Bertrand Russell for one thought that our thoughts and so our creations can never capture reality fully. That was his form of realism. The real is real but beyond us — Gregory
Physics is mathematical, not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. For the rest our knowledge is negative.
if you simplify irrelevant details out of a replica you get a map or model, — Pfhorrest
The most naive view of representation might perhaps be put something like this: "A represents B if and only if A appreciably resembles B", or "A represents B to the extent that A resembles B". Vestiges of this view, with assorted refinements, persist in most writing on representation. Yet more error could hardly be compressed into so short a formula.
Some of the faults are obvious enough. An object resembles itself to the maximum degree but rarely represents itself; resemblance, unlike representation, is reflexive. Again, unlike representation, resemblance is symmetric: B is as much like A as A is like B, but while a painting may represent the Duke of Wellington, the Duke doesn't represent the painting. Furthermore, in many cases neither one of a pair of very like objects represents the other: none of the automobiles off an assembly line is a picture of any of the rest; and a man is not normally a representation of another man, even his twin brother. Plainly, resemblance in any degree is no sufficient condition for representation. — Nelson Goodman: Languages of Art, p3
and if you add sufficient detail to a map or model you get a replica. — Pfhorrest
It always gives me a laugh when I meet a mathematical supernaturalist — JerseyFlight
Having been in the math game for sixty years I feel deprived not meeting such a colleague. I am sure had I done so I too would have chuckled. — jgill
To be a mathematical supernaturalist you simply need to hold to the position that numbers are more than human symbols — JerseyFlight
Can you provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? — JerseyFlight
Metaphysician Undercover has posted numerous times on this issue. He should chime in. — jgill
Metaphysician Undercover has posted numerous times on this issue. He should chime in. — jgill
To be a mathematical supernaturalist you simply need to hold to the position that numbers are more than human symbols, that they are something we discover weaved into the fabric of the cosmic universe, as oppose to something we create in an attempt to understand and navigate the universe. — JerseyFlight
What then does mathematical supernaturalism entail? The straight-forward confession that one worships math and that math is a God? I think not. — JerseyFlight
But arguing for this is above my current pay-grade. — javra
Sans quantity, no maths. — javra
That was a common assumption until the advent of Quantum theory. Ironically, though the theory is based on quantized phenomena, it was eventually stymied by the "measurement problem" and "the Uncertainty Principle". Moreover, Big Bang theory was obstructed by the breakdown of mathematical Natural Laws (and the perspective-dependent measurements of Relativity Theory) at the point labelled as the "Planck Time & Space" --- beyond which our quantifications become meaningless.In my opinion absolutely everything can quantified. — turkeyMan
Clearly, even after all of that, and sixty years of mathematics, you still can't provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? Sophistry always works this way. — JerseyFlight
Quantity does not equal mathematics. Humans have produced a symbolic structure to try to make sense of quantity. — JerseyFlight
But arguing for this is above my current pay-grade. — javra
Then you should easily be able to provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? — JerseyFlight
Can you address a quantity without making use of number? Given an example if you can — javra
What I said is the mathematics is the language of quantity and its relations. Not that quantity equals mathematics. — javra
Two instantiations of an abstract entity are exactly the same in reference to both being the same abstract entity. — javra
Can you address a quantity without making use of number? — javra
Couldn't agree more on maths (as well as the quantity and quantitative relations which it references) not being a deity ... nor, for that matter, a pivotal, or else essential, foundation of Being. — javra
By all means use numbers, even marvel at their proficiency, but please stop claiming they are a secret, comic language of the universe. — JerseyFlight
Maybe thru evolution we will, someday, build newer computers using only our intuition — Gregory
Ooh! I like that. Go beyond logic — fishfry
Have you read either of Hegel's Logics? — Gregory
I recently put down Being and Time in order to read the lesser Logic. Three fourths thru and loving it. — Gregory
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.