There's much more to it than that. We can infer and predict outcomes, based on mathematical analysis of observations — Wayfarer
Whence this predictive relationship between mathematical reasoning and material facts? — Wayfarer
I find Eugene Wigner's essay on it very interesting. — Wayfarer
Whence this predictive relationship between mathematical reasoning and material facts?
— Wayfarer
The short story? We don't know. — alcontali
The term that comes closest, is indeed "empirical", but it requires making a perspective shift from "real world" to "world of knowledge". — alcontali
No, I'd say those are complex relations regarding quantity. In other words, they would be pointlessly meaningless - correct me if I'm wrong here - in the complete absence of expressions of quantity such as that of "1". — javra
Yes, I took calculus in high-school, but I'm no mathematician. Not my thing. — javra
Still, I have an exorbitant degree of confidence that none of the above means anything sans representations of unity, aka quantity. A geometric point, for all its marvels of being volumeless, is yet a quantity, for instance. — javra
If the semantics of "quantity" needs better clarification, let me know. Alternatively, if you find I'm mistaken - but understand that "1" represents an idealized perfect integrity, or unity, of existent stuff - please offer some references to maths devoid of notions of quantity (such as the concept of "1", and its derivatives). — javra
It is, as Schrodinger has remarked, a miracle that in spite of the baffling complexity of the world, certain regularities in the events could be discovered. — alcontali
However, it is important to point out that the mathematical formulation of the physicist's often crude experience leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena. This shows that the mathematical language has more to commend it than being the only language which we can speak; it shows that it is, in a very real sense, the correct language. — alcontali
The real, physical world or any connection to it, is not a legitimate subject in mathematics. People who are interested in the real, physical world should rather seek answers in physics or other scientific disciplines, because mathematics is not about that. — alcontali
I take this as a very 'pure math' position. What do you make of the fact that most math is not pure? I don't just mean science. I mean everyday life. What kind of tip should I leave? How many eggs are left in the fridge? How many more miles can I get with that needle close to E? — joshua
I'm not at all against pure-math, just to be clear. But consider the history of calculus. Applications came before rigorous axiomatic theory. Consider also how important intuition is learning math. Even pure mathematicians don't write out complete, formal proofs. They appeal to one another's intuition, and I think most of them aren't formalists at heart. — joshua
The expression "1" does not appear in set theory or in the lambda calculus (axiomatization of anonymous functions). You can optionally produce the concept of "1" as a necessary result of set theory or of the lambda calculus, but you can happily work in both mathematical theories and derive theorems, without ever mentioning the concept of "1". — alcontali
The dominant axiomatization in mathematics, ZF set theory (along with AC), does not even mention "1". If you look at its nine axioms, the expression "1" is literally nowhere to be found. — alcontali
The "profound sense" of logical structure and causal power in the world, is what I call EnFormAction.EFA is also equivalent to Greek Logos. But both EFA and Logos are messengers (so to speak) not the source of creative power. The Telos is in the "mind of G*D".So, it is in a sense the 'relations between things' but I feel as though you're not really cutting through to the profound sense in which such relations and laws represent an underlying logos which guides and directs all things: not as a 'god' through acts of will but because they constitute the 'fabric of the cosmos. — Wayfarer
using the basic mathematical language of 1s & 0s (something or nothing, on or off, being or non-being). — Gnomon
Divine Choice or Will is an actuality in the sense of a "live option". As I said before, years ago, I began as an Agnostic, and was trying to avoid attributing Purpose, Will, Choice, to the First Cause. That original position would now be something like a Multiverse, blindly and randomly changing the bits & pieces of reality without any plan or purpose. But I have been forced by the evidence to admit that the creation of our world in a Big Bang was intentional. Yet I doubt that the Grand Goal is to create a race of sycophantic worshipers. So I don't know for sure what the ultimate Telos of evolution might be. All I know is that the universe is moving toward some Omega Point.Do you see the "choice", as an actuality which is distinct from both the voltage and amperage? If the voltage is potential, it could sit there forever without an actuality (choice in this case) to actualize it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, his theory of an Akashic Field is similar to my notion of the universal Quantum Field as a web or fabric of Information interrelationships. Since his theory was inspired by Hindu philosophy, I might mention that my notion of G*D is similar to the philosophical concept of Brahman (ultimate reality or Ideality). But I try to avoid mixing-in some of the spicy religious flavor of Hindu Religion, in which Brahman is just another humanoid god. Deepak Chopra also seems to include some outdated Hindu science (e.g. Prana) in his writings on related subjects.↪Gnomon
You might find Ervin Lazlo's idea interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3 — Janus
I normally use the word "Zero" in the modern sense of nothingness. But, the Greeks, possibly including Pythagoras, found the notion of non-being abhorrent**. For them, the circle was more like a Venn diagram, presumed to contain all possible things, hence WholenessAs per Pythagorean philosophy - a relatively well known example - the perfect circle represents being as a whole, also, arguably a perfect wholesomeness. It used to not represent non-being - as it most often is used to represent today. — javra
Nevertheless, Zero could also represent Transcendence (infinity, eternity) in the sense of absence of physical objects (no real things; nothingness). — Gnomon
Metaphysics, however, has nothing to do with figuring out knowledge justification. It does not revolve around justified (true) beliefs (JtB). It rather tries to rationally question the starting points of knowledge. — alcontali
To be explicit, my main argument being that conceptualization of quantity precedes conceptualization of all maths - in that it is prerequisite to mathematical thought. — javra
At first, I was reluctant to attribute conscious teleological choices to the Source (G*D) of the power and intent that creates Cosmos from Chaos (unformed potential). But after exploring how and why the cosmos works as it does, I was forced to view the creation (via evolution) as an intentional act of will* — Gnomon
Moksha and/or Nirvana are considered to be the Real - with everything else being at best a contingent subsidiary (very much including our physical reality). — javra
The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife — Gnomon
Since my theory of Enformationism is intended to be a scientific theory, I don't normally think in terms of religious concepts. I do use them as analogies and metaphors, such as Brahman = G*D. However, I can see that you might interpret the "heat death" of the universe as a sort of NIrvana (extinguishment, flame going out). Whether it is Moksha or Samsara (emancipation, enlightenment, liberation, and release), I have no idea. It certainly wouldn't apply to me personally, but perhaps to the hypothetical sentient universe (Omega Point) of deChardin.Hypothesize with me for a moment that the supposed omega point of existence is that of a universal Moksha, or Nirvana - a non-hyperbolic complete liberation from, or doing away with, samsara on a universal scale. In this hypothetical that borrows from Eastern concepts, causal information - a term I've been using so far that is very similar to that of EnFormAction - would no longer be when this here hypothesized omega point is actualized. — javra
If you are referring to deChardin's Omega Point, no. It would still be a part of this creation, this evolving space-time universe. And it would take a miracle to turn it into an eternal deity. So it would be a "being" (a something) instead of "BEING" (no-thing). Perhaps, a very intelligent and powerful being, but not a world-creating deity.Do you understand this hypothesized omega point of Moksha/Nirvana to be non-being? (this in regard to your use of "nothingness") — javra
I do assume that the Omega Point would be Real (hence, being). And Zero represents no real things (hence, non-being). To avoid confusion, I would refer to "G*D" (BEING) as infinity, and to "Zero" as the state of the Big Bang Singularity prior to the bang (still only potential).If you logically find that the hypothesized omega point is (hence, than non-being does not define it) and is thereby real (as opposed to unreal), then, in the system you're working on, 0 cannot be representative of nonbeing. — javra
Awareness and Consciousness are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. But they do exist as functions (not things) within the created universe, not as disembodied souls or ghosts in some parallel universe.awareness does not exist. — javra
Reification : This is how a lot of metaphorical and metaphysical concepts get converted into religious ghosts, spirits, demons, and gods, complete with physical descriptions. For example, ghosts are imagined with transparent ectoplasmic bodies, and angels as men with wings.What I would observe, is that these are states of being, not putative entities, although they are frequently reified as such. — Wayfarer
Divine Choice or Will is an actuality in the sense of a "live option". — Gnomon
If you are referring to deChardin's Omega Point [...] — Gnomon
Awareness and Consciousness are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. But they do exist as functions (not things) within the created universe, not as disembodied souls or ghosts in some parallel universe. — Gnomon
William James defined a "live choice" by contrast to a "dead choice". Obviously, these are metaphors, and probably used to avoid having to say "a real choice", which might imply an ideal/real distinction. A "live choice" is not forced by some outside power, or even logically necessary, but a spontaneous and preferred option -- a freewill choice.Care to explain what you mean by "live option"? — Metaphysician Undercover
Apparently you missed the point. I did not mean to imply that Potential was an isolated power with no connection to Actuality. My analogy of a battery was intended to show how potential can be delayed indefinitely until a choice is made to actualize. To elucidate, G*D is presumed to be omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that all possibilities must be actualized all the time.While I admire the enthusiasm for philosophy you appear to have, I disagree with a number of your premises - as best as I can make them out. I, for example, do agree with Metaphysician Undercover that potential devoid of actuality is technically nonsensical. — javra
The distinction was intended as a clarification of application, not as a personal put-down.I take it that by expressing the sentiment I've boldfaced you presume it stands in some measure of contrast to my own views. It does not. — javra
I didn't say "purposes", but "functions". The brain is a thing (noun), and consciousness is a function (verb) of that thing, not a separate entity, like a soul or ghost. In folk philosophy, functions are often reified as-if they are invisible agents.since the statement, "they exist as purposes (not things)," makes no sense to me, do you mean something along the line of awareness being a mathematical function? If so, yes, this is one of the premises I disagree with. — javra
No. I believe that individual beings can arise from universal BEING (the power to create). G*D is non-being only in the sense that she is not a creature, but the creator. The relationship is similar to Plato's ideal FORMS as contrasted with real material instances (copies) of the unreal immaterial concept or design.To sum things up though, you seem to believe that being can arise out of non-being. — javra
It's worth recalling that in the Analogy of the Divided Line, which is the central to Platonic metaphysics and epistemology, that whilst knowledge of maths and geometry (dianoia) is higher than mere opinion or belief (pistis or doxa), it's still not quite so high as knowledge of the ideas (noesis). I am inclined to think that what this refers to has actually been altogether forgotten by modern culture - so, to us, it appears a nothing, a non-entity, nonsense. But that's because we're configured to think in certain ways. This is why critical philosophy really is critical - it calls into question most of what sober and sensible people take for granted. — Wayfarer
Is there a critical basis behind your seeming favouritism towards old Platonic metaphysics? Maybe it has been forgotten for a reason. Maybe it has long since been superseded. — S
For example, ghosts are imagined with transparent ectoplasmic bodies, and angels as men with wings. — Gnomon
Awareness and Consciousness are metaphysical, and do not exist in any physical sense. — Gnomon
The brain is a thing (noun), and consciousness is a function (verb) of that thing, not a separate entity, like a soul or ghost. — Gnomon
[Platonic metaphysics] hasn't been superseded because the issues raised have not been resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover
To sum things up though, you seem to believe that being can arise out of non-being. — javra
No. I believe that beings can arise from BEING (the power to create). G*D is non-being only in the sense that she is not a creature, but the creator. The relationship is similar to Plato's ideal FORMS as contrasted with real material instances (copies) of the unreal immaterial concept or design. — Gnomon
I do assume that the Omega Point would be Real (hence, being). And Zero represents no real things (hence, non-being). To avoid confusion, I would refer to "G*D" (BEING) as infinity, and to "Zero" as the state of the Big Bang Singularity prior to the bang (still only potential). — Gnomon
It hasn't been forgotten, because the books are plentiful and many read them. Some people though, do not, and therefore do not learn platonic metaphysics. It hasn't been superseded because the issues raised have not been resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover
A battery is charged with potential (voltage), and it is possible to actualize that latent power in the form of actual current (amperage). — Gnomon
Since the discussion is metaphysics, I would like to second the implicit ontology in this sentence. I think the primary substance is confusion. Occasionally there are order coalescences of confusion that we call belief and sometimes even knowledge. These are very thick, consistent portions of the monism.Sorry to appear nit-picking, and for the potential derail, but this isn't a minor misunderstanding, it's a hotch-potch of confusion — Pattern-chaser
I think the presocratics with their water, fire, etc. are just as confused as modern physicalist scientists. — Coben
The primary substance is confusion. — Coben
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.