Thanks GT and TC, that was interesting to read.

Of course. I plan to do a bunch of these topic discussions, now that I've discovered this platform.

-G

Thanks GT and TC, that was interesting to read. — Tom Storm

[joke]Now the question is whether or not my argument was a pragmatic one.[/joke]

Regarding our deplorable school curriculum - missing logic, missing critical thinking, missing ethics, missing philosophy, and more missing items - it's unclear as to whether this is malice aforethought (the state wants to control us by crippling our minds) or an honest mistake (the system we live in is such that critical thinking isn't necessary, ergo an added burden, to make a living).

Children, some adults tell me, ask tough & interesting (philosophically) questions. They have this quiz phase in their lives during which parents & elder siblings are bombarded with questions of all and sundry kinds. Perhaps philosophers (re their obsession with questions and answering them) "suffer", in that sense and to that extent, from Peter Pan syndrome (a child trapped in a man's body).

The rest of your post, on target!

A point of clarification: Social harmony (sometimes) comes at the cost of individual happiness (utilitarianism in the dock).

Then there's the Sawyer family problem (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) - a group of sadists might find torturing/killing/cannibalizing other people improves/enhances peace amongst themselves (camaraderie developed/consolidated as among soldiers/rebels in war).

Regarding our deplorable school curriculum - missing logic, missing critical thinking, missing ethics, missing philosophy, and more missing items - it's unclear as to whether this is malice aforethought (the state wants to control us by crippling our minds) or an honest mistake (the system we live in is such that critical thinking isn't necessary, ergo an added burden, to make a living). — Agent Smith

Yes, it's unlikely to be something for which there is evidence, if it were intentional. But, you must understand. The history of science and all academic studies is fundamentally the history of philosophy's progression into those fields. There is no science or academia without it. To conclude that schools would have accidentally let this slip thier minds, would be to imply that the state schools accidentally left out the foundation of all education. It is radically unlikley. But, again, no evidence.

Children, some adults tell me, ask tough & interesting (philosophically) questions. They have this quizz phase in their lives during which parents & elder siblings are bombarded with questions of all and sundry kinds. Perhaps philosophers (re their obsession with questions and answering them) "suffer", in that sense and to that extent, from Peter Pan syndrome (a child trapped in a man's body). — Agent Smith

Yeah, it's a part of early developmental conceptualization. Kids have a natural inclination to ask a deluge of questions so that they can learn and know what everyone is up to and be a part of it. I think a good portion of kids have this phase snuffed out of them by thier parents and peers.

A point of clarification: Social harmony (sometimes) comes at the cost of individual happiness (utilitarianism in the dock). — Agent Smith

Yes, of course. The purpose of ethics is to provide frameworks within which individuals can navigate those dilemmas and make the right decision. It's not actually going to be all that often that you find yourself justifiably needing to sacrifice some of your well-being for the sake of others. A good deal of the time people do it for the sake of simply making themselves feel better. Which, believe it or not, would rarely ever happen if people familiarized themselves with the ethical theories. In any given dilemma, every ethical epistemology can be deferred to for guidance, but there most certainly be times when you don't come first in the situation.

Then there's the Sawyer family problem (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) - a group of sadists might find torturing/killing/cannibalizing other people improves/enhances peace amongst themselves. — Agent Smith

Right, or Jonestown. Or, even better, Washington.

In that case (if you agree with what I said) ethics can't be about its function in our lives i.e. it isn't a tool per se, like a knife whose design can be worked on over time to improve performance.

Perhaps we're being held back by old ideas (in re ethics) that though invented for a social purpose, now appear not to be so - forgotten knowledge/wisdom?

What of the argument that ethics presupposes morality? Don’t the legitimizing standards properly belong to moral philosophy? And if that is the case, might ethics indeed be an artifact of moral theory?

In that case (if you agree with what I said) ethics can't be about its function in our lives i.e. it isn't a tool per se, like a knife whose design can be worked on over time to improve performance. — Agent Smith

Per se, sure. The idea of science, jazz, or ethics being a tool is an analogy. The idea is that each of these man-made concepts are tools, methods, or means by which we address certain domains of interest in the hopes of producing optimal results in each respectively. Of course, science isn't a hammer, but it still gets a job done. Same as ethics.

Perhaps we're being held back by old ideas (in re ethics) that though invented for a social purpose, now appear not to be so - forgotten knowledge/wisdom? — Agent Smith

But, the thing is, ethics wasn't invented for a social purpose. Socrates began the tradition as a means for learning how to live the good life, both publicly and privately. This idea that it's strictly social is totally foreign to the tradition.

What of the argument that ethics presupposes morality? — Mww

Okay, so Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with determining a what is moral. When done so, those actions that are concluded to be moral are the moral code of that ethical framework. So, first thought as to what is moral (Ethics), produces behaviors appriate to conduct (morailty). So, yes, Ethics presupposes morailty.

And if that is the case, might ethics indeed be an artifact of moral theory? — Mww

No, that's not the proper way of looking at it. That question is like asking whether physics is an artifact of gravitational theory. Or, music is an artifact of classical thoery. It doesn't really make sense. Ethics establishes moral codes and frameworks by which people live.

yes, Ethics presupposes morailty. — Garrett Travers

Cool. But then, if ethics presupposes morality, then ethics is necessarily conditioned by it, which may not be sufficient to consider ethics an artifact, per se, but ethics generally remains in principle a consequence of morality, I would think.

Not a big deal. As long as morality comes first; all else is social anthropology or empirical psychology, neither of which interests me personally.

Cool. But then, if ethics presupposes morality, then ethics is necessarily conditioned by it, which may not be sufficient to consider ethics an artifact, per se, but ethics in general remains a consequence of morality in principle, I would think. — Mww

I think you have this a little confused. Morality is conditioned by Ethics. Ethics is what produces moral codes, or morality. Ethics is a method by which to produce moral codes, meaning it is not an artifact; which implies it isn't subject to questions of objectivity, subjectivity, so on. They don't apply to conceptual frameworks. You've got the right idea, but you're placing the two in the wrong sequence. Morality isn't spontaneously produced, but rationally excogitated, like science or jazz theory.

As long as morality comes first; all else is social anthropology or empirical psychology, neither of which interests me personally. — Mww

Got to say, no disrespect, I don't know what this means.

OK. Thanks.

Well, I was kind of hoping you'd elaborate on this last point about anthro and psych.

He's claiming that consciousness has the power to detect reality, not that reality is made of math. It's time to put this to bed — Garrett Travers

I don’t think it’s sleepy.

Is the math in the detector or in the reality being detected? If the world is is such that our mathematical concepts fit it so well, then we could say that math is platonic in that we are equipped in Kantian fashion with categories that order nature mathematically. In such a view, we don’t have direct access to nature as the thing in itself, and so can’t claim that nature itself has such characteristics. Alternately, we could argue that the math isnt just in our categories but really is a property out there in the world. This is a different understanding of Platonism, placing the forms not in our heads but out there.

From Live Science:

Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

“In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."

Is the math in the detector or in the reality being detected? If the world is is such that our mathematical concepts fit it so well, then we could say that math is platonic in that we are equipped in Kantian fashion with categories that order nature mathematically. In such a view, we don’t have direct access to nature as the thing in itself, and so can’t claim that nature itself has such characteristics. Alternately, we could argue that the math isnt just in our categories but really is a property out there in the world. This is a different understanding of Platonism, placing the forms not in our heads but out there. — Joshs

Yeah, that's fine. However I would tweak this a bit and say that math is a property of how things are arranged in reality. Which would make sense, because math is the result of observing how reality was already arranged by the time we started inductive observation. Meaning, it isn't that math is built into reality, but our math is devised as a means to process patterns in the manner reality was already arranged. You might think of this as the english equivalent of personification non-human entities.

Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes. — Joshs

I already addressed the Tegmark book. It isn't accepted as something of much count. It's a hypothesis that cannot be tested, as we have no way to detect the math of reality, we can only see how matter, energy, space, time, and quanta arrange themselves. Math is not itself a compositional element, but a method by which we make sense of patterns of value.

If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed, — Joshs

This is unbridled nonsense and why Tegmark hasn't caused any waves with his book. Physics isn't doomed and never has been. Tools and methods in physics grow year by year on a reliable basis without the bizarre assumption that reality is created by math.

That being said, I am glad someone brought at least one person to have made this claim to the table, even if he isn't compelling in any regard.

That being said, I am glad someone brought at least one person to have made this claim to the table, even if he isn't compelling in any regard[/quote]
648647"]

Don’t forget Godel and Penrose. Here’s more from Penrose:


“The notion of mathematical truth goes beyond the whole concept of formalism. There is something absolute and "God-given' about mathematical truth. This is what mathematical Platonism, as discussed at the end of the last chapter, is about. Any particular formal system has a provisional and 'man-made' quality about it. Such systems indeed have very valuable roles to play in mathematical discussions, but they can supply only a partial (or approximate) guide to truth. Real mathematical truth goes beyond mere manmade constructions.”

The notion of mathematical truth goes beyond the whole concept of formalism. There is something absolute and "God-given' about mathematical truth. This is what mathematical Platonism, as discussed at the end of the last chapter, is about. Any particular formal system has a provisional and 'man-made' quality about it. Such systems indeed have very valuable roles to play in mathematical discussions, but they can supply only a partial (or approximate) guide to truth. Real mathematical truth goes beyond mere manmade constructions — Joshs

Right, which is true. Mathematics can most certainly reveal universal patterns that go well beyond the boundaries basic human conceptualization. I defer you here to Eric Weinstein's theory geometric unity. And actually, I believe I have address Penrose here in the thread. But, I draw your attention to the topic: that mathematics is not objective, it is a conceptual system, not an element of composition. Penrose here is not saying that math exists in the universe, but that the truth that can be gleaned from the universe through the implementation of mathematics goes well beyond the confines of what we that it could be used for. Math is more a langauge for reality, rather than reality itself. In fact, it may be most proper to view this in terms of langauge. Langague is also not objective, but is used to give representation to either objects or subjective experiences that can be used to communicate about objective reality. The argument that Penrose is making about math, is the exact same argument I would make about langauge.

elaborate on this last point about anthro and psych. — Garrett Travers

Ehhhhh.....those investigate humanity and its behaviors generally, albeit under empirical conditions, without due regard for man’s intrinsic metaphysical nature.

An Alaskan Inuit elder, back in The Day, when I commented how cool it was that they used snowmobiles instead of dog sleds......in giving me a glance reserved for young, white, practically useless cheechakos said, we love our things so much we are forgetting ourselves.

As an aside, it is contradictory to say that which is presupposed is the conditioned. Something you might wish to reconsider. Ethics cannot condition that which is presupposed for it.

those investigate humanity and its behaviors generally, albeit under empirical conditions, without due regard for man’s intrinsic metaphysical nature. — Mww

No, I know what those fields, I was wanting you to elaborate on what you meant in the sentence containing them.

An Alaskan Inuit elder, back in The Day, when I commented how cool it was that they used snowmobiles instead of dog sleds......in giving me a glance reserved for young, white, practically useless cheechakos said, we love our things so much we are forgetting ourselves. — Mww

Young, white, practically useless? Are you a self hating white person? You should have told him snowmobiles are far superior to dog sleds. Which is why the Inuits are using them.

As an aside, it is contradictory to say that which presupposes is the conditioned. Something you might wish to reconsider. — Mww

Presuppose: require as a precondition of possibility or coherence. Ethics presupposes morality. In other words, a sentence example might read: he did not do the ethical foot work that his moral code presupposes. If it is in this sense that you meant the word, then yes I would agree with you. Ethics is a precondition of a possible, or coherent moral code. I'm not sure you're in the right place, man. But, thanks for stopping by, I guess.

-G

Penrose here is not saying that math exists in the universe, but that the truth that can be gleaned from the universe through the implementation of mathematics goes well beyond the confines of what we that it could be used for. Math is more a langauge for reality, rather than reality itself. — Garrett Travers

I dont think he is simply saying that math is a language. There is. i necessary connection between words and real objects. If we view language in referential terms, a particular word in one language can refer to a real object in the world, but that word will be different in a different language. Or a culture may not even have a word for the object. Penrose is saying that mathematical truths are themselves real objects that can only be discerned through the intellect.

“Plato's world consists not of tangible objects, but of 'mathematical things'. This world is accessible to us not in the ordinary physical way but, instead, via the intellect. One's mind makes contact with Plato's world whenever it contemplates a mathematical truth, perceiving it by the exercise of mathematical reasoning and insight. This ideal world was regarded as distinct and more perfect than the material world of our external experiences, but just as real.”

This ideal world was regarded as distinct and more perfect than the material world of our external experiences, but just as real — Joshs

Right, this is what he's fundamentally highlighting. You see, it's he and I that agree, not he and the people that think math is a compositional element of reality. Mathematics is this representative thing that allows insight into the Platonic realm of the Forms - which isn't thing, this realm. But, it inspires great wonder out of us for its utility across so many domains. Again, there's no way anyone here is actually meaning to say they believe math is a part of reality. We know that the laws of nature provide all of necessary strictures to arrange the actual compositional elements of reality into mathematically represented patterns. Again, man made concepts are not material matter and energy. This has gotten to the point where this topic has been completely derailed by an insistence on asserting that math is an objective fact of the universe, when we all know, and all scientists know, that it isn't. And Penrose is not claiming that it is.

This has gotten to the point where this topic has been completely derailed by an insistence on asserting that math is an objective fact of the universe, when we all know, and all scientists know, that it isn't. And Penrose is not claiming that it is. — Garrett Travers

Boy, you do a lot of whining, and with quite an arrogance. What is this ‘we all know that’ crap? I can’t think of any statement less philosophical in spirit than the self-satisfied ‘we all know that’. I am not a mathematical platonist, but Penrose is. I am just trying to clarify his position. You said that both you and Penrose believe math is a language. Penrose does not think math is just a language. Mathematical platonism asserts the following:

There are mathematical objects.
Mathematical objects are abstract.
Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their language, thought, and practices.

Boy, you do a lot of whining. — Joshs

No, I do a lot of bringing to your attention that claims being made here are not scientific, yet you keep presenting me with views that do not argue with what I am saying, but confirm it; and then continue to present those very same arguments, even though I have already explained in detail everything you need to know about the subject and how nobody actually thinks math is a compositional element of this physical reality.

I am not a mathematical platonist, but Penrose is. — Joshs

Yes, Penrose is mathematical Platonist, meaning his sense of mathematics is that math has a place among the Platonic Forms.

There are mathematical objects.
Mathematical objects are abstract.
Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their language, thought, and practices. — Joshs

Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their langauge, thought, and practices... in the Platonic Realm of the Forms....Which doesn't exist. Even from Penrose's own view, his concept of the material world of mathematics is in that of the Forms, not in this material universe. Do you understand now?

Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their langauge, thought, and practices... in the Platonic Realm of the Forms....Which doesn't exist. Even from Penrose's own view, his concept of the material world of mathematics is in that of the Forms, not in this material universe. Do you understand now? — Garrett Travers

I understand that you have an intense need to reduce complexities and ambiguities in ideas to caricatures. Perhaps philosophy isn’t a good match for you.

As the Stanford Encyclopedia states:

“Platonism must be distinguished from the view of the historical Plato. Few parties to the contemporary debate about platonism make strong exegetical claims about Plato’s view, much less defend it. Although the view which we are calling ‘platonism’ is inspired by Plato’s famous theory of abstract and eternal Forms, platonism is now defined and debated independently of its original historical inspiration.”

For modern mathematical platonists, “independence is meant to substantiate an analogy between mathematical objects and ordinary physical objects. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. In short, mathematical objects are just as “real” as ordinary physical objects.”

You may disagree with this view of math, as I do, but you should appreciate that more than a few scientists and mathematicians support it.

I understand that you have an intense need to reduce complexities and ambiguities in ideas to caricatures. Perhaps philosophy isn’t a good match for you. — Joshs

No, Mathematical Platonism is itself a psuedo-scientific caricature of proper theory.

Platonism must be distinguished from the view of the historical Plato. — Joshs

Not according to Penrose, but according to the general body of Mathematical Platonists that have had quite a difficulty explaining how objects that are " non-spatiotemporal and (therefore) causally inefficacious," - unlike electrons and other particles that can either be observed, or their effects observed - exist anywhere other than in their mind.

Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. — Joshs

No, electrons and planets have spatiotemporal presence that can be either observed in presence, or in their impressions and place under the inductive scrutiny of science. This is pseudo-scientific quackery.

And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties — Joshs

No, establishing the truth of statements regarding planets and electrons requires observation and experimentation. An inductive process not possible open to 'objects' that are "non-spatiotemporal and (therefore) causally inefficacious."

To place this sentence: "Perhaps philosophy isn’t a good match for you."

In the same statement as this sentence: "In short, mathematical objects are just as “real” as ordinary physical objects."

Is the kind of irony even numbers cannot be used to quantify. Which, judging from your strange, implacable commitment to pseudo-science - which Mathematical Platonism is by definition - qualifies it as just as "real" as ordinary physical objects.

To place this sentence: "Perhaps philosophy isn’t a good match for you."

In the same statement as this sentence: "In short, mathematical objects are just as “real” as ordinary physical objects."

Is the kind of irony even numbers cannot be used to quantify. Which, judging from your strange, implacable commitment to pseudo-science - which Mathematical Platonism is by definition - qualifies it as just as "real" as ordinary physical objects. — Garrett Travers

1) As I said earlier, I do not personally support a platonist view of mathematics

2)Mathematical platonism isn’t supposed to be science. It’s metaphysics. You may not agree with this particular kind of metaphysical position, but the nature of metaphysics is that such that it stands as the ground and condition of possibility of scientific thought. Therefore it is not amenable to validation or falsification through empirical investigation, but only through philosophical argument.

So, if you don't agree with this view, and you know I said no scientist abides by it, and you've been arguing for it anyway, even though we were talking about the nature of ethics, then I'm gonna need to know why you've been wasting time on this absolute quackery instead of addressing what was the topic of this forum...

So, if you don't agree with this view, and you know I said no scientist abides by it, and you've been arguing for it anyway, even though we were talking about the nature of ethics, then I'm gonna need to know why you've been wasting time on this absolute quackery instead of addressing what was the topic of this forum — Garrett Travers

Oh dear… I guess I have a hard time resisting responding to sweeping generalizations like “no scientist abides by it”. Was it really necessary to pull that one out of your ass rather than saying something more measured and careful like ‘I hope not too many scientists abide by it’?

I’m reluctant to get into the main topic of the op when this is the way you deal with secondary topics.

What do you suppose would be the outcome of a poll of philosophers concerning the ‘absolute quackery’ status of mathematical platonism vs Objectivism? I’ll bet it would be pretty close, so you might try a slightly humbler stance.

Mathematical platonism isn’t supposed to be science. It’s metaphysics. You may not agree with this particular kind of metaphysical position, but the nature of metaphysics is that such that it stands as the ground and condition of possibility of scientific thought. Therefore it is not amenable to validation or falsification through empirical investigation, but only through philosophical argument. — Joshs

A good description of the relationship between science and metaphysics.

You may not agree with this particular kind of metaphysical position, but the nature of metaphysics is that such that it stands as the ground and condition of possibility of scientific thought. — Joshs

Metaphysics is not the ground and condition of physics, nor physics the ground and condition for metaphysics. They are not separate self contained entities and need each other to blossom. You might have a metaphysical realm of mathematics, but you still need a physical realm to give meaning to it.