Similarly, what is the semantic difference between "something exists" vs "something is somewhere now"? — Millard J Melnyk
Something is somewhere now only applies to locations in spacetime. — Raymond
The question is posed as if there were an absolute and irrefutable semantical value to these statements, but there is not. — Reformed Nihilist
Most often I would suggest that "existing" means "not imaginary", which would often but not always coincide with being somewhere at sometime. — Reformed Nihilist
Saying that poverty exists isn't saying that it's a specific entity that exists in a particular place, it's saying that it isn't a falsehood. — Reformed Nihilist
That's why philosophers have such problems with "nothingness", because there isn't anything to contrast it to — Reformed Nihilist
Where is the domain of natural numbers? Where do physical and scientific principles exist? — Wayfarer
So you tell me, what actuality (Harari likes to say "objective reality") does 1 + 1 = 2 refer to? — Millard J Melnyk
Thinking/reflecting/narrative of any sort always post-dates what happened, — Millard J Melnyk
Again, that's one of those things that, after decades of thought in and around the topic, I can't see any other conclusion to reasonable draw. — Millard J Melnyk
Self-explanatory or not, the fact that math rests on axioms that seem self-evident does not ipso facto signify either that they do or do not refer to anything at all. My question asked what 1 + 1 = 2 refers to. Or I could have just asked what "1" refers to and kept it simpler.The primitive rules of arithmetic are self-explanatory. — Wayfarer
They're also predictive - which is why mathematical analysis is intrinsic to almost all science and engineering. — Wayfarer
That's a different sense of "predictive" than what I said. Your sense is based on an assumption that Hume could not justify ("problem of induction") and, to date, I know of no convincing attempt to solve the "problem" he raised almost 350 years ago.They're also predictive — Wayfarer
I had no intention of laying out the actual drawing of the conclusion here. And you actually have no knowledge that could possibly serve as a basis for claiming it's an assertion vs. a conclusion. (I'm guessing you mean "assertion" as an ipse dixit there.) You're judging things that are not evident here based solely on what you have seen here.You're not drawing a conclusion. You're simply making an assertion. — Wayfarer
Where is the domain of natural numbers? Where do physical and scientific principles exist? — Wayfarer
I could have answered more simply, respectively: in the minds of people who use math — Millard J Melnyk
That's a different sense of "predictive" than what I said. Your sense is based on an assumption that Hume could not justify ("problem of induction") — Millard J Melnyk
Like I said, I stated a hypothesis for you to knock down, a straw man that, if there are other conclusions to draw, someone ought to be able to knock down. — Millard J Melnyk
Why not? Because you ipse dixit so?The reality of numbers can't simply be confined to the minds of those who think. — Wayfarer
"Presumably" is not terrible basis for making a truth claim like you just did. "Presumably" introduces a hypothetical possibility. For every "presumably" there is a corresponding and equally valid (truth is irrelevant to hypotheticals by definition) "presumably not". Hypothetical possibilities that you like don't carry more epistemic value than their opposites, especially not when it's just because you happen to like them.If another planet were to evolve and sentient beings were to evolve, presumably the same fundamental constituents of arithmetic would be discovered by them. — Wayfarer
Dude you're proving my point and don't seem to realize it. A priori means none other than not in actuality. Don't believe me, here's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the topic.Mathematical predictions are valid a priori. — Wayfarer
A Priori and A Posteriori
The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori.
I didn't write that. I didn't claim that. You inferred that's what I meant, and I corrected you way up at the beginning, but here you are as if I never said anything about it at all.This statement seems to declare that whatever exists must be situated in time and space. You appear to be asking for a challenge to that claim. — Wayfarer
This statement seems to declare that whatever exists must be situated in time and space. You appear to be asking for a challenge to that claim. — Wayfarer
I'm aware of two fundamental domains: actuality (whatever is really going on) and narrative.
So at what spatiotemporal location can a natural law be found? Or do natural laws not exist? — javra
-- "comment to Raymond"I'm aware of two fundamental domains: actuality (whatever is really going on) and narrative.
We have no more reason to believe that natural laws exist than we have reason to believe gods or faeries exist — Millard J Melnyk
Check out my comment to Raymond, I cover this in what I wrote there, the one beginning with:
I'm aware of two fundamental domains: actuality (whatever is really going on) and narrative. — Millard J Melnyk
So to you all natural laws are narrative and, thereby, not "existent". — javra
But if we go down this line of thought, would not all inferences whatsoever be narratives? — javra
For instance, such that the very inferential notion of "actuality" which we ascribe to some either empirically or introspectively experienced givens would itself become a measly narrative we tell ourselves ... thereby possibly leading to the absurd conclusion that all actualities are nonexistent. — javra
The difference is as simple as that "exists" denotes "is" and that somewhere, sometime and somehow are consequent to the "is" and not inherent to the "is". — Shamshir
The way I'd say it is that there might or might not be forces that "govern" [...] — Millard J Melnyk
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.