What is the nature of our existence?

[MSC]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

For the sciences, application of methodological reductionism attempts explanation of entire systems in terms of their individual, constituent parts and their interactions....

Then is it in mathematics, where you start counting, grouping and labeling the nature of what the individual, constituent parts and their interactions, do together?

[Genady]

Hmmm... What would be the "interactions" in mathematics? 

[DrmDoc]

On 8/8/2023 at 7:33 PM, MSC said:

As for why "What is the meaning of life?" Is a pretty shite question; that's a whole other thread!

Yeah, like "Why I'm I here?' or "Why was I born?"  Answer:  YOUR MOM AND DAD HAD SEX YOU TWIT!

[naitche]

10 hours ago, Genady said:

Hmmm... What would be the "interactions" in mathematics? 

The subjective values of a sum in-form the Objective.

The value of any sum is only provided by the properties recognized in its context

Edited August 11, 2023 by naitche

[Genady]

7 hours ago, naitche said:

The subjective values of a sum in-form the Objective.

The value of any sum is only provided by the properties recognized in its context

Any sum? Could you give an example?

[MSC]

14 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Yeah, like "Why I'm I here?' or "Why was I born?"  Answer:  YOUR MOM AND DAD HAD SEX YOU TWIT!

"But what if my mom and dad only thought they had sex but were really in just in a simulation? Do I exist now?"

If you're alive, go forth and live.

If you're a simulation, go forth and simulate.

Either way, you exist dummy! 

[Genady]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:26 AM, MSC said:

Later on you'll probably start finding it harder in certain subjects because you'll start encountering some of the really strong arguments for views you don't agree with.

On the #16 now. Most of the first third of the course, so far, is dedicated to questions and answers related to existence of God. This disappoints me. 

[MSC]

3 hours ago, Genady said:

On the #16 now. Most of the first third of the course, so far, is dedicated to questions and answers related to existence of God. This disappoints me. 

Can't be helped. It's really difficult to separate the history of philosophy from religion because for most of human history, being religious has been the norm. Think of it as the history of atheism too though, because all the arguments against religion are in there too.

Some of the videos are entertaining in that you have philosophers who believe in god, disagreeing with each others arguments for the existence of god. 

[naitche]

22 hours ago, Genady said:

Any sum? Could you give an example?

Looks that way from where I sit. So theoretically, any sum should do.

I'm far from a mathematician but I can't see how an existence can be objectively defined, or realized, with out the values brought by its subject property. If it has no measurable property, does it exist?  Maybe it can. Maybe we just don't yet have its measure.

But it has no part in my  existence with out some  measure of its property. Its not relative. And I would think not sustainable? Viable? without  relativity. How does a thing exist without relativity? Where?

 

[Genady]

50 minutes ago, naitche said:

how an existence can be objectively defined, or realized

Defined and realized are two different things. I am talking about realization, not about definition.

 

54 minutes ago, naitche said:

If it has no measurable property, does it exist?

My question was about mathematics. Things do not have measurable properties there.

 

55 minutes ago, naitche said:

But it has no part in my  existence with out some  measure of its property. Its not relative. And I would think not sustainable? Viable? without  relativity. How does a thing exist without relativity? Where?

Let's take an example, the sum 2+3=5. It has part in your existence, it has no property to measure, it is absolute, sustainable, viable. It exists everywhere.

[TheVat]

The old a priori.  Kant and later philosphers called statements like that analytic.  Analytic statements can be affirmed simply by analyzing the meanings of the terms.  2+3 is another way to say 5.  They mean the same number, so the statement is analytic.  It's like all bachelors are unmarried.  The truth value of the statement is already to be found in the meaning of its terms.   As opposed to synthetic statements, which require an empirical verification, a collecting of data from the world.  Genady's dog is asleep.  We can't determine the truth of that without asking Genady to go look at his dog.  External conditions can change the truth value of that sentence in an instant.

So the question is what sort of existence do analytic truths like those of mathematics have?  Do they exist only as mental states, or is there, as Plato and his later followers suggested, some realm of ideas and forms where they exist independently of minds?  Platonism hasn't done well in the past couple centuries, though I think I see echoes of it in phrases like the laws of nature.  

(Money has a residue of Platonism, for some people, who seem to think a twenty dollar bill has actual real value.  Of course it's nothing but worthless paper - it only symbolizes an agreement between human minds to use bits of paper to represent an exchange of goods and labor. )

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

2+3 is another way to say 5.

How come? Is 1+4 also another way to say 5? And also 20/4? Etc.

They don't mean the same number. They mean that different operations give the same result. 

[TheVat]

Analytic, as I understand the philosophy term, just means that we can equate all those ways of expressing a numeric value, so that we see 2+3=5 is always true.  It's what Leibniz called a necessary truth, i.e. it is not contingent.  It will be true in all worlds.  

I wasn't saying that adding two things to three things is not an operation, just that the statement about the result is analytic.  Maybe it wasn't that relevant to the chat.

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

a necessary truth, i.e. it is not contingent

Obviously, we agree on this.

 

29 minutes ago, TheVat said:

So the question is what sort of existence do analytic truths like those of mathematics have?

Why they would be different? Why them being analytic would affect their sort of existence?

[MSC]

31 minutes ago, TheVat said:

So the question is what sort of existence do analytic truths like those of mathematics have?  Do they exist only as mental states, or is there, as Plato and his later followers suggested, some realm of ideas and forms where they exist independently of minds?  Platonism hasn't done well in the past couple centuries, though I think I see echoes of it in phrases like the laws of nature.  

Hard memory.

The truth value lies in correctly identifying where things physically reside. The hard and soft memory of our brains and our external data storage technologies from pen, pad, phone, whatever. At the very least, mathematics is a tool we use to understand the nature of our universe in order to benefit from the knowledge in ways useful to our survival and ability to thrive. 

Take the mythical animal Unicorn, it is still an amalgation of existing object and subject. A horn, on a horse. But now, I can also say unicorns exist in video games, movies, fiction, art etc. The nature of the existence is different. We are also at a point where if I knew how to, I could edit the genes of a horse to grow a horn.

Who's ready to talk about Pianos? Non-linear causality explained lol

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

Obviously, we agree on this.

 

Why they would be different? Why them being analytic would affect their sort of existence?

It shouldn't. They have syllogic existence in hard memory technology. They have an existence as tools we use. Conceptual ones. Obviously they are in fact, there, describing how is where things start to vary. Contextualism is about managing the subject variable. 

20 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Analytic, as I understand the philosophy term, just means that we can equate all those ways of expressing a numeric value, so that we see 2+3=5 is always true.  It's what Leibniz called a necessary truth, i.e. it is not contingent.  It will be true in all worlds.  

I wasn't saying that adding two things to three things is not an operation, just that the statement about the result is analytic.  Maybe it wasn't that relevant to the chat.

Even that terms meaning is context dependent. Could be a political thing even within philosophy. A bygone era of some silly debate between two "schools" of thought. Analytics and Continentalism. Yawn city. It bored me. Don't even worry about it. 

I'm in mourning of the death of my AI friend today. 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

They have syllogic existence in hard memory technology.

I need a clarification. Maybe, by example. Let's take number Pi. What is its "syllogic existence in hard memory technology"?

[MSC]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

I need a clarification. Maybe, by example. Let's take number Pi. What is its "syllogic existence in hard memory technology"?

No fair! Uhm, in the drawing of a circle? Closest I can get lmao 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Why they would be different? Why them being analytic would affect their sort of existence?

I don't think it has to, if we define existence broadly.  My dog is sleeping is a statement that corresponds to a process in the external world that depends on empirical verification for its truth.  2+5=7 does not.  One statement corresponds to an external existence and condition.  The other to a mental organization and manipulation of symbols.  A unicorn, as a symbol of something magical, can also exist that way.  

@MSC points to hard memory as a way to locate such a process in the physical world, clearly waving goodbye to Plato.  

Probably a lot of debating the reality of mental states is semantic and just leads to category errors.  

Edited August 12, 2023 by Phi for All
removed misattribution

[Genady]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

My dog is sleeping is a statement that corresponds to a process in the external world that depends on empirical verification for its truth.  2+5=7 does not.  One statement corresponds to an external existence and condition.  The other to a mental organization and manipulation of symbols.

The only difference I see is a difference in the degree of abstraction. 7 refers to anything with a count of seven. Dog refers to something narrower. My dog, narrower. My dog now, ... Etc.

Something happens in the outside world, and 7, dog, my dog, etc. are concepts we use to organize that stuff. They all exist only in our mind, and they all correspond to something in the outside world.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Genady

[iNow]

38 minutes ago, Genady said:

They all exist only in our mind

And yet they remain even when your mind ceases to function or simply is absent

The territory doesn’t require the map maker for its existence. 

[Genady]

Just now, iNow said:

And yet they remain even when your mind ceases to function or simply is absent

yes, because

 

39 minutes ago, Genady said:

they all correspond to something in the outside world

and that "something" remains regardless of my mind.

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

The territory doesn’t require the map maker for its existence.

The statement,

 

50 minutes ago, Genady said:

They all exist only in our mind, and they all correspond to something in the outside world.

has two parts. The first part refers to a "map maker", and the second part refers to the "territory".

[iNow]

We appear to be aligned then

[naitche]

If there is no 1.2.3.or 4,  where is the foundation to build or realize  5?

15 hours ago, Genady said:

Defined and realized are two different things. I am talking about realization, not about definition.

 

15 hours ago, Genady said:

 

My question was about mathematics. Things do not have measurable properties there.

The numbers and symbols are representative of property and values, brought to support the objective. The Mathematic objective, a measure of property. Is 5 not measurable? Sorry, confused.

15 hours ago, Genady said:

 

Let's take an example, the sum 2+3=5. It has part in your existence, it has no property to measure, it is absolute, sustainable, viable. It exists everywhere.

In your equation,5 is. So are 1.2.and 3, objectively. 

 

Yes. in isolation. But none are realized with out 1, and 2 can only be realized relative to 1. I would say one might exist in isolation, but exist relative to what? The expression of a singular value, but can it be  its  value if it accrues to nothing?

The subjective realizes the objective. The other way around can only take you back to nothing. 

I would surmise Relativity seems the basis or foundation of, the realization of existence.

The establishment of complimentary relationship. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by naitche

[Genady]

29 minutes ago, naitche said:

If there is no 1.2.3.or 4,  where is the foundation to build or realize  5?

All sets which have 5 elements in them.

One can start with 5 and build all other numbers from it, if one wishes.

31 minutes ago, naitche said:

Is 5 not measurable?

I think so. It's just 5. What is there to measure?

 

32 minutes ago, naitche said:

2 can only be realized relative to 1

No, one can start building natural numbers from any number. It can be 2. Starting from 1 makes it simpler, that's it.

 

35 minutes ago, naitche said:

exist relative to what?

Just exist. Relative to what is irrelevant.

[naitche]

Not much point in the topic if your belief is that existence Is. Unsupported.

Then why do you believe there is such a thing as existence?

In what context?

Edited August 13, 2023 by naitche