Essence and Existence

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Essence and Existence

#16

Post by neo-x » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am

Sure!
2+2 Qm particles are would mean that 4 particles are 8 at the same time.

Also, if it is a scientific fact, then it is by definition not universal and may be false and open to the possibility of it being false. Can you give me an example of the consequences of any instance where scientificlly 2+2 is not 4, would entail?
How it will affect your worldview?

I would insist that 2+2=4 is a logical argument, not a scientific one. Any more than the 180 degree trainagle that exists in the abstract, it is not real. And therefore isn't a scietific fact, per se.

My main point is that to say it universal is clearly not settled.
Secondly, that it is man made.
Last edited by neo-x on Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Essence and Existence

#17

Post by neo-x » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:35 am

Paul, just to get a clear picture, you are a platonist?
I assume you are based on your line of questioning but I want to make sure.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5949
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 95 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Essence and Existence

#18

Post by Byblos » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:29 am

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
Any quantum particle exists in [atleast]two states at any given time, Virtualy two realities.
And once again I ask you to state your source please. Because your answer above shows a deep lack of understanding of not only what quantum entanglement is but also of QM in general. Not that I am claiming to be an expert in any way but I've read enough literture to know they certainly do not claim that a quantum particle is in two different states at the same time. At most they say the probability they can be in one state or another is 50/50 but we just don't know which until actual observation. But that's a far cry from claiming a certainty of two different states at the same time.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
Imagine you being in the West and me in Pakistan and we both have a ball in our hand. It is the same ball. So you start bouncing it on the wall and I just put it on the table. So is the ball at rest or is it boucning?
If anything, we can claim it is neither, until such time that the wave collapses at observation then the state is determined. But once again, you most certainly cannot claim that it is in both states at the same time. NO QM theory I know of makes such claim.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
What I meant by 1=2 is precisely that the common assumption that somehow 2+2=4 is a universal truth is simply not true. It is perhaps true in many cases but it will always have that odd exception somewhere. And that IT is not the same. At the QM 2+2 is not four always. 1 may be the same as two. It is the uncertainty in there that makes your earlier statement superflous.
So from uncertainty you somehow surmise that math breaks down? I ask you for the last time to cite ANY source that supports your unfounded claim that math breaks down at the QM level. There is no basis whatsoever for that claim.

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
In my view I see many issues with adopting a worldview where math is not a universal truth but rather a human construct and at the same time claiming to be a theist.
I have never seen that. In fact I find this absurd but we can talk about it.
Mathematics, logic, possible worlds, propositions, and abstract objects. Look them up then if you wish to discuss, create a new thread.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
But here's a small challenge to your challenge, if math is a human construct to aid us in explaining certain patterns we observe around us, then how is it possible that we can use this same supposed man-made construct to predict patterns in reality we have yet to observe?
If you could cite an example of such "yet to observe" reality, it will be easier to discuss as it is such a big topic. However, I do think there can be made a good case for it being completely manmade e.g. triangles don't exist in reality, do they?
It is an abstract construct which is very helpful to solve things.
Do you know what is entailed by the act of abstracting?

In the meantime, here are but two exmaples:

- The Higgs boson was predicted mathematically 50 years prior to its discovery
- Maxwell's equations that were proven true experimentally by Hertz and have had enormous scientific impacts

The remarcable applicability of mathematics to the world around us is nothing short of a miracle. So much so that the famous physisist Eugene Vigner wrote a paper titled "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Scienses".

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Sure!
2+2 Qm particles are would mean that 4 particles are 8 at the same time.

Also, if it is a scientific fact, then it is by definition not universal and may be false and open to the possibility of it being false. Can you give me an example of the consequences of any instance where scientificlly 2+2 is not 4, would entail?
How it will affect your worldview?

I would insist that 2+2=4 is a logical argument, not a scientific one.
Of course it's a logical argument, which is preciesly why it is a univerasl truth, just as logic is. And it is the reason math and logic are not only independent of the human mind, but also of science and the laws of physics in our world or any other world, potential or otherwise.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Any more than the 180 degree trainagle that exists in the abstract, it is not real. And therefore isn't a scietific fact, per se.
So now you subscribe to the notion that if it's not scientific it isn;t real? Really?
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
My main point is that to say it universal is clearly not settled.
Secondly, that it is man made.
Your main point is well taken but irrelevant. Your second point betrays the first, first; and second, it is wrong.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:35 am
Paul, just to get a clear picture, you are a platonist?
I assume you are based on your line of questioning but I want to make sure.
I sure hope not. :esurprised:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9054
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 341 times

Re: Essence and Existence

#19

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:18 am

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Sure!
2+2 Qm particles are would mean that 4 particles are 8 at the same time.

Also, if it is a scientific fact, then it is by definition not universal and may be false and open to the possibility of it being false. Can you give me an example of the consequences of any instance where scientificlly 2+2 is not 4, would entail?
How it will affect your worldview?

I would insist that 2+2=4 is a logical argument, not a scientific one. Any more than the 180 degree trainagle that exists in the abstract, it is not real. And therefore isn't a scietific fact, per se.

My main point is that to say it universal is clearly not settled.
Secondly, that it is man made.
OBSERVABLE fact, not an hypothesis.
And 4 particles and 8 being the same would change the fact the 2+2=4, it would simply say that they can also = 8.

To refresh ourselves in the scientific method, it must be:
Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

Follwoing the above, show me a case of 2+2 NOT equaling 4

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9054
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 341 times

Re: Essence and Existence

#20

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:20 am

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:35 am
Paul, just to get a clear picture, you are a platonist?
I assume you are based on your line of questioning but I want to make sure.
Aristotelian more than a Platonist.
These users liked this post by PaulSacramento:
neo-x (Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:01 pm)

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Essence and Existence

#21

Post by neo-x » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:01 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:18 am
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Sure!
2+2 Qm particles are would mean that 4 particles are 8 at the same time.

Also, if it is a scientific fact, then it is by definition not universal and may be false and open to the possibility of it being false. Can you give me an example of the consequences of any instance where scientificlly 2+2 is not 4, would entail?
How it will affect your worldview?

I would insist that 2+2=4 is a logical argument, not a scientific one. Any more than the 180 degree trainagle that exists in the abstract, it is not real. And therefore isn't a scietific fact, per se.

My main point is that to say it universal is clearly not settled.
Secondly, that it is man made.
OBSERVABLE fact, not an hypothesis.
And 4 particles and 8 being the same would change the fact the 2+2=4, it would simply say that they can also = 8.

To refresh ourselves in the scientific method, it must be:
Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

Follwoing the above, show me a case of 2+2 NOT equaling 4
And if you read my post you know I don't consider this a scientific fact therefore it is redundant to prove it as such.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Essence and Existence

#22

Post by neo-x » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm

Byblos wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:29 am
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
Any quantum particle exists in [atleast]two states at any given time, Virtualy two realities.
And once again I ask you to state your source please. Because your answer above shows a deep lack of understanding of not only what quantum entanglement is but also of QM in general. Not that I am claiming to be an expert in any way but I've read enough literture to know they certainly do not claim that a quantum particle is in two different states at the same time. At most they say the probability they can be in one state or another is 50/50 but we just don't know which until actual observation. But that's a far cry from claiming a certainty of two different states at the same time.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
Imagine you being in the West and me in Pakistan and we both have a ball in our hand. It is the same ball. So you start bouncing it on the wall and I just put it on the table. So is the ball at rest or is it boucning?
If anything, we can claim it is neither, until such time that the wave collapses at observation then the state is determined. But once again, you most certainly cannot claim that it is in both states at the same time. NO QM theory I know of makes such claim.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
What I meant by 1=2 is precisely that the common assumption that somehow 2+2=4 is a universal truth is simply not true. It is perhaps true in many cases but it will always have that odd exception somewhere. And that IT is not the same. At the QM 2+2 is not four always. 1 may be the same as two. It is the uncertainty in there that makes your earlier statement superflous.
So from uncertainty you somehow surmise that math breaks down? I ask you for the last time to cite ANY source that supports your unfounded claim that math breaks down at the QM level. There is no basis whatsoever for that claim.

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
In my view I see many issues with adopting a worldview where math is not a universal truth but rather a human construct and at the same time claiming to be a theist.
I have never seen that. In fact I find this absurd but we can talk about it.
Mathematics, logic, possible worlds, propositions, and abstract objects. Look them up then if you wish to discuss, create a new thread.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:01 am
But here's a small challenge to your challenge, if math is a human construct to aid us in explaining certain patterns we observe around us, then how is it possible that we can use this same supposed man-made construct to predict patterns in reality we have yet to observe?
If you could cite an example of such "yet to observe" reality, it will be easier to discuss as it is such a big topic. However, I do think there can be made a good case for it being completely manmade e.g. triangles don't exist in reality, do they?
It is an abstract construct which is very helpful to solve things.
Do you know what is entailed by the act of abstracting?

In the meantime, here are but two exmaples:

- The Higgs boson was predicted mathematically 50 years prior to its discovery
- Maxwell's equations that were proven true experimentally by Hertz and have had enormous scientific impacts

The remarcable applicability of mathematics to the world around us is nothing short of a miracle. So much so that the famous physisist Eugene Vigner wrote a paper titled "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Scienses".

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Sure!
2+2 Qm particles are would mean that 4 particles are 8 at the same time.

Also, if it is a scientific fact, then it is by definition not universal and may be false and open to the possibility of it being false. Can you give me an example of the consequences of any instance where scientificlly 2+2 is not 4, would entail?
How it will affect your worldview?

I would insist that 2+2=4 is a logical argument, not a scientific one.
Of course it's a logical argument, which is preciesly why it is a univerasl truth, just as logic is. And it is the reason math and logic are not only independent of the human mind, but also of science and the laws of physics in our world or any other world, potential or otherwise.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Any more than the 180 degree trainagle that exists in the abstract, it is not real. And therefore isn't a scietific fact, per se.
So now you subscribe to the notion that if it's not scientific it isn;t real? Really?
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
My main point is that to say it universal is clearly not settled.
Secondly, that it is man made.
Your main point is well taken but irrelevant. Your second point betrays the first, first; and second, it is wrong.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:35 am
Paul, just to get a clear picture, you are a platonist?
I assume you are based on your line of questioning but I want to make sure.
I sure hope not. :esurprised:
I didn’t say math breaks at the qm. I said Its different that Normal rules and equations such as 2+2= 4 don't necessarily hold true.

It is in fact true that the particle exists in two states simultaneously. That is why the uncertainty exists at all, until observed and one of the two states is realized by the observer.

That is what I think. However I am very interested to know about how you think its exists outside of the mind? How so, where does it exist?
And again, where do triangles exist? We know that they don’t exist in reality, not a real thing.

I do not ask this for a is argument or challenge you to prove anything. Even though you may, I am interested in your reasons and how you arrived at this conclusion.

Thanks.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Essence and Existence

#23

Post by neo-x » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm

Byb,
Just to clarify. I think that historically a lot of other types of mathematics was never developed (consider axioms which were never realised). And the reason why I don't agree with the platonic idea of maths is simply that a lot of maths is developed by humans. Take calculus for example. Newton invented it because the maths of his day couldn't describe the motion of the objects.

I have always thought, even as a child, that math was something that helped solve a lot of problems, that like a language it helps to understand what's going on around us in a way which is better than words.

And that is why I have never found theism and math being eternal, relevant. And I don't agree with the correlation either, unlike you, as I surmised from your statement earlier that they are quite dependant on each other.

Plus, I am not really a fan of platonic usage of maths which was more of gibberish than something useful.

To say that numbers exist outside of space or time to me is ridiculous. I understand why people say it, for instance, like you emphasised on the brilliance of maths, of it being accurate, just tells me that it is that, accurate or successful in solving a problem, that doesn't mean it must also exist outside of time and space. And that is why I think that people see it solving something and they say "it's a miracle", to borrow your terminology.

And the QM argument we were having. I'd go back and check if I am wrong on it. Though going on memory here, I may have been referring to quantum superposition where, if I am not wrong, unobserved, a particle can exist in two separate locations at the same time.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9054
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 341 times

Re: Essence and Existence

#24

Post by PaulSacramento » Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:41 am

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:01 pm
PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:18 am
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Sure!
2+2 Qm particles are would mean that 4 particles are 8 at the same time.

Also, if it is a scientific fact, then it is by definition not universal and may be false and open to the possibility of it being false. Can you give me an example of the consequences of any instance where scientificlly 2+2 is not 4, would entail?
How it will affect your worldview?

I would insist that 2+2=4 is a logical argument, not a scientific one. Any more than the 180 degree trainagle that exists in the abstract, it is not real. And therefore isn't a scietific fact, per se.

My main point is that to say it universal is clearly not settled.
Secondly, that it is man made.
OBSERVABLE fact, not an hypothesis.
And 4 particles and 8 being the same would change the fact the 2+2=4, it would simply say that they can also = 8.

To refresh ourselves in the scientific method, it must be:
Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

Follwoing the above, show me a case of 2+2 NOT equaling 4
And if you read my post you know I don't consider this a scientific fact therefore it is redundant to prove it as such.
And yet it is:
Observable
Repeatable
Testable
Falsifiable

As much if not more so than many other scientific facts.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Essence and Existence

#25

Post by neo-x » Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:59 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:41 am
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:01 pm
PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:18 am
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Sure!
2+2 Qm particles are would mean that 4 particles are 8 at the same time.

Also, if it is a scientific fact, then it is by definition not universal and may be false and open to the possibility of it being false. Can you give me an example of the consequences of any instance where scientificlly 2+2 is not 4, would entail?
How it will affect your worldview?

I would insist that 2+2=4 is a logical argument, not a scientific one. Any more than the 180 degree trainagle that exists in the abstract, it is not real. And therefore isn't a scietific fact, per se.

My main point is that to say it universal is clearly not settled.
Secondly, that it is man made.
OBSERVABLE fact, not an hypothesis.
And 4 particles and 8 being the same would change the fact the 2+2=4, it would simply say that they can also = 8.

To refresh ourselves in the scientific method, it must be:
Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

Follwoing the above, show me a case of 2+2 NOT equaling 4
And if you read my post you know I don't consider this a scientific fact therefore it is redundant to prove it as such.
And yet it is:
Observable
Repeatable
Testable
Falsifiable

As much if not more so than many other scientific facts.
Okay, how do you think it is Falsifiable?
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5949
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 95 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Essence and Existence

#26

Post by Byblos » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:59 am

I sort of split the last 2 posts to make my response more coherent to the related subjects, I hope you don't mind.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm
I didn’t say math breaks at the qm. I said Its different that Normal rules and equations such as 2+2= 4 don't necessarily hold true.
To state that 2 + 2 does not yield 4 is to state that math broke down. There are no exceptions in math. Math by its very nature is propositional, either true or false (remember that as we discuss logic, propositions, possible worlds, and abstract objects and whether or not they exist and where).
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm
It is in fact true that the particle exists in two states simultaneously. That is why the uncertainty exists at all, until observed and one of the two states is realized by the observer.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
And the QM argument we were having. I'd go back and check if I am wrong on it. Though going on memory here, I may have been referring to quantum superposition where, if I am not wrong, unobserved, a particle can exist in two separate locations at the same time.
You are simply factually wrong. At first I thought you were referring to quantum entanglement which has to do with distinct particles at a distance (given your example of you in the East and me in the West) but you clarified in a later post (partially quoted above) that you were referring to quantum superposition, which is obviously different than entanglement but still a fundamental principle of QM. In any case, neither shows that the same particle is in 2 different states at the same time and in the same respect. Let's talk about superposition a bit.

QU (quantum superposition, to distinguish it from QS: quantum state) states than any two states can be combined (summed) to become another valid quantum state. Conversely, any QS can split to become 2 distinct and valid quantum states. This means that the properties of such states allow for them to combine and split (familiar?). Obviously this no more means that 1+1=1 (when combining) or 1=2 (when splitting) than when in biology a cell divides and becomes 2 cells means 1=2 or when 2 parents have a child means that 1+1=1.

Math is logic. When math is true it is also logical and when false it is also illogical. 2+2=5 is analogous to stating a married bachelor or a square circle. It is false, a contradiction, illogical. One of the most fundamental a priori assumptions in science is that the world is intelligible, coherent, follows a certain order. Otherwise we could not conduct experiments and hope to get the same results given the same conditions, or different results given different conditions. When math breaks down, logic breaks down, and with it not only does science break down but rationality itself.

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm
That is what I think. However I am very interested to know about how you think its exists outside of the mind? How so, where does it exist?
And again, where do triangles exist? We know that they don’t exist in reality, not a real thing.

I do not ask this for a is argument or challenge you to prove anything. Even though you may, I am interested in your reasons and how you arrived at this conclusion.

Thanks.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
Byb,
Just to clarify. I think that historically a lot of other types of mathematics was never developed (consider axioms which were never realized). And the reason why I don't agree with the platonic idea of math is simply that a lot of maths is developed by humans. Take calculus for example. Newton invented it because the maths of his day couldn't describe the motion of the objects.
I will address the platonic thing later. There are some (many, the majority in fact) mathematical theories that do not lead to correlations with nature; thats a fact, but what are the reasons? Well, they are as follows:

A. The math is faulty, in which case if corrected, we are left with B and C only
B. The math is correct but does not correlate with our nature (perhaps with some other instantiated nature we don't know about or some other uninstantiated nature)
C. The math is correct and does correlate to our nature (whether or not this correlation is discoverable is a different matter)

What does this mean? If math is truly universal in every sense of the word, we would expect to see all 3 possibilities A, B, and C. Not only that, in the case of C, we would expect to see cases where math is not descriptive but more importantly prescriptive, such as in the examples I gave you of the Higgs boson and Maxwell's equations which I note you simply glossed over. And in fact that is precisely what we find. Time and again we see mathematical theories describe a theoretical characteristic of nature to later discover it in nature exactly how it was theorized. And again, it doesn't diminish the argument one bit to state many mathematical theories don't pan out. That there is even one example where it does is remarkable. That there are many is not a happy coincidence.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
I have always thought, even as a child, that math was something that helped solve a lot of problems, that like a language it helps to understand what's going on around us in a way which is better than words.

And that is why I have never found theism and math being eternal, relevant. And I don't agree with the correlation either, unlike you, as I surmised from your statement earlier that they are quite dependent on each other.

To say that numbers exist outside of space or time to me is ridiculous. I understand why people say it, for instance, like you emphasized on the brilliance of maths, of it being accurate, just tells me that it is that, accurate or successful in solving a problem, that doesn't mean it must also exist outside of time and space. And that is why I think that people see it solving something and they say "it's a miracle", to borrow your terminology.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
Plus, I am not really a fan of platonic usage of maths which was more of gibberish than something useful.

First, let me state emphatically that I am NOT a platonist. But there is a third alternative to platonism on one hand and nominalism (materialism) on the other. When I mentioned realism I was referring to scholastic realism, not platonic. But in order to know what the difference is we'd have to go back and discuss universals such as abstract objects (and math and logic and possible worlds and propositions). By the way, this will eventually tie in with the intended subject matter, i.e. essence and existence but we'll let that be for now.

Let's take one of them, abstract ideas, and a good example is one you already mentioned, i.e. triangularity (with respect to Euclidean geometry). That there are triangles is trivial but what does the concept triangularity mean? Is it in our minds as we observe triangles and generalize (abstract away)? In other words, does the concept triangularity exist outside our minds and if so, where?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are 3 schools of thought for the existence of universals:

- Nominalism that denies universals exist at all (associated with materialism)
- Conceptualism that affirms the existence of universals but only in the human mind
- Realism that affirms the existence of universals independent of the human mind

On realism, there are three tracks:

- Platonic realism that affirms the existence of universals in some distinct third realm
- Aristotelian realism that affirms the existence of universals but only in the objects they were instantiated from
- Scholastic realism that affirms the existence of universals in the mind and independence of the human mind (ergo, in the divine mind)

Obviously discussing any of the above topics in greater detail requires tons of research and a mountain of books. Suffice it to say that all fail with the exception of scholastic realism. Let me give you a brief failure reason for each:

- On nominalism, the mere fact we are even talking about universals proves that abstract objects exist and so nominalism is false
- On conceptualism, that we can refer to triangularity as a 3-sided figure whose interior angles sum up to the angles of two right angles, without referring to a specific triangle, and that this triangularity concept exists even if the human mind was never here or is wiped out tomorrow and replaced by a new intelligent life billions of years from now. Triangularity would remain true then as it is today.
- On platonic realism, that we need to explain the so-called third realm's existence alone sufices to see how platonism fails
- On Aristotelian realism, the same argument as in conceptualism applies here is well
= And finally, on scholastic realism, universals are affirmed to exist in the mind and are independent of the human mind (or any other contingent mind). They do not exist in some third, inexplicable realm but they do exist in the divine mind (same as math, logic, all possible worlds, all propositions, and abstract objects).

Obviously we can go a lot further with this but my aim to tie all of this to the original topic of essence and existence (and my discussion with Nils, whom I am still hoping he'll answer my reply to his last post).

What I would suggest to you Neo is for you to reconsider your stance on all of this because it has many ramifications you may not be aware of. To that end, I would highly recommend a book by Edward Feser called "Five Proofs of the Existence of God". You can download it as an ebook. Do yourself a favor and get it. You can thank me later (or perhaps not, we'll see).
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9054
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 120 times
Been liked: 341 times

Re: Essence and Existence

#27

Post by PaulSacramento » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:17 am

neo-x wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:59 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:41 am
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:01 pm
PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:18 am
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:14 am
Sure!
2+2 Qm particles are would mean that 4 particles are 8 at the same time.

Also, if it is a scientific fact, then it is by definition not universal and may be false and open to the possibility of it being false. Can you give me an example of the consequences of any instance where scientificlly 2+2 is not 4, would entail?
How it will affect your worldview?

I would insist that 2+2=4 is a logical argument, not a scientific one. Any more than the 180 degree trainagle that exists in the abstract, it is not real. And therefore isn't a scietific fact, per se.

My main point is that to say it universal is clearly not settled.
Secondly, that it is man made.
OBSERVABLE fact, not an hypothesis.
And 4 particles and 8 being the same would change the fact the 2+2=4, it would simply say that they can also = 8.

To refresh ourselves in the scientific method, it must be:
Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

Follwoing the above, show me a case of 2+2 NOT equaling 4
And if you read my post you know I don't consider this a scientific fact therefore it is redundant to prove it as such.
And yet it is:
Observable
Repeatable
Testable
Falsifiable

As much if not more so than many other scientific facts.
Okay, how do you think it is Falsifiable?
Well:
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

So, in theory and according to QM, it can be.
So you kind of proved my case for me...

Without math, you don't actually have any science at all when you think about it.
Mathematical laws are the foundation of science.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5949
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 95 times
Been liked: 139 times

Re: Essence and Existence

#28

Post by Byblos » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:55 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:17 am
Without math, you don't actually have any science at all when you think about it.
Mathematical laws are the foundation of science.
This is for everyone, especially Neo. The below link is to the first of 7 short youtube videos (7 to 9 mins each) on the subject of Vigner's "unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Natural Sciences". Although the meat starts in part 3 (especially 4 and 5), it is well worth the time spent to watch them in order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK_narib4do
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Essence and Existence

#29

Post by neo-x » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:03 pm

Byblos wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:59 am
I sort of split the last 2 posts to make my response more coherent to the related subjects, I hope you don't mind.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm
I didn’t say math breaks at the qm. I said Its different that Normal rules and equations such as 2+2= 4 don't necessarily hold true.
To state that 2 + 2 does not yield 4 is to state that math broke down. There are no exceptions in math. Math by its very nature is propositional, either true or false (remember that as we discuss logic, propositions, possible worlds, and abstract objects and whether or not they exist and where).
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm
It is in fact true that the particle exists in two states simultaneously. That is why the uncertainty exists at all, until observed and one of the two states is realized by the observer.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
And the QM argument we were having. I'd go back and check if I am wrong on it. Though going on memory here, I may have been referring to quantum superposition where, if I am not wrong, unobserved, a particle can exist in two separate locations at the same time.
You are simply factually wrong. At first I thought you were referring to quantum entanglement which has to do with distinct particles at a distance (given your example of you in the East and me in the West) but you clarified in a later post (partially quoted above) that you were referring to quantum superposition, which is obviously different than entanglement but still a fundamental principle of QM. In any case, neither shows that the same particle is in 2 different states at the same time and in the same respect. Let's talk about superposition a bit.

QU (quantum superposition, to distinguish it from QS: quantum state) states than any two states can be combined (summed) to become another valid quantum state. Conversely, any QS can split to become 2 distinct and valid quantum states. This means that the properties of such states allow for them to combine and split (familiar?). Obviously this no more means that 1+1=1 (when combining) or 1=2 (when splitting) than when in biology a cell divides and becomes 2 cells means 1=2 or when 2 parents have a child means that 1+1=1.

Math is logic. When math is true it is also logical and when false it is also illogical. 2+2=5 is analogous to stating a married bachelor or a square circle. It is false, a contradiction, illogical. One of the most fundamental a priori assumptions in science is that the world is intelligible, coherent, follows a certain order. Otherwise we could not conduct experiments and hope to get the same results given the same conditions, or different results given different conditions. When math breaks down, logic breaks down, and with it not only does science break down but rationality itself.

neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm
That is what I think. However I am very interested to know about how you think its exists outside of the mind? How so, where does it exist?
And again, where do triangles exist? We know that they don’t exist in reality, not a real thing.

I do not ask this for a is argument or challenge you to prove anything. Even though you may, I am interested in your reasons and how you arrived at this conclusion.

Thanks.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
Byb,
Just to clarify. I think that historically a lot of other types of mathematics was never developed (consider axioms which were never realized). And the reason why I don't agree with the platonic idea of math is simply that a lot of maths is developed by humans. Take calculus for example. Newton invented it because the maths of his day couldn't describe the motion of the objects.
I will address the platonic thing later. There are some (many, the majority in fact) mathematical theories that do not lead to correlations with nature; thats a fact, but what are the reasons? Well, they are as follows:

A. The math is faulty, in which case if corrected, we are left with B and C only
B. The math is correct but does not correlate with our nature (perhaps with some other instantiated nature we don't know about or some other uninstantiated nature)
C. The math is correct and does correlate to our nature (whether or not this correlation is discoverable is a different matter)

What does this mean? If math is truly universal in every sense of the word, we would expect to see all 3 possibilities A, B, and C. Not only that, in the case of C, we would expect to see cases where math is not descriptive but more importantly prescriptive, such as in the examples I gave you of the Higgs boson and Maxwell's equations which I note you simply glossed over. And in fact that is precisely what we find. Time and again we see mathematical theories describe a theoretical characteristic of nature to later discover it in nature exactly how it was theorized. And again, it doesn't diminish the argument one bit to state many mathematical theories don't pan out. That there is even one example where it does is remarkable. That there are many is not a happy coincidence.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
I have always thought, even as a child, that math was something that helped solve a lot of problems, that like a language it helps to understand what's going on around us in a way which is better than words.

And that is why I have never found theism and math being eternal, relevant. And I don't agree with the correlation either, unlike you, as I surmised from your statement earlier that they are quite dependent on each other.

To say that numbers exist outside of space or time to me is ridiculous. I understand why people say it, for instance, like you emphasized on the brilliance of maths, of it being accurate, just tells me that it is that, accurate or successful in solving a problem, that doesn't mean it must also exist outside of time and space. And that is why I think that people see it solving something and they say "it's a miracle", to borrow your terminology.
neo-x wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
Plus, I am not really a fan of platonic usage of maths which was more of gibberish than something useful.

First, let me state emphatically that I am NOT a platonist. But there is a third alternative to platonism on one hand and nominalism (materialism) on the other. When I mentioned realism I was referring to scholastic realism, not platonic. But in order to know what the difference is we'd have to go back and discuss universals such as abstract objects (and math and logic and possible worlds and propositions). By the way, this will eventually tie in with the intended subject matter, i.e. essence and existence but we'll let that be for now.

Let's take one of them, abstract ideas, and a good example is one you already mentioned, i.e. triangularity (with respect to Euclidean geometry). That there are triangles is trivial but what does the concept triangularity mean? Is it in our minds as we observe triangles and generalize (abstract away)? In other words, does the concept triangularity exist outside our minds and if so, where?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are 3 schools of thought for the existence of universals:

- Nominalism that denies universals exist at all (associated with materialism)
- Conceptualism that affirms the existence of universals but only in the human mind
- Realism that affirms the existence of universals independent of the human mind

On realism, there are three tracks:

- Platonic realism that affirms the existence of universals in some distinct third realm
- Aristotelian realism that affirms the existence of universals but only in the objects they were instantiated from
- Scholastic realism that affirms the existence of universals in the mind and independence of the human mind (ergo, in the divine mind)

Obviously discussing any of the above topics in greater detail requires tons of research and a mountain of books. Suffice it to say that all fail with the exception of scholastic realism. Let me give you a brief failure reason for each:

- On nominalism, the mere fact we are even talking about universals proves that abstract objects exist and so nominalism is false
- On conceptualism, that we can refer to triangularity as a 3-sided figure whose interior angles sum up to the angles of two right angles, without referring to a specific triangle, and that this triangularity concept exists even if the human mind was never here or is wiped out tomorrow and replaced by a new intelligent life billions of years from now. Triangularity would remain true then as it is today.
- On platonic realism, that we need to explain the so-called third realm's existence alone sufices to see how platonism fails
- On Aristotelian realism, the same argument as in conceptualism applies here is well
= And finally, on scholastic realism, universals are affirmed to exist in the mind and are independent of the human mind (or any other contingent mind). They do not exist in some third, inexplicable realm but they do exist in the divine mind (same as math, logic, all possible worlds, all propositions, and abstract objects).

Obviously, we can go a lot further with this but my aim to tie all of this to the original topic of essence and existence (and my discussion with Nils, whom I am still hoping he'll answer my reply to his last post).

What I would suggest to you Neo is for you to reconsider your stance on all of this because it has many ramifications you may not be aware of. To that end, I would highly recommend a book by Edward Feser called "Five Proofs of the Existence of God". You can download it as an ebook. Do yourself a favor and get it. You can thank me later (or perhaps not, we'll see).
Well, I thank you, at the least for you very thoughtful, and rather well put, post. I realise that I had quite erroneously considered you in the platonic realist camp. So I have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

BTW, the reason I had "glossed over" the reference to Higgs' and Maxwell, as you have noted is that I can still see them as valid without maths being universal or in the divine mind. In fact, from what I have gathered over the years on the topic of maths is that it is not a science unto itself, rather it is a way of describing things or the world around us. And following that approach, it can predict as well, however, not in all cases.

However, my main contention with the idea is that I don't see math as the final solution to the problems indeed in physics or natural sciences. Consider for a moment, that until Newton, math was largely simple, later Einstien came up with another idea and a little later the QM was discovered.. The problem is human beings are not equipped to observe the QM naturally, any more than you can visualise 11 dimensions of the string theory. Using math, you can because there is no other way for us to visualise it other than adding an x, y, z and so on to add dimensions on a paper. But to me, it is just that, language.

And I'll give you an example, consider triangles again. Why do we know that triangles or even the concept of it, works? Because we live in a space, physical space, like planet earth where you can draw an accurate triangle in the sand. That is how you know it works and thus you can say that even if there are no humans, the concept of it is still true - that it exists in the divine. That is your proof that math is correct because it can be verified that the sum of all angles is 180.
Now, I am saying that if you do not live on this earth and you lived in vaccum space, then the idea becomes fundamentally false. Why? because you cannot make a triangle in space, no matter what you do, the sum of the three sides will never be 180. Because spacetime is curved. So it would be your squared-circle, an absurdity.

So the idea that triangularity is universal is not really true, it fails in space and there is no way solution for that, not even in maths. And again, humans have evolved to see things in 3 dimensions, therefore if a lifeform similar to us ever rose again say a billion years from now, they will be able to detect patterns in 3-dimensional space and hence come up with the idea again, it is not because triangle exists in the abstract that they will discover, it is because any lifeform like us that can detect patterns and can reason will come to the same conclusions. However, anyone in space will never discover or detect triangle even in the abstract then anyone thinking of a fire-breathing dragon. Even if they do, it will be false because the triangle will never make sense in reality since it won't have the sum of 180.

Now, I see that you clearly stated in your post that this might be the case, that not all math theories will pan out but you are happy in the affirmation of many that do correspond in nature, and that is fine by me. However, I take exception here because I am coming from a naturalist POV and therefore, for me, the idea doesn't sound 'sound'. Life reacts to its environment, this is unquestionably true. I think maths is a consequentiality of that.

On another note, I do think Eugene Wigner kind of overstated his case. Clearly, no one has a settled answer for this, not even scholastic realism but I think I see why you see maths and theism in such a tight embrace. I can see your point now and where you are coming from. I do not agree completely but I understand.

Thank you for the book suggestion, Although I am familiar with Aquinas' five ways, and have read Feser on the subject, I am not sure if I have read this particular book or if this is the same thing. I'll look it up and see if it draws my curiosity.

I do think you are right though on your suggestion about there being many pitfalls in rejecting your notion and accepting mine.

By the way, do you agree with DS? Depending on your answer, how do you define, the Divine mind?
I don't think God can think of any anything, not even an abstraction. God can never have a thought, actually. There is nothing to think of. I'd even go as far as to say, taking your words here, that if "all possible worlds" exist in God's mind than possible worlds exist in reality and abstract objects as well (which means they aren't abstract anymore). There is no potentiality in God.

How do you get around this?

Thanks again.

EDIT
By the way, I almost forgot to mention that one particular reason I don't like the argument from scholastic realism or platonic for that matter is the nature of the argument itself. It presents itself as an almost a cop-out. There is no elegance to this argument. It has to appeal, subtly, to a GOG to justify itself.

When asked, where does it exist?
It is in the divine mind and hence why it is universal.

It narrowly dodges the bullet unlike platonic realism but I don't think it is a very convincing argument.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Essence and Existence

#30

Post by Nils » Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:14 am

Byblos wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:55 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:43 pm
I think that we have to be more precise. I think that there are universal mathematical properties or rules ( I am unsure which is the best wording). But if that means that “mathematics” can be said to “exist”, I don’t know. Perhaps it is preferable to call it “potentially existing” as you do.

With 2) I agree.
Stating that some things exist potentially doesn't absolve us of how or where this potentiality exists. In the case of possible worlds and their laws of physics, the number of potentials are obviously infinite but each and every one of which may be instantiated, otherwise they would not be potential. And we know of at least one potential world that was actually instantiated.

Regarding mathematics, I don't agree at all that math is potential (nor is logic for that matter). A square circle is not a potential because it is not a thing to begin with, it is a logical contradiction. Similarly, 2 + 2 = 5 is not a potential that can ever be instantiated in any potential world because it is false. So no, math is not a potential, it is a universal truth and its existence must have an explanation independent of the human mind.
I wasn’t clear enough. I agree that mathematical properties are universals, but the science of mathematics (or what you call it) is a human enterprise. So the property that there are an infinite number of primes is universal but a proof of that is not a universal. It didn’t exist before humans or other intelligences.
Byblos wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:55 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:43 pm
You say that “there must exist an explanation for everything”. I don’t agree at all. With a materialistic world view there is no ultimate explanation of everything.
And that's the self-defeating position materialism necessarily entails. Materialism claims to have a materialistic explanation for everything except explaining the reality in which it makes such claims. If I were to tell you I have a book sitting on a shelf, the shelf has sturdy brackets with solid steel screws and anchors. But the shelf is not attached to anything. Have I explained how the book sits on the shelf? Of course not. That's the materialist's worldview in a nutshell, when it comes to the ultimate explanation they balk and claim brute facts with no explanatory power, therefore nothing is explained.
I don’t agree but we can postpone that discussion. More has to be discussed before.
Byblos wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:55 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:43 pm
With a theistic world view there is a God and I have never heard that a God can be explained. Some say that God doesn’t need an explanation but that is ad hoc.
I don't know who you've been talking to but God is neither ad hoc (like the brute facts claimed by materialism) nor lacks an explanation. I meant when I said that everything must have an explanation and that includes God. This ties in with the other thread I was having with our friend the professor, in which I was discussing the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

To summarize:
- Everything must have an explanation
- Either the explanation is extrinsic, in which case the thing explained is contingent on the thing that explains it
- Or the explanation is intrinsic, in which case the thing explained is not contingent on anything but absolutely necessary.
I checked in the thread about Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). I got lost during the discussions with the professor. I will (soon?) restart the discussion in that thread answering your last post to me in the PSR thread, #141 on page 10.
Byblos wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:55 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:43 pm
To me it seems that there is no possible world where for instance the properties of the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, … ) are not valid. I have no idea how to explain that or explain that there is something instead of nothing. I am pretty sure that nobody can do that.
But of course we can explain it. My aim in this thread is to show how.
I’m looking forwards to that.
Byblos wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:55 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:43 pm
When you wrote earlier “1) that the world around us (in fact, reality itself) is intelligible”, I agreed but I should have made a reservation. I don’t think that the origin of everything is knowable or intelligible. But I don’t know if this is important for the further discussion.
Of course it's important, it goes to the heart of our discussion. On the one hand, on materialism, there is no ultimate explanation for reality, therefore no ultimate explanation for anything. On the other hand, on theism, there is an explanation for everything, God included.
I’m looking forwards to that too.
Nils

Post Reply