Bertrand Russell for one thought that our thoughts and so our creations can never capture reality fully. That was his form of realism. The real is real but beyond us — Gregory

The best-known quote is:

Physics is mathematical, not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. For the rest our knowledge is negative.

But I think the tendency has been to forget this warning, and to assume that only those properties that are amenable to mathematical description are real properties, and that anything not so described can be disregarded. That's what physicalism seems to assume anyway.

Nobody in this thread has mentioned Eugene Wigner's interesting essay The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. It is philosophically interesting, and also significant on account of the fact that its author won the Nobel Prize for mathematical physics. He concludes 'The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.'

Physics is mathematical, not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. For the rest our knowledge is negative.

Beautiful!

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.' — Wayfarer

Sorry I missed that... It deserves a bit of emphasis if you will... .

if you simplify irrelevant details out of a replica you get a map or model, — Pfhorrest

Only on certain conditions: if the replica were already a complete map or model, every detail already relevant in the sense of referring to some detail or aspect of the subject matter, and you just removed some of that already relevant detail; or else, if details not removed were made relevant and significant in that way, even if they hadn't been, before.

In other words, you are still confusing the referential function of a map or model (or description or representation) with replication. Which is what "the map is not the territory" (but equally well also your excellent example of the voice-coded bit-map) should remind us are separate.

The most naive view of representation might perhaps be put something like this: "A represents B if and only if A appreciably resembles B", or "A represents B to the extent that A resembles B". Vestiges of this view, with assorted refinements, persist in most writing on representation. Yet more error could hardly be compressed into so short a formula.

Some of the faults are obvious enough. An object resembles itself to the maximum degree but rarely represents itself; resemblance, unlike representation, is reflexive. Again, unlike representation, resemblance is symmetric: B is as much like A as A is like B, but while a painting may represent the Duke of Wellington, the Duke doesn't represent the painting. Furthermore, in many cases neither one of a pair of very like objects represents the other: none of the automobiles off an assembly line is a picture of any of the rest; and a man is not normally a representation of another man, even his twin brother. Plainly, resemblance in any degree is no sufficient condition for representation. — Nelson Goodman: Languages of Art, p3

and if you add sufficient detail to a map or model you get a replica. — Pfhorrest

Only if you insist on (and have some way of) making the enhancement of referential function of the map coincide with an increase in the degree of physical resemblance. But obviously this is not how scientific models are typically enhanced.

It always gives me a laugh when I meet a mathematical supernaturalist — JerseyFlight

Having been in the math game for sixty years I feel deprived not meeting such a colleague. I am sure had I done so I too would have chuckled. :cool:

Having been in the math game for sixty years I feel deprived not meeting such a colleague. I am sure had I done so I too would have chuckled. — jgill

What then does mathematical supernaturalism entail? The straight-forward confession that one worships math and that math is a God? I think not. To be a mathematical supernaturalist you simply need to hold to the position that numbers are more than human symbols, that they are something we discover weaved into the fabric of the cosmic universe, as oppose to something we create in an attempt to understand and navigate the universe.

To be a mathematical supernaturalist you simply need to hold to the position that numbers are more than human symbols — JerseyFlight

Oh oh. How embarrassing. Guess I qualify. :yikes:

Can you provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? In order for math to be what you believe it to be (for starters) this must the case.

Metaphysician Undercover has posted numerous times on this issue. He should chime in.

Can you provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? — JerseyFlight

Metaphysician Undercover has posted numerous times on this issue. He should chime in. — jgill

Indeed; any two of Meta's posts on how 1 is not equal to 0.999... would provide an excellent example.

Metaphysician Undercover has posted numerous times on this issue. He should chime in. — jgill

You have this supernatural belief, so you must have some kind of reason for it, surely, being a mathematician for "sixty years," this ought to be an easy question for you.

Infinite causal chains and the beginning of time

All your concerns will be addressed here. :cool:

To be a mathematical supernaturalist you simply need to hold to the position that numbers are more than human symbols, that they are something we discover weaved into the fabric of the cosmic universe, as oppose to something we create in an attempt to understand and navigate the universe. — JerseyFlight

Mathematics is a formalized language of quantity. Sans quantity, no maths. The latter can be readily disproven by one example of a non-quantifiable mathematics.

Though we can produce symbols via which to convey mathematical concepts, we do not likewise willfully produce the universe’s attribute of being endowed with quantity. Therefore, at least some of the mathematics we know of is “something we discover being weaved into the cosmic universe”—this in correspondence to how quantity and its relations is so weaved. (And there’s a lot of maths which isn’t, especially when entertaining the nearly boundless forms that theoretical mathematics can take.)

That claimed:

What then does mathematical supernaturalism entail? The straight-forward confession that one worships math and that math is a God? I think not. — JerseyFlight

:up: Couldn't agree more on maths (as well as the quantity and quantitative relations which it references) not being a deity ... nor, for that matter, a pivotal, or else essential, foundation of Being. But arguing for this is above my current pay-grade.

"Though we can produce symbols via which to convey... concepts, we do not likewise willfully produce the universe’s attribute of being endowed with quantity."

Wait for it, wait for it,
Non-sequitur:

"Therefore, at least some of the mathematics we know of is “something we discover being weaved into the cosmic universe”—this in correspondence to how quantity and its relations is so weaved."

Quantity does not equal mathematics. Humans have produced a symbolic structure to try to make sense of quantity.

But arguing for this is above my current pay-grade. — javra

Then you should easily be able to provide an example of two things that are exactly the same?

Sans quantity, no maths. — javra

Generally speaking this is not entirely incorrect regarding numbers. Euclid's Elements - first four books, basic point-set topology, elementary geometry, !st order Categories in Category theory are counterexamples. But numbers or quantities are lurking everywhere in the math galaxy.

Tragic. What a waste of life. Do tell me, where did these conversations take you, what did they do for you in terms of concretion? Clearly, even after all of that, and sixty years of mathematics, you still can't provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? Sophistry always works this way... "hang on, it will make more sense if we use more symbols." (All the while trying very hard to sneak past a false premise, only then to declare victory).

In my opinion absolutely everything can quantified. — turkeyMan

That was a common assumption until the advent of Quantum theory. Ironically, though the theory is based on quantized phenomena, it was eventually stymied by the "measurement problem" and "the Uncertainty Principle". Moreover, Big Bang theory was obstructed by the breakdown of mathematical Natural Laws (and the perspective-dependent measurements of Relativity Theory) at the point labelled as the "Planck Time & Space" --- beyond which our quantifications become meaningless.

So, it seems that our quantitative measurements are limited by an impenetrable boundary of mystery. You can't quantify Infinity. But philosophers and cosmologists can speculate beyond the beginning, because they are not bound by quantification. In the time before time, conventional space-time Quantities don't apply, but they can assume that pertinent timeless Qualities may still be valid.

Hence, I would qualify your assertion to say that "almost everything" in this world can be quantified, except for such minor details as Life & Mind & Infinity. :cool:

Measurement Problem : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

Clearly, even after all of that, and sixty years of mathematics, you still can't provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? Sophistry always works this way. — JerseyFlight

Yes. Pitiful isn't it? I feel so ashamed. :cry:

What I am most interested in, I would to like hear from you what reality looks like through your eyes if the universe is not mathematical? What does it mean if math symbols are just contingent and limited human constructs? After all, this is the part that reveals the true motivation behind belief.

Quantity does not equal mathematics. Humans have produced a symbolic structure to try to make sense of quantity. — JerseyFlight

Can you address a quantity without making use of number? Given an example if you can.

What I said is the mathematics is the language of quantity and its relations. Not that quantity equals mathematics. Read what I say the second time around with more care. Else no second reply from me.

But arguing for this is above my current pay-grade. — javra

Then you should easily be able to provide an example of two things that are exactly the same? — JerseyFlight

Two instantiations of an abstract entity are exactly the same in reference to both being the same abstract entity. Hence, one table and another table are both exactly the same in being a table.

But this latter part is beside the point - and also seems to be another misreading of what I wrote.

Can you address a quantity without making use of number? Given an example if you can — javra

You already did this: "Mathematics is a formalized language of quantity."

What I said is the mathematics is the language of quantity and its relations. Not that quantity equals mathematics. — javra

Strange you would misquote your own position when we have it in writing: "some of the mathematics we know of is “something we discover being weaved into the cosmic universe”"

Two instantiations of an abstract entity are exactly the same in reference to both being the same abstract entity. — javra

This is a formal assertion, where is the concrete example that corresponds to your idea?

Can you address a quantity without making use of number? — javra

One more thing I should have noted: this conversation has just morphed into a total waste of time. This is a red herring. I never claimed that numbers are lacking in value, I attacked mathematical supernaturalism. What you have asked has nothing to do with this. You are posturing away from the point because you made an indefensible claim: "some of the mathematics we know of is “something we discover being weaved into the cosmic universe”"

By all means use numbers, even marvel at their proficiency, but please stop claiming they are a special, cosmic language of the universe.

Couldn't agree more on maths (as well as the quantity and quantitative relations which it references) not being a deity ... nor, for that matter, a pivotal, or else essential, foundation of Being. — javra

By all means use numbers, even marvel at their proficiency, but please stop claiming they are a secret, comic language of the universe. — JerseyFlight

There is a reading incomprehension in all this. Unpleasant and unproductive.

Maybe the universe is really one infinitesimal, a land before time. B Theory, GR, ect.

Maybe thru evolution we will, someday, build newer computers using only our intuition — Gregory

Ooh! I like that. Go beyond logic, find ways of using our intuition, our non-computational facilities, to do things. The science of the future. We've reached the limits of reason. Reason is failing all around us. We need a new way of controlled and productive unreason.

Ooh! I like that. Go beyond logic — fishfry

Friend you're behind on the times, we already went beyond logic over 200 years ago. Further, "intuition" is not what lies beyond logic, being, comprehended through dialectics, is what lies beyond logic.

Have you read either of Hegel's Logics? When I first got on this forum there was a thread about whether he was even a true philosopher. I wonder that about analytic philosphers. I guess sometimes they are interesting. There is a video on YouTube on Ayer, language, and truth that is tempting me. But ye, Hegel :)

Have you read either of Hegel's Logics? — Gregory

Of course, one cannot be a serious thinker if they have not read Hegel. I should say, one could be, but only if they get past thought as an inert image in order to comprehend being in the context of movement. It's unlikely a human could do this without assistance. Hegel is the gateway to dialectic.

Nice. I recently put down Being and Time in order to read the lesser Logic. Three fourths thru and loving it. Someone recommended Peirce to me instead of Hegel. He does seem to be a serious thinker. Too bad he didn't write an actual book

I recently put down Being and Time in order to read the lesser Logic. Three fourths thru and loving it. — Gregory

There's a reading group on this text meeting through Zoom. If you have an interest let me know and I'll tell you where to find it. Please note: I am not part of the group and am not trying to advertise it.