That feeds into the meme you will sometimes encounter that conscious sentient beings are the Universe become self-aware. — Wayfarer
Yes and no.The physical doesn't do what we have done. — Patterner
The point of my thesis is to provide a conjunction (BothAnd) that weaves together the disjunctions of Science and Philosophy. For example, Physics is empirical, but Math is theoretical; yet both exist in the same world as different forms of the same universal substance. So, I can agree that those who "align with either", to the exclusion of the other, is playing the fool. Watch your step! :joke: — Gnomon
Philosophers cannot agree on whether mathematical objects exist or are pure fictions — Gnomon
For the very simple reason that is numbers are real, but not material... — Wayfarer
So, you are you convinced that when you look at a pair of diamonds encased in the platinum ring encircling your beloved's finger, no part of that crushed carbon attaches to the number two floating around immaterially within your brain? — ucarr
That really is a nonsensical question. — Wayfarer
That everyday dialogues involve no exchanges of information is a curious claim extremely counter-intuitive if true. — ucarr
In my common sense understanding, I have no question about this being an instance wherein an interweaving relationship is unfolding through the process of information exchange between two speakers having a conversation. — ucarr
But in your above quote, you acknowledge that utterances in dialogues are both logically inflected and aurally modulated. — ucarr
That this thinking and communicating is a physical, objective exchange of information through spacetime is evidenced by the generations of newborn humans who acquire language skills. — ucarr
Hence, as your statements may suggest (emphasis in bold mine), only an active mind can generate and then process information? — ucarr
The problem is in viewing only material things as real. The reasons the Taj Mahal, Mona Lisa, Beethoven's String Quartets, and King Lear exist are not material. The most sublime things humanity has created were not for material readings. King Lear isn't even, itself, material, even if it's recorded in a material medium.For the very simple reason that if numbers are real, but not material, then there are real things that are not material. — Wayfarer
Exactly right.That feeds into the meme you will sometimes encounter that conscious sentient beings are the Universe become self-aware. — Wayfarer
I wouldn't say "need." It's simply what's happening.Not a criticism or poke in any way, but is there any reason you can posit for why the universe would need to become self-aware? What does 'self-awareness' mean when it comes to the universe? This formulation seems like a human projection: the Delphic injunction, 'know thyself' applied at a cosmic scale. — Tom Storm
So, you are you convinced that when you look at a pair of diamonds encased in the platinum ring encircling your beloved's finger, no part of that crushed carbon attaches to the number two floating around immaterially within your brain? — ucarr
I don't think Wayfarer thinks numbers exist in his brain — RogueAI
For the very simple reason that is numbers are real, but not material... — Wayfarer
Does anybody have some ground rules for things real but not material? — ucarr
...our culture is deeply committed to the notion that what is real exists in time and space - out there, somewhere, potentially experienceable... — Wayfarer
And perhaps you're saying things exist that are experienceable not in the conventionally empirical sense, but rather in the cognizable sense. — ucarr
...arithmetical objects, rules of logic, conventions, scientific laws. All of these are arguably real, but not existent as phenomena... — Wayfarer
Coincidentally, I was just this morning skimming Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature, which discusses the causal "Absences" (possibilities ; potentials) in the world. The term "Platonic Realism" caught my roving eye, because I had always associated Mr. P with Idealism. So, I looked it up. Apparently, it's a middle position between Subjective Idealism and Objective Realism.For the very simple reason that if numbers are real, but not material, then there are real things that are not material. The intellectual contortions that modern philosophers perform to avoid this conclusion are striking. That SciAm article you linked - very good article - says:
there are some important objections to (platonic) realism. If mathematical objects really exist, their properties are certainly very peculiar. — Wayfarer
How about "immaterial subjects" in the sense of immaterial ideas abstracted from the objective material world — Gnomon
I'm fine with that. — Relativist
I'm fine with that.How about "immaterial subjects" in the sense of immaterial ideas abstracted from the objective material world — Gnomon
Historically, modern Science emerged from the traditions of ancient Philosophy. But in the interim, Religion claimed authority over both. When the Enlightenment gave birth to Empirical Science, it threw-out the philosophical baby with the bath-water. The Materialism and Scientism found on this forum are the off-spring of that "disjunction" between Ideal & Real worldviews. EFA is, in part, an attempt to heal the rift between the science of Matter, and the science of Mind. :smile:You talk of weaving together the disjunctions of science and philosophy; can you name a specific problem that Enformaction is attacking? — ucarr
Both Math and Language are theoretical in conception (principles), but practical in application (details). :nerd:You say math is theoretical; some components of pure math are theoretical; to claim math in general is theoretical is, to my thinking, like saying language in general is theoretical. — ucarr
The "substance" I was referring to is essential, not material. In my thesis, that "substance" is identified with Generic Information, as implied by physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophically influential "it from bit" postulation, which has been refined & expanded in recent years by physicist Paul Davies, and the Santa Fe Institute. From that perspective, existence is "grounded" in dynamic Potential, not inert Dirt. :chin:You talk of disciplines both empirical and theoretical inhabiting one, universal substance. Such language, contrary to your arguments toward establishing an immaterial ground for existence (it from bit), suggest a largely unexamined, foundational belief existence is grounded within the material (I know, the merger is intentional, that is, during those moments when it strikes your fancy). — ucarr
A bird in hand is an actuality ; birds in a bush are merely possibilities. Science studies actuality ; Philosophy studies possibilities. My BothAnd philosophy combines dual aspects of the world : the here & now materiality, and the future & past ideality : not yet real or no longer real. The point being that Either/Or is reductive & eliminative, while BothAnd is holistic & constructive. :wink:You turn the rapier point around to me when you endorse both_and over either_or. My retort is to declare "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." — ucarr
Is that your disdainful view of philosophical speculation? :cool:I know that materialism rendered a holy of holies becomes a death trap. At the other end of the spectrum, skittering around, spewing glib, scientific catchphrases scintillating with the current cachet in smartypants verbiage becomes another death trap. — ucarr
The products of reason are, ultimately, material. — ucarr
The serious reason is that I believe there is a reason for existence, but that is a religious or philosophical conviction, not a scientific argument. — Wayfarer
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.