the same order. — Banno
Although Pyrrhonism's objective is eudaimonia, it is best known for its epistemological arguments, particularly the problem of the criterion, and for being the first Western school of philosophy to identify the problem of induction and the Münchhausen trilemma. — Wikipedia
What is known about Pyrrhon is basically through Diogenes Laertius, who doesn't mention mathematics at all, much less the mathematical probabilities of truth - this is a concept that comes much later than Pyrrhon. If you read what Laertius says (the ninth book of the Lives of Illustrious Philosophers) you will realise that he is full of "striking" anecdotes that present him as a character of integrity, but rather as an extravagant one. That is why I said that it is like a "joke" among philosophers.
As Theodosius (quoted by Laercio) says in his time, nothing is known about Pyrrhon's "disposition", so Pyrrhonians should be called "pyrrhonist-like". — David Mo
Faith is not an valid argument. — Gus Lamarch
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.