That's not strong enough to support the contention of platonic realism in the OP. — Banno
We differ here in our perspective, about what is reasonable and unreasonable explanation. Because I admit the hypotheses of panpsychism and pantheism, which are very distinct from dualism in spirit. I also admit dualism, but I always find it the most encumbered with detail of those positions. Not to mention, that it is sometimes linked directly to theism and spirituality, which are nothing bad in principle, but are is extremely loosely implied.The skeptical challenge to the dualist position is: well, you say there is this 'spooky mind-stuff', so where is it? This is where the limitations of the method of objectification need to be made clear. The attributes of the intellect (nous) appear by way of what the mind is able to grasp, in other words, in the operations of reason. They are themselves not an object of scientific analysis, although without the use of reason, scientific analysis could not even start. But as the empiricist instinct is always to proceed in terms of what can be objectively grasped and quantified, then the operations of reason, although assumed by it, are not visible to it. — Wayfarer
the blind spot of science. — Wayfarer
You write very well, but for those of us who have limited capacities for reflecting and processing it might help to break apart and separate very lengthy paragraphs, and/or do a bit more summarizing or condensing. — jgill
Well, I haven't. Nothing as noble. My occupation is in the technological sector (software developer).You do have interesting insights. Did you say you worked in the health sector? An MD? Nurse? Just curious. — jgill
Earlier I proposed monistic intersubjectve idealism. Particularly, a form of what I would call unconstrained pantheism, where the creation is fictional. It could shed and gain parts, and the story and rules can change. Merely the epistemic completion suggests that it will be explored with consistency, until the principal content has been extracted. The point here is that the universe is not guided by law, but by motivation to explore it. It doesn't have to be coherent, just provide useful experience for supreme vantage point. — simeonz
Agree with jgill - your posts are very hard to parse. I think it’s worth the effort, but the longer your posts become, the less inclined I am to keep trying. — Wayfarer
I have my philosophy textbook, wikipedia, random articles, Stanford E. P., and this forum. My commitment is rather shallow in this regard. I am authentically curious, but the articulation frequently strikes me much more conjectural and personal then evidential. I usually read hypotheses as a sketch, and gradually piece them together, rather then focus in depth. ( Edit: In principle, the starting points for my ideas are Leibniz and Spinoza, but theirs are theistically or spiritually inclined, whereas mine are rather void in that regard and are predominantly phenomenological.)Now I understand you might have a very different perspective, but I think it would help you a lot to map what you’re saying against some of the literature. Preferably, popular sources, rather than peer-reviewed science journals. Use them to illustrate the point - where you agree with them, and where you disagree. I’m sure you have many such sources. One of the things I really get from this forum is finding out about what others are reading. — Wayfarer
If you would like to elaborate, do you perceive the differences between us as rooted in the technical or the ethical side of things. Is it a matter of innate persuasion, which I have also stated that science is, or experiential conviction? That is, do you consider my proposals too vague, which would be a fair point, or unsound, or ethically inadmissible.We’re clearly on a different wavelength in some respects, but I think your posts and ideas have a lot of potential, hopefully the back-and-forth of this medium will help you sharpen that up a bit. — Wayfarer
But I confess that I am illiterate. — simeonz
I you would like to elaborate, do you perceive the differences between us as rooted in the technical or the ethical side of things. — simeonz
...they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. This process of elaboration is one of philosophical or theological construction. Christian experience of the presence of God, for example, at least in the early days and again since the 13th-14th century rediscovery of the centrality of the divine love, is the sense of a greater, much more momentously important, much more profoundly loving, personal presence than that of one’s fellow humans. But that this higher presence is eternal, is omnipotent, is omniscient, is the creator of the universe, is infinite in goodness and love is not, because it cannot be, given in the experience itself. 1
You mention a natural division between objective and subjective, but reject this as a construction. You then posit a realist objection. So you think along lines such that objective explanations are somehow subjective explanations; that primacy must be given to individual experience and so forth.
I think the subject-object distinction causes more confusion than clarity. It's just an overburdening of the simple grammatical distinction between first and third person. What can be said in the first person can be said in the third person salva veritate. "The construction of a world devoid of any subject" is a misunderstanding of what saying something in the third person consists in. Saying something in the third person does not remove the individuals involved so much as translate them. It's not a voice form nowhere, but a voice from anywhere. — Banno
Well, that's not right. We can be pretty sure that there is no frame of reference in which this conversation takes place before the Earth was formed, for example. Or if you want an example without any sentient beings, there is no frame of reference in which the sun becomes a red dwarf before it forms. Also, the entropy of the universe is higher now than it was a few billion years ago.In itself the Universe has no sense of 'before' or 'since' or anything of the kind. — Wayfarer
Bertrand Russell said that '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. — Wayfarer
Scientific method relies on the ability to capture just those attributes of objects in such a way as to be able to make quantitative predictions about them. This is characteristic of Galilean science, in particular, which distinguished those characteristics of bodies that can be made subject to rigourous quantification. These are designated the 'primary attributes' of objects, and distinguished, by both Galileo and Locke, from their 'secondary attributes', which are held to be in the mind of the observer. They are also, and not coincidentally, the very characteristics which were the primary attributes of the objects studied by physics, in the first place. — Wayfarer
My response is to acknowledge that this timeline is empirically true, and that I concur with the evidence in respect of the timeline of human evolution. But I also point out - and this is the crucial point - that 'before' is itself a human construct. The mind furnishes the sequential order within which 'before' and 'since' exist. In itself the Universe has no sense of 'before' or 'since' or anything of the kind. — Wayfarer
This is well said — Metaphysician Undercover
What you can say with mathematics you can say in English. — Harry Hindu
The problem I see with Platonic realism is that if it is not taken to be claiming that there is a separate realm where the Ideas, universals and numbers live, then I can't see what it is claiming other than that (at least some) ideas and generalities have a conceptual or logical existence which is independent of human opinion. — Janus
What you can say with mathematics you can say in English. — Harry Hindu
Thanks. I don't agree with your rejection of platonic realism, however. As far as I know, Plato never placed dianoia - mathematical and discursive knowledge - at the top of the hierarchy of knowledge. It was higher than mere opinion, but didn't provide the same degree of certainty as noesis. — Wayfarer
Have you heard of Sabine Hossenfelder's book Lost in Math? She too agrees that mathematicism in physics, if we can call it that, is leading physics drastically astray, but that has nothing really to do with Platonism, as such. It is the consequence of speculative mathematics extended beyond the possibility of empirical validation. — Wayfarer
The aspect of platonism I focus on is the simple argument that 'number is real but incorporeal' and that recognising this shows the deficiencies of materialism, and also something fundamental about the nature of reason. How to think about the question is also important. I think there's huge confusion about the notion of platonic 'entities' and 'objects' and the nature of their existence. Most of that confusion comes from reification, which is treating numbers as actual objects when they're not 'objects' at all except for metaphorically. — Wayfarer
But I do not think that "certainty" is the proper descriptive term for the higher levels of knowledge. — Metaphysician Undercover
So are you saying that the mathematical symbols don't refer to anything that isn't just more math? — Harry Hindu
Math would have never been discovered without language. — Harry Hindu
Never read a layman's book on QM? — Harry Hindu
So when you look at reality you see numbers and mathematical function symbols, not objects and their processes? F=ma refers to a state of affairs that isn't just more math.That's what mathematicians claim, so I would think there is some truth to it. If there is anything more than math, being referred to, this is dependent on application. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you agree that language is necessary for math?And prime numbers would have never been discovered without math. — Marchesk
Sure, because the mathematical concepts refer to states of affairs that isn't just more math. What is a mathematical concept, if not words in a language? Are you saying that it's mathematical concepts all the way down? Are you an idealist? The universe isn't made of numbers and function symbols. It is composed of objects and their processes. The scribbles on paper refer to those objects and their processes. Are electrons numbers or objects or processes? Are tables and chairs composed of numbers or electrons?They typically describe the history of some important experiments and physicists leading to the development of QM along with the various interpretations and the authors opinion. But they also include a few equations, with a note that QM is describing a world of the microphysical we don't experience.
I'll revise my question. Can you replace the equations in QM with English making no reference to mathematical concepts? — Marchesk
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.