This is an interesting thread, but a lot of what I am reading is nothing more than arguing about semantics, which is bullshit. If y’all wanna argue about what every freakin word means, you need to form a committe to decide which dictionary to use, then come back here and post.
Oh, and get over the use of the word/concept “belief”. Beliefs require no proof and require no changing even when shown to be faulty.
If you cannot discuss ideas you aren’t really discussing anything, you’re just talking to hear your own voice.
So, unless you want to pick over the meanings of the words you’ve selected, we may assume from your post that nothing is more important to an argument than its semantic nuance?
It’s no different from any other assertion: if it follows by valid argument from permises accepted as true, then it is true; it if it is stated as a premise, then it is true if it is accepted as true. Anyone may reject a conclusion by rejecting its underlying premise(s). Anyone may reject a premise, and thereby any conclusion following from it.
The OP is comparing/contrasting math and religion.
IMO, they are both the invention of man.
The difference is that with mathmatics, we try to state our assumptions and postulates as such, and then extend the ramifications IF those assumptions are true.
While it is the ideal, this does not always pan out. On occasion, an unrecognized, or inadvertant, assumption is brought to light, and new worlds of understanding open up. An example would be the long held assumption that time and space are distinct and can be treated as such. For centuries, this seemed an obvious truth, and limited our ability to discribe our universe mathmatically.
I see religious arguments mainly as a defense of the underlying, and frequently unstated assumptions. That is much different than stating the assumptions and seeing where they lead.
I think your own assumptions belie anything more than a passing familiarity with theological literature. Quite much rigorous logic has been applied to religious systems — everything from proof in propositional logic of a moral imperative (Kant) to proof in modal logic of the existence of God (Plantinga). Deism is entirely based on deductive rationality. In fact, it can be argued that many fundamental and significant developments in logic (and by extension, math) are a direct result of examining theological questions. My own belief system is deductively derivable, though its epistemic source was originally revelation.
Funny, I don’t recall saying anything about a “pointless logical proof”, so I really have to say that I have no idea what you are referring to there. The phrase I recall using is “pointless philosophical discussions about whether or not it exists,” where “it” refers to the universe.
Math is a branch of philosophy, is that you said? Nonsense.
Um, since that is exactly what I said, the first part about me being “mistake” is not accurate. My original point was that if we can’t start with the basic assumption of the existence of the universe, if you’re standard of “proof” is such that I cannot “proof” to you that the universe exists, we have no common basis for further discussion. I used “you” as a general example of that inability to prove, and you decided to hair-split and go off on the useless, meaningless tangent of “self-reference”, rather than just speak to my point. And now that I use the word “tree”, you happily agree that there’s no self-reference. But then, you brought in the self-reference in the first place, so all you’ve accomplished is to agree that your earlier point was pointless. Whoopee.
So, do I take this to mean that you’re engaging in a semantic argument about the difference beween “definite” and “absolute”, w.r.t. existence? No wonder we have no common ground for discussion.
Holy cripes, do you read your own postings? You stated, “There is no such thing, for example, as ‘absolute existence’”. And now you’re trying to say that we started from the agreed upon reality that “you and I and everyone else and the universe have a real existence?” When did you agree to that? I clearly missed it. Or does this rest on some thin semantic hair-splitting between “absolute existence” and “real existence”?
Sorry, but I can’t have a rational discussion with someone who engages in that kind of game play. You are clearly someone who simply delights in arguing for it’s own sake, without regard to the substance under discussion. Not my thing, really.
Ok, so perhaps you and I can have an intelligent discussion on this, now that we’ve gotten that silly crap about the existence of the universe out of the way.
Let’s start with something simple, because maybe this will come down to the definition of “mathematics”. My first question would be, do quantites of things exist? Is there such a thing as “one” of something if there is no intelligence to denote it as “one”? The Earth is a planet, and if we’ve agreed that the universe exists, then the Earth exists, and would still exist if no humans ever arose, right?
So do you believe that there would be “one” Earth, even if the English words “one” and “Earth” did not exist?
See, this is the part that I believe is just self-evident. If you agree that “things exist”, then “a thing” must also exist; how could it be otherwise? Without intelligence, would there be more than one Earth? No Earth? An indeterminate number of Earths?
So assuming (which, admittedly, is a big assumption at this point) that you agree that “a thing” exists, how can “two things” not exist? The Earth and Mars would exist without intelligence to observe them, and they are two planets, two things, a thing and a thing. What we call “math” and “addition” has an existence independent of us and what we call it.
This could be one of those “distinction without a difference” sort of things. If the Solar system were all that existed;no plants, no animals no nothing but balls of rock or gas or ice circling the sun I think the meaning of ‘separate’ objects has no meaning.
If we add, say, three dinosaurs then one of them might be able to discern that there are different things out there. However the dinosaur having the concept of counting to decide that there are exactly two of them and one of me making three in all is to me outlandish.
We might be using different ideas about what constitutes mathematics. To me the mathematics we are talking about (which excludes geometry branch) means operating on numbers to produce other numbers. Now the numbers might be pretty generalized things and the operations on them might be incredibly arcane but in the end the result is to produce a new number that is a member of the agreed upon set of all possible numbers.
I’d like to change this to read “… I think the statement ‘separate objects’ has no meaning.” (And I did preview. I seem to be a poor proofreader of what I write because I keep agreeing with myself.)
I recall your using another phrase as well, namely “The universe exists, absolutely, with or without intelligence to observe it”. No proof. No evidence. Not even a supporting argument. Inasmuch as existence is itself a noumenal concept — conceived by man, speaking of existence without an intelligence to perceive it is absurd, since it is the intelligence that defines existence.
You’re mistaken. Again. Mathematics is a deductive system, and as such is a branch of epistemology. Just like logic.
Your argument is reminiscent of a Maypole dance. Round and round you go. So dizzy have you become that you did not realize that my proof of one’s inability to prove one’s own existence was actually a statement of agreement, and not disagreement, with the point you made. You are screaming at funhouse mirrors.
Despite that you believe we have engaged in an argument, we have not. So far, all that has transpired is that you have made categorical and unsupported assertions about a variety of disjointed topics. An argument is an exchange of points and counterpoints between people who use reason and rhetoric to defend their own positions and assail those of their opponents. Nothing is happening here except that you are engaged in the rhetorical equivalent of drunk driving, and I am trying to talk you into pulling over.
You have said nothing to establish that the universe is real. The universe is nothing more than a probability distribution. Reality is a noumenal concept constructed by man.
I tried reading up on the distinction once but after 10 minutes I seemed to be going in circles around the Internet arriving right back to the original site, with no concrete conclusion in my mind.
Sorry, that’s just wrong. You keep telling me that, as if it’s an established fact, but it’s wrong. Existence is not a man-made concept, whatever Kant may say. The universe, the sun, the Earth, the rocks, would all be here if man had never arisen.
You keep telling me that I’m making assertions with no support or proof, and yet here you do the same. Show me some proof, some evidence – anything – that supports this bizarro idea of yours that “it is intelligence that defines existence.” And please, don’t quote Kant or some philosopher. Quoting what someone else asserts with no evidence is not evidence. Show me concrete, actual support for the assertion that “it is intelligence that defines existence.”
Yeah, ok, but you said that math was a branch of philosophy. Now you’re saying math uses logic. Talk about the maypole dance, you do much more of what you take me to task for than I. Stick to one subject; this paragraph was about math and philosophy, now you bring epistemology and logic into it. Make up your mind, guy.
I have said, repeatedly I believe, that I acknowledge that I could never “prove” that the universe is real, to your satisfaction, within your system. Nevertheless, here you are, asking me to prove that which I’ve already said I cannot. Do you assert that if something cannot be proven, to your satisfaction, then it follows that it is false?
I just don’t get this, it makes no sense to me. If objects exist, then they exist as “separate objects” (taking your corrected quoting). I just don’t see how you can accept that things exist, and yet not believe that they exist as separate objects.
Which brings me back (no offense intended) to what I said early on, that it looks to me like you’re not distinguishing between existence and an intellgent perception thereof. If two rocks exist, then they exist, period. If an intelligence observes them and “discerns that there are different things out there,” the rocks’ existence doesn’t change. If that intelligent observer goes away, the rocks’ existence doesn’t change.
Ok, and I said this might come down to the definition of “mathematics”. If you define it as “operating”, then I’d have to agree that it requires an intelligence in order to “operator”. But I define “mathematics”, at least in the broad sense, as the existing relationship and structure of numerical concepts. One thing added to another thing makes two things. It doesn’t require an intelligence to “operate” and perform the action of adding. One thing together with another thing just is two things (pardon my English).
Or, as someone more eloquent and intelligent than I put it (I finally looked up the passage in the Martin Gardner book):
To be real, something must exist objectively, regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. The universe itself is a convention of thought and language, and the only method of examining it — empiricism — is subjective.
No, Kant said that existence is a predicate. That’s a different issue.
I linked you to an entire essay. Read it.
If Bessie is a cow, and a cow is a bovine, then Bessie is a bovine.
I’m not asking you to prove anything. I’m just trying to tell you that you haven’t.
No, just proof that you don’t mean what you say. You keep implying that I’m stupid, saying that I’m not worth your time, and you don’t want to waste time on me.
