But tell us: it seems to me when I've seen interviews with her - not very many nor for long - that she seems a little odd and strange. To you also, or not? — tim wood

When she dropped to the floor and did a bunch of push-ups she won my heart! :cool:

Don't care for the other females in the mix.

Any wagers on how much longer this thread will go? :chin:

Interesting that Wittgenstein considered Russell naive.

I might go with Tulsi Gabbard — Wolfman

She would be at the top of my list. But I'd be shocked if it happened.

An interesting thread in itself.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568

However, this thread is hopeless IMHO. :roll:

Joe is now hot on the trail for a running mate. What woman will he pick to shift the polling balance in the swing states? The excitement is palpable! :gasp:

where P is the present and E1 is the first event that occurred before the present, E2 the second, and then all the rest — BB100

So a hypothetical function generating these events is discrete rather than continuous? This is a little like saying "X is the first number to the left of 0". You are clearly assuming time is discrete and not continuous. See below.

Now let us say, since there is a real infinite past then we can list all past events with the Natural Numbers in their terms. — BB100

Therefore there exists some event in the past that is an infinite number of events from the present. — BB100

Why? Why not assume that if one specifies a time in the past, there will always be at least one event occurring before that time? And then at least one event occurring before that event, ad infinitum.

jgill? What sort of thing are numbers? — Banno

One is the sound of a single finger snapping. :cool:

Like staring at the sun, looking too hard into the foundations of mathematics can damage the mind's eye.

"Mathematics as Human Invention: According to the middle Wittgenstein, we invent mathematics, from which it follows that mathematics and so-called mathematical objects do not exist independently of our inventions. Whatever is mathematical is fundamentally a product of human activity."

More or less. We invent, but we also discover. Creating vs discovering is a topic of interest occasionally for math people. Once we have invented we have set in play a process of unraveling or discovering what logically follows. Along the way we invent again, and follow paths stemming from those activities.

"it follows that 'the mathematical infinite' resides only in recursive rules"

As an analyst, I agree. I am not prone to use the infinity symbol like any other.

I'll read more later and report back. :cool:

I open a math book and find a new definition. Is that not a thing I find? — jgill

Some one else put it there. — Banno

Tell me clearly what the word "find" means.

MW: "to discover by the intellect or the feelings" or "to come upon by searching or effort " or . . .

This thread is a good example of why philosophy appears sometimes to be "garbage in = garbage out"

When you start with a really shoddy definition things go downhill quickly. IMHO

:chin:

Maybe. It comes from Wittgenstein. Do you think him naive? — Banno

I made a small attempt to read him years ago but found little connection with the world of mathematics In which I lived.

Are not ideas things we "find?" — jgill


No, they aren't. — Banno

I open a math book and find a new definition. Is that not a thing I find?

Metal detectors find buried coins. I suppose that is the naive notion you entertain. :roll:

Put more simply, in hopes of engaging a few philosopher's attention-- philosophers are about as qualified to understand any aspects of the universe, themselves included, as Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd in a think tank full of carrots. — Greylorn Ell

A bit harsh, but colorful and provocative. :cool:

And of course this goes for other mathematical entities, too. They are things we do, not things we find. — Banno

Baloney. Are not ideas things we "find?" Whenever we discover a concept, is that not a "find?" Is a Hilbert space something we "do?" So there. :nerd:

Watching philosophers talk is sort of like watching a bird with a broken wing keep flapping it, and trying to readjust, not understanding what's wrong — Snakes Alive

:cool:

No deductive argument will settle any of these issues: it simply pushes the problem back by introducing new premisses subject to the same issues. Still, the same structure is found in other disciplines. For instance, in mathematics, chains of reasoning ultimately run back to axioms, and the question of their justification eventually arises (Maddy 2011).

This is true of mathematics. However, the vast and productive bulk of non-pathological mathematical results, particularly those that describe nature, do not involve critical analysis of axioms ultimately underlying them. The mathematical snowball was well on its way before substantial efforts to establish foundations occurred.

Nevertheless, by altering basic assumptions new perspectives arise, sometimes contradicting previously held notions. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis

Once adopted by a clique of mathematicians, the game of logical development and creativity proceeds as a kind of social effort. How does this compare with philosophical arguments? You tell me.

Pure philosophy hasn't made a dent in unraveling the mysteries of mind. Classical philosophy is a dead end here. One needs to move into a mix of neuroscience and modern philosophy to make any progress. Chalmers, with his Hard Problem, is a leader in these efforts. Also, Zen practice leads to experiential knowledge of the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

Although there is nothing in the mathematical world, there is no nothing in nature. If you propose pure emptiness, you haven't looked hard enough. :cool:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1593650/What-is-Mind

Been there. Done that. No conclusion in 22K posts. :worry:

I was tempted to ask if anyone still reads Being and Nothingness. But of course no one ever actually read Being and Nothingness. — Banno

I did, back in the late 1950s. Existentialism and the Look made an impression and influenced my attitude toward solo climbing. The simple presence of another living soul alters experience.

Sometimes superior articulation conceals faulty arguments.

. . . questions like "what are these possible paths that Langragians integrate over?" seem to make sense — jkg20

Amazing how cancellation reduces an infinite set to a finite one. I still puzzle over the measure employed in those functional integrals. :nerd:

I would love to see all medical training, for doctors, dentists, nurses, aides, and all other healthcare workers to be 100% paid for by the government...with a healthy stipend for people entering the field. — Frank Apisa

As a young USAF officer, I was sent to the U of Chicago to qualify me as a meteorologist. All expenses paid plus a decent salary at the time. I knew of MDs and one lawyer who had been entirely supported as I had been. The lawyer remained in the Air Force and retired a Colonel - he's now the district attorney where I live. The others put in a few years and left the service, as I did.

That was in the 1950s. I assume such programs still exist. Actually, I'm in favor of free education all the way, provided the recipient is serious and studious and not simply sponging off the US government. As a former professor I have unfortunately seen that happen.

Glad you got that off your chest. Here's good wishes for a quick recovery! :smile:

Perhaps nothingness is unattainable, like infinity. In math we routinely set x=0 in formulae, but math is an intellectual exercise and doesn't necessarily describe nature precisely. Even in math there are little number critters just to the right of zero on a scale, but to the left of any positive real number. These infinitesimals arose from the minds of Leibnitz and others long ago. Maybe in some crazy way they connect with the virtual particles of physics (although I have my doubts). So, entities below the Planck scale may surround a hypothetical nothing, which doesn't really exist.

Hey, just babble in the time of the Plague. :cool:

People get nervous during the pandemic, and talking on the net helps relieve the tension. It also produces even more nonsense babble than usual. :nerd:

Haha, Balloon Calculus — bongo fury

Lot of UFOs there! :gasp:

So how is starting with preliminary definitions a weakness? — tim wood

The old computer science observation: "Garbage in = garbage out"

But I realize I am guilty of judging philosophical arguments from the perspective of a (once) active, non-set theorist, mathematician. Philosophy is a much fuzzier discipline and what I perceive as a "weakness" is merely part of the game. For instance, some time back there was a discussion involving the notion of "metaphysical actuality", and I kept trying to get the person using the expression to define it. He never could, or lost interest. However, I did come across one reference in a letter to Leibniz, and from that an example was cited that made some sort of sense, at least to me. :smile:

In terms of the mean doctrine, I would say that the two vices in opposition are:
- ‘impatience’: one interacts only with the imagined reality; and
- ‘apathy’: one interacts only with the actual, observed reality. — Possibility

Apathy is a lack of interest, whereas being overly patient demonstrates a lack or suspension of judgement regarding an anticipated action or outcome. How long should a teacher wait for a student to answer a question?

Definitions are the Achilles' heel of philosophy. :confused: — jgill

How so? And keeping in mind that Achilleus's heel itself as a heel worked just fine, no complaints. — tim wood

Wiki: "An Achilles' heel or Achilles heel is a weakness in spite of overall strength, which can lead to downfall. While the mythological origin refers to a physical vulnerability, idiomatic references to other attributes or qualities that can lead to downfall are common."

Definitions are the Achilles' heel of philosophy. :confused:

but what would you call the excess of patience? — Lecimetiere

To measure the degree of patience is subjective, although at extremes there might be consensus. Most would consider it "overpatient" to wait for a reply to a simple question in normal conversation for ten minutes, let's say. But "overpatient" would probably not be interpreted as a pejorative, like "impatient" could be. Just comments.

I can imagine the arrow has its momentum during any duration of time however short, but at the point where no time passes? — tim wood

The key word is "viewing." Zeno's condition doesn't actually stop the arrow, it observes the arrow at an instant. But the idea I advanced is not original. Some time back a well-known physicist I know dismissed the whole nonsense thing with this observation. :cool:

From a mathematician's perspective, many, if not most, philosophical issues lack closure and are endlessly debated - sometimes with very fuzzy definitions to begin with - and thus not really satisfying. However, philosophers seem to be very intelligent and, from many posts on this thread, usually impressively literate and knowledgeable. Especially those engaged in discussions about set theory and its parallel universe in computer science. I continue to learn things about these subjects by trying to follow discussions.

Definitely not insane.

Theoretically viewing a frozen instant of the arrow in flight does not destroy the momentum the arrow possesses at that instant.

Not insane. Just very talkative. :smile:

https://www.history.com/news/women-leaders-elected

And it almost happened here in the US. :smile:

and math crumbles before philosophy. Wouldn't it result in there being only one number? — Gregory

Yes! And I alone know what it is. :nerd:

My dog will not tolerate closed doors. I question her consciousness. :smirk:

From Einstein's Autobiographical Notes, a thought experiment he had at age 16:


"...a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen: If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."