If you can recognise ‘=‘ then you’re pretty well on the way, aren’t you? What kind of basic intellectual machinery would you have to have to recognise that this equals that? Pretty advanced — Wayfarer

Left and right of the = there are different things.

But that doesn’t do justice to the predictive ability of maths, to make discoveries about reality that could otherwise never be made. It sells it short. It’s a cop-out. — Wayfarer

You need to use intuition and imagination too. It is ample for any prediction.

But that doesn’t do justice to the predictive ability of maths, to make discoveries about reality that could otherwise never be made — Wayfarer

New predictions can be made indeed. But whats the quality of these prediction?

Those that built this here iPhone were pretty spot-on.

Left and right of the = there are different things. — Prishon

Yet somehow the same! What recognizes that? It would be nous, right?

Yet somehow the same! What recognizes that? It would be nous, right? — Wayfarer

It's the numbers equalizing.

SORRY, BUT YOUR SOUL JUST DIED

It is the great intellectual event of the late 20th century: new discoveries in neuroscience are challenging our established ideas about morality, free will and human nature. But can science really tell the whole story?

Can’t see your eyes for the looking.

Read that essay, it’s a beauty. Signing out for the night my time.

Signing out for the night my time. — Wayfarer

Ah, youre on the other side. G'night!

I present for discussion, a supervenience relationship with what follows to the right of "->" (an attempt at an arrow) supervening on what's to it's left

Math -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Brain/Mind.

If math doesn't exist in some kind of Platonic realm and is all in the head as it were, we have a problem:

Math -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Brain/Mind -> Math. It's circular! All of reality is, in a sense, mind-generated. :chin:

Math is a unique subject in that it can be applied to all other subjects (sciences, music, arts even literature, yes, literature = you can count the words in a poem or novel).
But not vice versa. What does it indicate apart from its mindful process and acts of reason.

If math doesn't exist in some kind of Platonic realm and is all in the head as it were, we have a problem: — TheMadFool

But the whereabout of Platonic realm is not conclusive is it? It does not preclude possibility of its locus in the human mind, does it?

But the whereabout of Platonic realm is not conclusive is it? It does not preclude possibility of its locus in the human mind, does it? — Corvus

:ok:

Plato was also a dualist I gather. The material world we live now is a shadow of the true world of Idea. — Corvus

This is a pretty common view, but not one I share. Socrates says the Forms are hypotheticals, the way in which his mind organizes the world according to kinds. They are, literally, what is placed under the unstable objects of the world, in order to understand the world as stable and unchanging. There is, however, no methodological transition from dialectic to knowledge of the Forms. (Republic 511b). The myth of recollection requires acceptance or rebirth. One problem is just when one is supposed to have gained such knowledge, in which past life, and how was it possible then?

The Forms are said to be what sensible things are images of, but they are themselves images, what Socrates imagines knowledge must be:

But you would no longer be seeing an image of what we are saying, but rather the truth itself, at least as it looks to me. Whether it really is so or not can no longer be properly insisted on. (533a)

the way in which his mind organizes the world according to kinds. — Fooloso4

This sounds like Kant.

There is, however, no methodological transition from dialectic to knowledge of the Forms. (Republic 511b). — Fooloso4

Would it be because the mind cannot see itself? Reason cannot reason reason itself. :)

One problem is just when one is supposed to have gained such knowledge, in which past life, and how was it possible then?

The Forms are said to be what sensible things are images of, but they are themselves images, what Socrates imagines knowledge must be: — Fooloso4

:100: :up:

If math doesn't exist in some kind of Platonic realm and is all in the head as it were, we have a problem:
— TheMadFool

But the whereabout of Platonic realm is not conclusive is it? It does not preclude possibility of its locus in the human mind, does it? — Corvus

No it does not but if math is invented, Platonic realm missing, then we have a major issue because of the circularity I mentioned earlier which I will reiterate for those interested:

Supervenience-like relationship exists between the sciences which can be represented in the following way:

Math -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Mind (Brain) -> ?

Legend: The mind supervenes on biology, biology on chemistry, chemistry on physics, physics on math.

The ? = Math if math is invented. That would close the loop as it were and we have on our hands a rather vexing circularity: Everything we know, including the mind as per physicalists, is math but math, if Platonism is false, is mind (it's in our head). So, everything is mind then or everything is math. It's quite confusing.

No it does not but if math is invented, Platonic realm missing, then we have a major issue because of the circularity I mentioned earlier which I will reiterate for those interested: — TheMadFool

But who said math is invented? Why do you want invent math? Math is already there in your mind from your previous life and soul according to Plato. You just need to retrieve it.

Math -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology -> Mind (Brain) -> ?

Legend: The mind supervenes on biology, biology on chemistry, chemistry on physics, physics on math.

The ? = Math if math is invented. That would close the loop as it were and we have on our hands a rather vexing circularity: Everything we know, including the mind as per physicalists, is math but math, if Platonism is false, is mind (it's in our head). So, everything is mind then or everything is math. It's quite confusing. — TheMadFool

No, we are not saying everything is mind. We are saying that the math knowledge and ability is in mind, and we apply it to the real world objects.

I don't see why anyone has to loop with the subjects. If you count 10 apples from one tree, and 20 apples from the other tree, then you come to total 30 apples. The mission completed.

No, we are not saying everything is mind. We are saying that the math knowledge and ability is in mind, and we apply it to the real world objects. — Corvus

We're not talking about knowledge and ability. What we're concerned with is the reality of math. Is it discovered, in which case Platonism would be true, or is it invented, Platonism false? The rest of my argument follows from that.

for the record, I am with you on this. I think that there is no realm of existence apart from the physical universe, beyond the parameters of which there is only the void...empty space, wherein nothing exists, not matter, nor light...nothing except, perhaps, certain forms of energy. If an idealized thing does not exist within the physical universe it does not exist, but rather only the idea of it exists.

We're not talking about knowledge and ability. What we're concerned with is the reality of math. Is it discovered, in which case Platonism would be true, or is it invented, Platonism false? The reat of my argument follows from that. — TheMadFool

The knowledge and ability were mentioned, because you said that everything is mind. Just to say that, everything is not mind. Never said that we were talking about knowledge and ability.

The knowledge and ability were mentioned, because you said that everything is mind. Just to say that, everything is not mind. Never said that we were talking about knowledge and ability. — Corvus

:ok:

:wink:

We're not talking about knowledge and ability. What we're concerned with is the reality of math. Is it discovered, in which case Platonism would be true, or is it invented, Platonism false? The reat of my argument follows from that. — TheMadFool

If it's already there in the mind (which I dont think, but the inner world could be the Platonic realm) we only have to look in there with the mind's eye to discover it. We can then apply it to the outer world. It depends on you willing to find this math. Does math exist in the physical world, as that dopey Tegmark conjectures (and even an infinity of "Parallel level-4 universes" full of it!)? Then where can I see Einsteins equations, supposedly written in Nature, only to be read by us? Galileo talked anout the book of Nature, Hawing said that God is a mathematician, math is thought to be "unreasonably effective" (hinting to its objective existence). But maybe the book of Nature is written in the language of freedom, is math reasonably effective, and is God a freedom fighter.

There is, however, no methodological transition from dialectic to knowledge of the Forms. (Republic 511b).
— Fooloso4
Would it be because the mind cannot see itself? Reason cannot reason reason itself. — Corvus

It is because the Forms cannot be grasped by reason. They are not objects of reason.

dopey Tegmark conjectures — Prishon

:lol: Keep saying funny things like that and I'll never argue with you.

Keep saying funny things like that and I'll never argue with you. — TheMadFool

:lol:

It is because the Forms cannot be grasped by reason. They are not objects of reason. — Fooloso4

Sure, I think I said it too in one of the posts. It makes sense, and very much inline with Kant's epistemology.

My wife says that I truly joined the bed with another one. It's true for her. (she actually rubs it into my face right now telling me to move from behind my phone) I know for a fact this hasn't happened! When I say to her that it's she thinking that she says its me thinking that it hasnt happened and Im delusional because it diid happen. Cant we divert this to a Platonic realm?

Space is just one of many mathematical objects and all mathematical objects exist in virtue of being logically consistent and in mutual relations, of which spatial relations are just a special kind of relation.