To the contrary, I don’t feel hated at all. The people who seem the most angry at me seem to be attacking a characiture, not the real me. So I am nonplussed, not hurt, when I read the comments.
The negativity of these acrimonious debates does take a tool, however, and that is why I am bowing out.
Since that’s all you show, it’s difficult to do otherwise.
Are you interested in neutralizing this conflict between us or not?
My hand is extended to you. Shake it and let’s be done with this.
Not really, no. As I’ve said before, I don’t care what you think of me, and since you’ve stated that you don’t even remember talking to me, I can’t see why you think we have a conflict at all.
Freudian slip? :dubious:
I can totally appreciate not participating in certain types of threads. After a few posters declared that my grandmother died just to get away from me because I was so awful, I elected not to participate in smoking threads anymore. I’m still emphatically non-smoking - I just keep it to myself (well, except just now. :p)
I’m not sure I would have started my own thread about it, but this seems to be going pretty well, so good for you. 
Um, because you’re attacking me.
Now that you’ve said that you prefer conflict, I’ll simply consider that to be your issue.
For my part, however, I will be cordial. At any rate, as we won’t be crossing paths in the “paranormal” threads any more, I doubt we’ll run into each other much.
Could I humbly ask the philosophers in this thread to give me an easy to read, comprehend and think along with book or website or such about this sort of philosothical paradigms of thinking?
I’m not sure if that sentence even made sense.
Ya’ll gotta book on dat der smurt thankin’?
I always feel way behind on these topics. I took three philosophy courses in college (ethic, logic and intro) and still have no idea how I got 2 As and a B in them.
So could someone point me in the direction of “Philosophy for People a Step or Two Above Dummies” book?
Thanks.
“If I put this orange in the bowl and this other orange in the bowl, then I will have two oranges in the bowl.” That’s a falsifiable hypothesis. That is an event that you can observe. But two important things here: (1) when you have finished your experiment, you have not proved that your hypothesis is true, but only that it is not false; and (2) you have proved nothing about 1 + 1 generally. With respect to (1), you cannot use the excluded middle in science, because “either A is true or A is false” is true only in bivalent systems like first order logic, or boolean algebra. In science, a whole range of truth values might exist. Otherwise, you could not have had Einstein’s contributions since Newton’s would have already been “proved true”. But they weren’t. As it turned out, certain conditions exist (such as particles moving at the speed of light) in which Newton’s work does not hold. With respect to (2), numbers are abstractions, not physical entities that you can observe; therefore, no amount of observation can tell you anything about them.
I have already stated it several times, and have shown you citation. Sentient has told you as well. And if you bother to check it out, you will find that we are right. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fundamentally different claim from “evolution happened”. It is proved by deduction. Incidentally, so is special relativity. It is nothing but a mathematical formula, and Einstein proved it deductively, beginning with two axioms:
“1. … the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
A co-ordinate system that is moved uniformly and in a straight line relative to an inertial system is likewise an inertial system. By the ‘special principle of relativity’ is meant the generalization of this definition to include any natural event whatever: thus, every universal law of nature which is valid in relation to a co-ordinate system C must also be valid, as it stands, in relation to a co-ordinate system C’ which is in uniform translatory motion relative to C.”
and
“2. The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the ‘principle of constant velocity of light in vacuo.’ This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz.”
(Einstein, 1954)
In my opinion, a good introductory book on a broad range of philosophy is Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers. It gets a bit preachy at times, but it covers most highlights up until about the mid 20th century.
Exactly. I agree.
I agree.
I have already agreed that you can’t prove anything empirically. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that.
This is where you lose me. Numbers describe the physical, concrete universe. “2” means something in reality. It’s not just an abstraction.
You’ve both said it, but you haven’t backed it up. Your cite was actually just another way to show that 1+1=2.
So you say. I still disagree, and will keep disagreeing until you show me that I’m wrong. All I’ve seen so far is assertions that you’re right.
I cain’t use fancy words like “epistemic” and “peano” so good, but I think I can attempt to translate what Liberal is saying.
First of all, there’s this thing called mathematics. It’s a purely intellectual exercise. It is a system of statements and ideas, inside an axiomatic framework. One of the neat things about it is that in mathematics, unlike just about anything else, it IS possible to prove things with 100% accuracy. For instance: “there are an infinite number of prime positive integers”. That statement is just plain TRUE, not ifs, ands or buts.
Now, mathematics, by itself, is just a mental game. It’s cool, it’s neat, it’s deep, but what’s REALLY useful about it is that it with incredible frequency is useful for describing the universe. So it is possible, in a fashion that is extremely easy for us to do (counting), to associate a positive integer (which is just an imaginary construct) with a “set” (using the term loosely) of real world items, like apples.
So I can observe that if I have a set of apples whose count is 3, and add them to a set of apples whose count is 7, I’ll get a set of apples whose count is 10. And, fortunately, 3+7=10.
What I can NOT do is PROVE with the same 100% level of no-ifs-ands-or-buts certainty that there will be 10 apples. I can perform the experiment over and over. I can propose a hypothesis, which would be something like “simple mathematical arithmetical induction corresponds precisely to the adding-sets-of-apples-together operation”. I can test that hypothesis. But all I can do is collect more and more and more evidence that suggests that the hypothesis is true. There’s never any final last step where, once I’ve done it, the proof is complete, and we now know that, forevermore, apples will always be addable.
And in general, in fact, there are times when math DOESN’T describe the universe. If I have a drop of water, and I add a drop of water to it, what do I get? One drop of water? Or two drops of water? What if I was trying to count something that was kind of like an apple, but kind of like a drop of water? What if I added 2 bunnies to 2 bunnies, came back several months later, and got 20 bunnies?
Many things in the real world correspond in various ways to imaginary things in math. Which is a damn good thing, because science would be FUBARed without it. But proving something in math is ABSOLUTE PROOF. Proving something in the real world is just VERY LIKELY, WITH LOTS OF EVIDENCE.
Numbers can represent certain states of reality, but they don’t always necessarily. For example, what in reality is represented by the solution set for 4/x where x=0? The solution is a singularity and is undefined. But even in cases where numbers do describe reality, it is an important distinction that a description is not the thing it describes. All descriptions (including numbers, words, and symbols) are analytic phenomena, and exist as a convenience for man. Without cognition, it makes no sense to say that there are two of anything. (In fact, existence itself is a metaphysical claim, but I won’t drag you through that.)
Well… :D. I mean, the whole of history and philosophy, and the nature of reality back it up. Okay, here is someone else’s explanation. Maybe it will make more sense to you:
http://www.auburn.edu/pctl/models/Reading/nothingbut/argue.html
No, you’ve seen thorough explanations and proof by logical reasoning that the assertions are true. Until you find a flaw in my logic, you are bound by intellectual honesty to accept the conclusion. That is what I was explaining to Aeschines. It is difficult to sustain a logical argument when a person not only doesn’t know that a syllogism is a major premise, followed by a minor premise, followed by a conclusion, but doesn’t understand that the syllogism proves something to be incontrovertibly true, so long as it is sound. If you can show me a 2 in the universe that would exist without my cognition, in the manner that entropy is increasing whether I know of it or not, then I will recant not only my own stance, but that of every writer since Aristotle.
I wish some of you folks could be more graceful. I don’t remember who and why because the topic changed and my brain isn’t in ‘complex reading comprehension mode’, leaving me confused by what you’re all talking about. So this is probably overly general and possibly not relevant.
Anyway, Aeschines is choosing not to participate in a subject that he gets carried away in, and it seems he’s doing so as a sign of good faith. I wish some people would realize that even though he’s not perfect, he is improving.
Everytime I see someone post a similar thread, people use it to make jabs at the OP.
People here take the “don’t be self-centered” idea too far on these boards. It is bad when people seem to be after a lot of attention, but stuff like this thread isn’t bad if done sparingly.
Hey Ilsa!!
You might consider changing your name to Demosthenes.
I don’t have enough time to respond to most of this right now, but I will (after reading your link), but I just have to respond to this. You have not shown me thorough explanations or proof by logical reasoning. You have written short posts which included two links, one to the Karl Popper essay, which I didn’t keep reading once I’d got the point I thought you were trying to make, and the other to another proof that 1+1=2, which has nothing to do with my point.
I understand all this, but I haven’t seen your premises, only your conclusion.
Major premise:
All numbers are abstractions. (Justification)
Minor premise:
No abstractions exist in nature. (Justification)
Conclusion:
No numbers exist in nature.
Observation:
Well, duh. You could have just said that without going off on metaphysical tangents and saying anyone who thought otherwise was stupid.
Dumbass.
I’m not sure I understand which part of the link is supposed to justify your minor premise.
One little thing: I’d appreciate it if you could mention which links lead to PDFs in the future. Thanks.
I don’t see how that document supports your premise. I can’t find anything about abstractions in it.
Well, no the number 2 itself doesn’t exist in reality, but (as I’ve said) it describes reality and follows reality’s rules. You asked for a number 2 that existed whether you saw it or not; well, if you drop an orange into a bowl with another orange in it, there will be two oranges no matter if you’re there to look or not.
As for your earlier link about different types of claims, I obviously agree with and understand it. I just don’t see why you would put “1+1=2” with “the Constitution gives us freedom of speech”, which cannot be empirically tested and is only true as long as everyone pretends it is, rather than with “the Moon is made of green cheese”.