Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Objective reality
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 121 of 172 (560219)
05-13-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by cavediver
05-13-2010 6:56 PM


Re: On mathematics
cavediver writes:
I think we see clues to an intimate connection in my previously mentioned winding numbers - think of the Cauchy residue formula and the Gauss Bonnet formula.
My view is that those show the pragmatic virtue of forcing the integers (counting numbers) and the reals (measuring numbers, the continuum) to be a single unified system. They don't show that a connection exists, but they show that we benefit from forcing that connection.
The Greek geometers resisted connecting them due to the problems of dealing with the irrationality of sqrt(2). The pragmatic virtues of combining them was attractive to the physicists, but led to problems such as the Banach-Tarski paradox. It took a lot of inventive art to find ways of combining them that kept us from those potential paradoxes.
I should add that my own mathematics area (before I went to computer science) was analysis and point set topology. So it is an area that I find of endless interest. And it is certainly not anything I am criticizing. I am just saying that there is a substanial artistic component there, and it is not guaranteed that an intelligent alien civilization would come up with the same art.
cavediver writes:
But I'm drifting asleep, so this will have to be continued tomorrow.
There's no need to rush the discussion. Have a good sleep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2010 6:56 PM cavediver has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 122 of 172 (560221)
05-13-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by AnswersInGenitals
05-13-2010 7:25 PM


Re: Reality check.
AnswersInGenitals writes:
But what if space and time are actually discrete, which they almost certainly are.
I used to wonder about that. If we are in a discrete quantum world, then how can continuous mathematics, such as differential equations, be useful? Yet it is useful.
I eventually worked through that. Our basic system of weights and measures (mass, time, length, etc) is continuous. We represent reality in terms of measurements made in these continuous systems. We are actually applying our mathematics to the representation system (our system of weights and measures), rather than to reality itself. So the quantum nature of part (perhaps all) of reality does not prevent us from using continuous mathematics, as long as we use a representation system to which the continuous mathematics applies.
I'll add that there are also questions as to whether the quantum picture is itself completely correct. For example, do all electrons have the same charge? Or do they have different charges that fit on a bell curve, such that the standard deviation is small? I suspect that we cannot actually tell, because measurement itself is imperfect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-13-2010 7:25 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 123 of 172 (560257)
05-14-2010 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by nwr
05-13-2010 1:47 PM


Re: My Take;
quote:
Great. Now all we need is a definition of "as it is".
That definition was for those who talk in that fasion. They will understand it. Try the other definition i gave. It might better suit your language preference.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by nwr, posted 05-13-2010 1:47 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 124 of 172 (560280)
05-14-2010 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by AnswersInGenitals
05-13-2010 7:25 PM


Re: Reality check.
But what if space and time are actually discrete, which they almost certainly are.
Although widely promulgated through popular science, this isn't actually a widely held view of space-time* - at least not in recent years. There is nothing in quantum theory that suggests the discretisation of space-time itself, only restrictions on measurements. And this follows from the discrete nature of particles.
But it is the discrete nature of particles that does introduce the integers, through "number" functions, which count properties such as charge and quantity. It is important to distinguish between the classical macro-scale concept of counting of say apples (objects of sufficient similarity at the scale of interest as to belong to the set of objects to be counted) and the quantum concept of "counting" of say the photon number of an n-photon state, which is intimately connected with my previosuly mentioned topological winding. This is a huge, deep, and very interesting topic in its own right, and lies at the heart of my own turn towards a pseudo-Platonism. Perhaps for its own thread? But I am out of time for the moment.
* Regge-calculus was one approach to discretised space-time, and elements of it can still be seen in Loop Quantum Gravity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-13-2010 7:25 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 9:41 AM cavediver has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 125 of 172 (560292)
05-14-2010 7:09 AM


Cutting through things a little
The question was answered a while back by Rahvin:
quote:
Objective reality would be that which exists outside of our own minds, independant of our thoughts or feelings or knowledge or beliefs.
That's objective reality.
The rest of it has been about working out what exists outside of our own minds. The question of whether we are capable of discriminating 100% between subjective concepts and objective entities is an entirely different thing.
Is maths subjective? The parts of maths that exist in our heads...that's subjective. That's why there are maths arguments from time to time. The actual relationships between varying quanta? I suspect they are objectively real but the caveat above applies, of course.

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 126 of 172 (560329)
05-14-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Stile
05-13-2010 12:14 PM


Re: Supernatural Math
Straggler writes:
What is the largest number that we have an empirical basis for?
Stile writes:
"I don't know".
OK. So we don't know which numbers are "known to be part of objective reality". So some numbers are "known to be a part of objective reality" and some are not "known to be a part of objective reality". But we don't objectively know which are which (aside from a few "obvious" exceptions)
Do I really need to point out the problem with this?
Stile writes:
Can you think of a way he can test that 6 apples is within his "known to be a part of objective reality" while he only has 5 apples?
If you simply define empirical evidence as the only method of establishing what is "known to be part of objective reality" then it is hardly surprising that you don't consider 6 (in this dude in a box scenario) as being "known to be part of objective reality".
The question is whether or not that definition/premise is justified.
Stile writes:
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable may know.
I sense that I am starting to annoy you. That is fine. Annoyingness is one of my least objectionable qualities. But all I am trying to do is challenge what seems to be an over simplistic assumption on your part. You seem to be saying something along the lines of "Maths is just an idealised extrapolation of empirical experience - This is obvious"
I don't think this is necessarily true and I don't think it is as simple or obvious as it first might appear to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Stile, posted 05-13-2010 12:14 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Stile, posted 05-14-2010 12:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 127 of 172 (560339)
05-14-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Straggler
05-14-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Supernatural Math
Stile writes:
If you simply define empirical evidence as the only method of establishing what is "known to be part of objective reality" then it is hardly surprising that you don't consider 6 (in this dude in a box scenario) as being "known to be part of objective reality".
Yes, hardly surprising at all.
I already told you that the statement wasn't meant to be anything more than a simple totality. Why are you attempting to force it into meaning something more?
Of course, I'll say again that I'm not defining empirical observation to be the only method of establishing known reality. It's just the only successful one I'm aware of, you're free to propose an alternative.
I sense that I am starting to annoy you. That is fine.
I don't find this annoying. I'm starting to find it boring, though. It seems as though you're trying to force my simple, off-hand statement into some sort of larger claim. And I'm not clear at all on what direction you want to go in, or what it is you want to talk about.
You seem to be saying something along the lines of "Maths is just an idealised extrapolation of empirical experience" -
No. I'm saying some parts of mathematics are just idealized extrapolations of emirical experience.
Certainly not all. Certainly not purely theoretical maths/physics (as I've already stated). And maybe the line between the two isn't very clear.
- "This is obvious"
I always think my position is obvious

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2010 11:51 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2010 1:33 PM Stile has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 128 of 172 (560346)
05-14-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Stile
05-14-2010 12:44 PM


Numbers
I'm saying some parts of mathematics are just idealized extrapolations of empirical experience.
Indeed. And you have cited numbers as an example of that thinking. On this basis you have seperated numbers into those that are "known to be part of objective reality" and those that are not.
Yet when asked which numbers are "known to be part of objective reality" your answer is "I don't know". Can you really not see the contradiction inherent in this position?
Am I to consider the number 1 more objectively real than the number 10^9999999999999999999999999999999999999999?
Your answer seems to be "maybe". I think that the distinction is mildly ridiculous.
I already told you that the statement wasn't meant to be anything more than a simple totality.
I don't know what that means?
It seems as though you're trying to force my simple, off-hand statement into some sort of larger claim.
You mean the emboldened statement and challenge to refute that statement made on a debate board frequented by some of the most argumentative people either of us are ever likely to encounter?
Stile writes:
quote:
I still stand by the statement of:
All things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality are testable and verifiable through the scientific method.
So far, no one has provided any example that goes against this statement. "Mathematics" has been attempted... but it seems that certain aspects rest on subjective rules while other aspects actually can be verified through scientific tests (like obtaining the value of pi from observations of circles).
That "off hand" statement?
Stile writes:
Why are you attempting to force it into meaning something more?
Oh because I will argue that blue is pink is someone else will disagree with me. Nothing personal. AND it did seem a bit more than "off-hand" to be honest.
Stile writes:
And I'm not clear at all on what direction you want to go in, or what it is you want to talk about.
Stile writes:
Certainly not all. Certainly not purely theoretical maths/physics (as I've already stated). And maybe the line between the two isn't very clear.
How do you feel about the position that empirical reality is effectively the product of underlying objective mathematical truths?
Stile writes:
I always think my position is obvious
And I always think everybody elses position is obviously wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Stile, posted 05-14-2010 12:44 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Stile, posted 05-14-2010 2:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 129 of 172 (560350)
05-14-2010 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Straggler
05-14-2010 1:33 PM


Re: Numbers
Straggler writes:
On this basis you have seperated numbers into those that are "known to be part of objective reality" and those that are not.
Yes.
Like the man-in-a-box with 5 apples.
1,2,3,4,5 are "known to be a part of objective reality".
6,7,8,9,.... are "objective" (based off similar rules that are 'known to be a part of objective reality', but not actually verified to be a part of reality... so not 'known')
Yet when asked which numbers are "known to be part of objective reality" your answer is "I don't know". Can you really not see the contradiction inherent in this position?
I don't really see the issue. Why would it matter?
All numbers are objective in the sense that they are formed through formal logic based on exact, specific rules.
Some can be verified to exist in reality, some can not. Why is this a problem?
Am I to consider the number 1 more objectively real than the number 10^9999999999999999999999999999999999999999?
"Considering" something is a subjective process. I don't really care what you would like to consider, or not consider.
It seems, to me, that the number 1 has been verified to exist within our reality a lot more than that larger number has, though. But what does it matter?
Straggler writes:
Stile writes:
I already told you that the statement wasn't meant to be anything more than a simple totality.
I don't know what that means?
A totality is a simple statement of circular logic where one thing is contained entirely (totaly) within the other.
Example: Cirlces are round.
That "off hand" statement?
Yes, but what you quoted isn't where it all started. It all started back on that other thread, I think I was replying to kbertsche and nwr replied to me about it.
How do you feel about the position that empirical reality is effectively the product of underlying objective mathematical truths?
You mean as in "the rules" as cavediver mentioned a bunch of messages ago? Doesn't seem to make a difference to me. Whether or not things "actually exist as stuff" or "actually exist only as objecteive mathematical truths (rules)" is an interesting curiosity. But it has no bearing on results. Like I said in my reply to cavediver... my hand does not go through a wall, it doesn't matter if "stuff" blocks it or if "rules" block it... whatever blocks it always blocks it (given a general environment, anyway). It's not like if we suddenly verify that it really is "just rules" that walls will stop blocking things or anything in our environment would actually change. Only our understanding would change. Which may allow us to investigate further or break into some currently-unknown levels of technological advancement... but it doesn't change those things that we already have solidly verified.
I'm still getting the feeling that you're discussing something I'm not discussing. I think that whatever that is... is causing a lot of confusion between our posts. I'm not sure how to identify it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2010 1:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 05-14-2010 4:59 PM Stile has replied
 Message 133 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2010 10:01 PM Stile has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 130 of 172 (560361)
05-14-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Stile
05-14-2010 2:10 PM


Re: Numbers
Like the man-in-a-box with 5 apples.
1,2,3,4,5 are "known to be a part of objective reality".
6,7,8,9,.... are "objective" (based off similar rules that are 'known to be a part of objective reality', but not actually verified to be a part of reality... so not 'known')
Perhaps another way of saying the same thing would be that 6,7,8,9.... are anticipated to be part of objective reality based on extrapolation of the rules that have been deduced from observation?
In other words, you observe that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all values that seem to exist in reality. You extrapolate the pattern of counting as incrementing integers, and predict that additional integers of greater value than 1-5 should exist. The observation of a sixth apple would then affirm the anticipated experience, increasing the probability that the rule you've worked out (there are an infinite number of integers incrementing in values of 1) is an accurate representation of objective reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Stile, posted 05-14-2010 2:10 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2010 9:25 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 159 by Stile, posted 06-08-2010 1:07 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 131 of 172 (560390)
05-14-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rahvin
05-14-2010 4:59 PM


Re: Numbers
So what is the largest number that can be said to exist in our universe? The number of quarks in the universe?
Is this number honestly more real than the number of quarks in the universe + 1?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 05-14-2010 4:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 132 of 172 (560393)
05-14-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nwr
05-13-2010 1:33 PM


"Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
But it would seem real to those in the matrix, so it would fit what those inside the matrix mean by "real".
Then why did Neo take the red pill?
Anyway - Are you now in any more of a position to tell us what you mean by "objectivity is just shared subjectivity"? Or not?
If maths is your example of "shared subjectivity" can you tell us which is the subjective component and how this is shared? Is gravity as curved space-time an objectively evidenced conclusion? If so which is the subjective component of this evidence and how is it shared? Is evolutionary theory objectively evidenced? If so what is the subjective component of this evidence and how is it shared?
Bearing in mind that you have clearly stated that by "shared subjectivity" you don't mean:
1) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" in the sense of my Allah example
2) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" in the sense of popular agreement as per Rahvin's understanding.
3) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" to be the necessarily subjective perception of objective reality.
4) You don't mean Berkeley's idealism.
Just tell us what you do mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nwr, posted 05-13-2010 1:33 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 05-15-2010 8:57 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 133 of 172 (560395)
05-14-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Stile
05-14-2010 2:10 PM


Platos Cave
Straggler writes:
Yet when asked which numbers are "known to be part of objective reality" your answer is "I don't know". Can you really not see the contradiction inherent in this position?
I don't really see the issue.
Erm how can it make sense to not know which numbers are "known to be part of objective reality"? Just read that sentance and think about it.
Stile writes:
"Considering" something is a subjective process. I don't really care what you would like to consider, or not consider.
It seems, to me, that the number 1 has been verified to exist within our reality a lot more than that larger number has, though. But what does it matter?
Well this is exactly your problem. Exactly as you have correctly identified that which you are calling "known to be objective" is actually a subjective conclusion. Hence the innate contradiction in your thinking.
Stile writes:
Some can be verified to exist in reality, some can not. Why is this a problem?
So what is the largest number that can be said to exist in our universe? The number of quarks in the universe? Is this number honestly more real than the number of quarks in the universe + 1?
Stile writes:
It all started back on that other thread, I think I was replying to kbertsche and nwr replied to me about it.
Ah you are referring to the "objectivity is just shared subjectivity" debacle. Well if you can explain what the frig Nwr means then please do.
Straggler writes:
How do you feel about the position that empirical reality is effectively the product of underlying objective mathematical truths?
You mean as in "the rules" as cavediver mentioned a bunch of messages ago? Doesn't seem to make a difference to me. Whether or not things "actually exist as stuff" or "actually exist only as objecteive mathematical truths (rules)" is an interesting curiosity. But it has no bearing on results.
Results no. But it does make a profound difference to the way we should think about the things we have been discussing. For example it means that pi is the "truth" and that empirical measurements of pi are like examining Platos cave shadows rather than examining the underlying objective reality of which the shadows are mere manifestations. It also means that all numbers exist equally and are as real as each other regardless of how many apples or quarks or whatever anyone can count.
It suggests that we should look at the things we have been discussing in almost exactly the opposite way to the way you have been advocating. It does not affect results as such. But it has enormous implications for our methods of investigation.
Stile writes:
I'm still getting the feeling that you're discussing something I'm not discussing. I think that whatever that is... is causing a lot of confusion between our posts. I'm not sure how to identify it.
You are talking in terms of "results" and I am trying to talk about the philosophy underlying those results. You are treating maths as idealised extrapolation of empirical results. I am attempting to get you to consider the opposite view that the empirical results are in fact nothing more than the shadows on the cave wall and that the maths is in fact the objective reality that underlies it all. You are saying examine empirical reality and the maths will follow. I am proposing (for the sake of argument at least) that we examine mathematical reality and that an understanding of empirical reality will follow from that.
Does that make sense? Do you see the difference that I am trying to get at here?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Stile, posted 05-14-2010 2:10 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Stile, posted 06-08-2010 1:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 134 of 172 (560537)
05-15-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Straggler
05-14-2010 9:40 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
Straggler writes:
Then why did Neo take the red pill?
I didn't actually watch the movie, so you've got me on that one.
Straggler writes:
Just tell us what you do mean.
In addition to my posts in the earlier thread (Creation, Evolution, and faith), I made some relevant comments in Message 92 of the current thread.
If those do not satisfy you, then I guess you will have to remain dissatisfied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2010 9:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 6:01 AM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 135 of 172 (560573)
05-16-2010 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by nwr
05-15-2010 8:57 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
Nwr writes:
In addition to my posts in the earlier thread (Creation, Evolution, and faith), I made some relevant comments in Message 92 of the current thread.
I see that you have done your usual thing. Throw in the name of a famous and influential philosopher in a sort of vague and ambiguous way and hope that everyone is impressed enough by your loose philosophical reference to conclude that you must know what you are talking about. I remain both unimpressed and unconvinced. It remains obvious that you have no idea what you do mean by the term "shared subjectivity".
Nwr writes:
I think it clear enough from the discussion that "objective" is not easy to define.
Nobody said it was. It was you that said "Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway".
So what did you mean by that? Pick something you consider to be objective, describe the subjective component of that and tell us how it is shared. That is all you have to do to explain what you mean. One example. I am not disagreeing with you (how can I if I don't have a friggin clue what you mean?) I am simply asking you to explain what you said.
Nwr writes:
I'll add some general comments.
Rather than just be an arse about this I am going to attempt to be constructive by helping you work out more specifically what you do mean. Consider the following questions:
1) Do you think there is a material world that exists regardless (i.e. even in the absence of) intelligent conscious lifeforms able to subjectively experience it? If humanity (and any other lifeforms in the universe) were wiped out would the universe continue to expand, planets continue to orbit etc. etc. etc.? Is there an objective material reality that exists independently of and seperate to subjective experience in your view?
2) As conscious beings with limited perceptory apparatus do you consider it impossible for us to experience any objective material reality that may exist anything but subjectively?
3) We both agree that dreams are wholly subjective experiences - Yes? Can we share dreams in the sense of both experiencing the same dream? Can we objectify dreams? No? Why not? What is the difference between a dream and the material objective reality which we seem able to co-exist in, scientifically invenstigate and "share" in such a way as to consider aspects of it to have been objectified? What is the difference between wholly subjective experience (like dreams) and aspects of reality that are considered to exist in some snes ethat we are able to "share"?
You can guess my answers to the above. I am not asking you to agree. I am asking you to try and work out what the hell you actually mean by "shared subjectivity". Once that is achieved then we can either agree or disagree.
Nwr writes:
If those do not satisfy you, then I guess you will have to remain dissatisfied.
You can of course stop responding anytime you so choose. But if you think I won't continue to pursue this until you either stop evading the issue or just stop responding then you obviously don't know me very well.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 05-15-2010 8:57 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by nwr, posted 05-16-2010 9:48 AM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024