What if say there is a mathematical problem, that doesn't have a proof, like the Fermat maths thing years ago....he was said to have written a simple proof for that problem, but that the proof was lost.
If there is a proof to some mathematical situation, but it hasn't been discovered, does it exist?

Say there is an amazing proof for the Pythagoras' right angle triangle thing, but it hasn't been discovered(I know there are many proofs).....if it is discovered tomorrow, did it always exist? Did it exist today? — wax

No mathematical objects, equations, arguments, proofs, etc. exist unless they're made explicit. That means that a number like 5,628,901,782,332,415,515 doesn't exist until someone expresses it, and it only exists insofar as someone is expressing it, thinking it, or it's recorded in some still-extant form (for example written on a piece of paper and the paper hasn't burned up or whatever). Again, I don't buy that there are any real abstracts. Numbers only exist as concrete particulars.

Haha. Darn right. I actually just meant "to communicate" but I think you got that. I do believe we have taken this about as far as it can go...maybe in a couple years we can have the conversation again and see if anything has changed — ZhouBoTong

Are you still in the process of formulating your views? (If you were thinking me, I'm a guy rapidly approaching 60, and a lot of my views have been the same for four decades or so)

We don't agree re concepts being language constructs, but what I'm interested in is what you're taking to be evidence of morality existing outside of/prior to the concept of it.

If one simply prefers whatever one does, then the model will predict preferences as well. But the purpose of that model is to predict (and explain) behavior. — Andrew M

Say wha?

In other words, the reason he picks one over the other is because of his preferences. You don't have to personally query his preferences to make a prediction about which he'll choose with a great chance of success, because that's such a common preference. But that doesn't imply that it's not about a preference he has.

Empathy could provide small bits of useful information, large bits of useful information or a comprehensive idea. — Judaka

Understanding different perspectives is useful information.

would you say a premise such as " best current scientific theory believes the universe is finite" is valid? — Rank Amateur

No, because that's not the sort of thing that a scientific theory can determine, really. All science can do is make observations of what is and attempt to formulate theories that result in unique predictions (relative to other possible theories, so that we can select one over another) for other observables. "Something always existed" versus "nothing existed then suddenly something did" doesn't result in any particular observables.

As it is, the consensus view is that all we can do is speculate re what, if anything, might have caused the big bang, partially because the party line is that "physics breaks down" during the early stages of the big bang--which is just another way of saying that the conditions postulated by currently accepted theory result in suppositions that don't really make sense per the same theory.

Aside from that, any consensus scientific view wouldn't have anything to do with the notion of what's logically or metaphysically possible, unless we construct an additional argument that supports that what's actually the case scientifically is not a contingent matter, but a logically and/or metaphysically necessary matter. In other words, what turned out to be the case isn't what necessarily had to be the case. We'd need a meta argument (because science wouldn't be able to bootstrap this itself--it would have to be a logical or metaphysical argument or something else) that what's the case is necessarily the case/it couldn't have been otherwise.

I've given multiple comprehensive arguments against empathy as a tool for understanding with many examples already. If you still don't get it then that's a pity but I won't keep giving proper responses to careless questions and assertions. — Judaka

The whole gist of your argument is that it doesn't literally give you another person's perspective, but that's a misunderstanding of the idea.

I have presented 4. Please present a logical argument that things can exist without coming into being. — Devans99

I don't think you're really looking for a logical argument, because a simple logical argument can always just take the form of a modus ponens:

If it's not logically impossible for things (including time, matter, energy) to have always existed (that is, without coming into being), then it's logically possible for things to have always existed.

It's not logically impossible for things to have always existed.

Therefore, it's logically possible for things to have always existed.

That's a logical argument for this. But that's not going to satisfy you, is it? It shouldn't. What you're really arguing is that it's not metaphysically or scientifically possible for things to have always existed. The problem is that that claim needs support, and not just logical support (because you could likewise just construct a simple modus ponens).

So can you be explicit about what you're referring to re true/false/valid with empathy?

What sort of thing might we be saying is true or not?

About that which he theorises about — Judaka

Empathy isn't about finding correct answers to mathematics and science questions.

It's about understanding feelings and situations and decisions and actions and the like.

My opinion is that the theories of an ignorant man are more likely to lead him towards falsehood than truth — Judaka

Falsehood and truth about what, exactly?

A question that I don't expect you to answer in public, but what's going on in your life in general?

Are you living someplace you'd like to live? Doing some kind of work you'd like to do? How are your personal relationsips--friends, lovers, etc.? How is your health? If any of those things aren't as you'd like them to be, what are you doing to change things? And re what you're doing to change anything, what are your goals for today? This week? This month? This year? The next five years?

Unless there's evidence otherwise, I'd assume that Case is the source for this.

I'd mind not having it here, too, if anyone else wants to have it here.

But sure, I might have it in another thread as well.

Don't we ultimately define the correctness of a proof by it's agreement with consensual opinion or with the output of an implemented computer program? — sime

Proofs work relative to the systems we've set up. That's different than inventing proofs wholesale --in other words, we can and do discover them a la discovering things that can be done with the systems/tools we've set up, given the exact ways we've set them up.

It seems to me that you would be more likely to agree with me, because you are born with a set of morals for living in this world, — Brett

I think it's more that individuals develop moral stances, though I'd agree that they're born with preconditions or dispositions that make it more likely they'll develop one moral stance rather than another, and then of course there are significant environmental influences, too.

All that said, as ↪Terrapin Station has said, there is nothing even close to any kind of scientific theory (technical definition) that supports the multi universe. — Rank Amateur

Yeah, multiverses are seen as upshots of the mathematics used to make predictions for things like quantum mechanics and cosmological inflation (for example, predicting the cosmic background radiation). But, one big mistake folks are making there is in seeing mathematics as making ontological claims/commitments (at all--it's a mistake to parse mathematics that way period) especially about things that aren't at all observable, so that the mathematics itself basically has to invent the ontology (which takes interpretation and imagination that's never admitted--the mathematics, as mathematics, doesn't have any semantic properties other than formal relations), and then we need to figure out how it might make sense. That's reifying mathematics, which a lot of scientists are seduced by, because they tend to be mathematical platonists more or less (because it's such a ubiquitous and useful/successful tool in the field), and it's proceeding in a manner that's pretty much ignorant of instrumentalism.

All of this is exacerbated by the popular science market, by the fact that scientists can sell books to people who aren't scientists, they can appear on popular TV shows, etc. They're a lot more successful in the popular market if they talk loosely about SciFi-sounding ideas like multiverses. So there's more than just the questionable philosophical approaches. There are motivations--motivations that affect income, recognition, prestige, for tending towards interpretations that are sensational, fantastical, etc.

You're expecting empathy to amount to literally seeing something as someone else, but that's neither possible nor the idea of it.

So you believe that concepts somehow exist prior to people constructing them?

Well it is in layman's terms, not typically in philosophical circles though, I would venture to guess... — creativesoul

The only way you'd guess that is by not being very familiar with academic philosophy. "Ethics" is conventionally the name used for the field of philosophy. What do we study in that field? Everything that anyone calls "ethics" or "morals/morality/moral philosophy."

Ethics is a synonym for morality. "Ethics" comes from Greek. "Morality" from Latin.

"the idea of the multiverse. As you can see, it's based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There's no known way to measure it, just as there's no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid. If they're right, then the multiverse is an inescapable consequence of that, and we're living in it."...Ethan Siegel — Aadee

That's another way of referring to the rather loose fantasizing based on reifying mathematical conventions that I'm talking about.

Not to mention the sheer ignorance of instrumentalism in that comment from Siegel.

Some conceptions are of that which exist in their entirety prior to being conceived. — creativesoul

It's a mystery to me what that might be saying/what it might amount to.

If goodness were nothing more than our own personal like/dislikes or something similar that arises from metacognitive endeavors, — creativesoul

Likes/dislikes arise from metacognitive endeavors? No idea there, either.

then it would be existentially dependent upon language, as would our knowledge of it. — creativesoul

Likes/dislikes are existentially dependent on language, as is knowledge of likes/dislikes? Again a mystery.

You can explore different perspectives — Judaka

That's the whole point.

Are there non-empirical claims we can know for certain by way of proofs that do not rely on empirical claims? — Nils Loc

Yes, all mathematical and logical proofs are an example.

Do you believe that fool? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It's not my view, but it's a pretty standard view for Christians.

https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/can-we-understand-gods-ways/

You'd never know with certainty, but that's a truism about empirical claims period. That's why empirical claims aren't provable. And that's why falsificationism is the party line for the sciences as a demarcation criterion, at least as a "pledge"--folks don't always follow through with it.

You'd have to just go by the best evidence available.

Re free will, I have a difficult time conceptually connecting this dilemma to free will, because I'm one of those folks who see the free will issue as a matter of whether it's possible to make a (real) decision (where there really are at least two possible avenues that one could take ontologically).

It depends how you define "game". If you include actual date, time, place and players then a game must always exist by definition. I think my definition would be better, and then if you add your data it would be a "game session". Then "sessions" would always exist, but not all "games" would belong to a session. — Kippo

I'm a nominalist a la believing that there are no real abstracts.

But if the computer already calculated it to 10^80, it would have reached that end and therefore these exist, as they have been tested out? Or can they only exist if humans do the calculation? — Christoffer

Calcuating how many different possible games can be isn't the same thing as there being those games. You calculate how many different possible game there can be by mutiplying n number of possible opening moves by m number of possible second moves, etc.

Not that I'm a Christian or religious believer at all (just to emphasize that again, because I'm about to defend them a bit), but the idea is that there are reasons that god would have rules for us that either don't apply to him or that he only apparently breaks, where we don't (and I think it typically goes that we could not) understand, since we're not gods, we don't have god's intellect or understanding, etc.

It's just an issue of whether one is going to believe such things on faith or not. I do not.

Wouldn't part of god's perfection be the laws he's set forth?

Your posts keep reading to me, without you saying as much explicitly, like you're really just wanting to express that you're relatively "conservative" when it comes to morality, and you're doing to ol' "Look at how awful this modern culture is" (a la an old man yelling at people to get off of his lawn) thing, where you want or think we need it to change or we're going to hell in a handbasket . . . which I don't empathize with at all--because I'm basically the complete opposite. I'm extremely libertine/freewheeling/laissez faire in disposition. I strongly dislike people wanting to control others (aside from prohibiting things like murder).

I'm an atheist, by the way. So I was just addressing the logic of the argument.

If there are gods, and there are good reasons to believe that the god has issued laws, then obviously you'd follow the laws and not "the example of the god as it might behave other than the laws seem to be," as if you somehow know better than the god what the reason for the apparent discrepancy is.

Your initial post is a bit confusing in my opinion. You seem to actually be talking about at least three things:
(1) Gods
(2) Laws that gods issue
(3) Laws that people create

It seems like you primarily want to ask about (1) versus (2), but you keep mixing (3) in, too.

With (1) and (2), it's not clear that there would be a difference. Wouldn't most people say that if you're devoted to (or following or whatever) a god, then you'd be devoted to the laws the god issued, since they're a part of the god's nature?

There is considerable information to support a limited multiverse. — Aadee

It seems to me that the only thing there is to support it is some rather loose fantasizing based on reifying mathematical conventions.

Do all those games exist in some form. — wax

No. The only ones that exist in some form are the ones that people are currently playing, currently thinking about, or the past ones that are recorded in some manner where the record is still extant.

It must be possible to calculate all of the possible moves, though, since there would be a finite (but ridiculously huge) number of them.

Why would you trust random strangers on the Internet to give you advice on this rather than just going to one of your professors or your academic advisor(s)?

What annoys me about empathy talk, especially criticisms of a lack of empathy when people try to use them as argumentative leverage/try to paint themselves as superior, is that it's always a matter of having empathy for the people they more or less agree with/feel the same way as, and never a matter of having empathy for people they disagree with, don't at all feel the same way as.

The real test of empathy is when you can empathize with people whose actions you might be tempted to call "dangerous" or "evil" etc.

The idea of empathy is not that you're literally going to have someone else's perspective. That's obviously not possible. The idea is to not be so self-centered via imagining yourself in the others' situation as best as you can, with an eye to gaining some insight into why the other might react or behave as they are in that situation, trying to understand different perspectives and views than your own, etc.