Numbers and logical laws are intelligible, not physical. — Wayfarer
That would mean that by your definition their mental image is a physical thing — khaled
There seems to be deep connection between perceptibility and physicalism. For instance, all that we know to be physical are perceptible in one way or another. In fact, the two seem to be synonymous with each other for the perceivable are classified as physical. — TheMadFool
Gödel was a mathematical realist, a Platonist. He believed that what makes mathematics true is that it's descriptive—not of empirical reality, of course, but of an abstract reality. Mathematical intuition is something analogous to a kind of sense perception. In his essay "What Is Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis?", Gödel wrote that we're not seeing things that just happen to be true, we're seeing things that must be true. The world of abstract entities is a necessary world—that's why we can deduce our descriptions of it through pure reason. — Rebecca Goldstein
Are physical laws observable? — Marchesk
What about the perceiver themselves? If everything is physical and If to be physical is to be perceived by something, how is there something to perceive and create all the physical by this perception? — Echarmion
This one is easy: the observer is also a physical thing. Physical things observe other physical things, and the web of all that observation (which is also interaction, physical things acting upon other physical things) is what constitutes reality. — Pfhorrest
But to say "physical laws don't exist" sounds like you're saying "physical things don't obey laws", — Pfhorrest
In the same sense that they "exist", yes. In the sense of patterns in observable phenomena, then yes, obviously: patterns in observable phenomena are themselves observable. In the sense of human theories about what exactly those patterns are, also yes: we can observe that humans do really have those theories. — Pfhorrest
In fact, the two seem to be synonymous with each other for the perceivable are classified as physical. — TheMadFool
But to say "physical laws don't exist" sounds like you're saying "physical things don't obey laws", i.e. "don't follow patterns in their behavior", which is of course not what is intended. — Pfhorrest
Are physical laws observable? — Marchesk
rational beings perceive intelligible truths through the eye of reason. — Wayfarer
perceive their effects. — khaled
..rational beings perceive intelligible truths through the eyes of reason." you'll have to concede that whatever it is that's being perceived is physical. — TheMadFool
what the Empiricist speaks of and describes as sense-knowledge is not exactly sense-knowledge, but sense-knowledge plus unconsciously introduced intellective ingredients, - sense-knowledge in which he has made room for reason without recognizing it. A confusion which comes about all the more easily as, on the one hand, the senses are, in actual fact, more or less permeated with reason in man, and, on the other, the merely sensory psychology of animals, especially of the higher vertebrates, goes very far in its own realm and imitates intellectual knowledge to a considerable extent. — Jacques Maritain
That's all that counts. — TheMadFool
Numbers and logical laws are intelligible, not physical. — Wayfarer
That would mean that by your definition their mental image is a physical thing. — khaled
For statement 2 to be falsified, we need to have "something" perceivable that doesn't exist — TheMadFool
To be physical -> To be perceivable [matter, energy and the laws of nature are perceivable] — TheMadFool
In other words, Physicalism is a circular argument — TheMadFool
Perceived by who? — MondoR
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.