Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are free to believe so, but you should be aware that your belief is incompatible with our scientific knowledges; therefore you are actually rejecting our scientific knowledges.
Incomparable with your strange interpretation of scientific knowledge you mean.
Ideas are also things.
A physicist worth the name would know better than to use an argument from incredulity to bolster unsubstantiated assertion and speculative fantasy.
Actually, I have quoted famous physics, such Heisenberg or Einstein, and I could quote many others. So, it is not only my "strange interpretation"; it's quantum mechanics which is "strange".
I disagree. If you consider ideas as things, then probably you consider all the external reality only as an idea in your mind, which is solipsism.
It's not mere semantics, it's a substantive issue. Yes, the real situation "behaves" and the model "describes." Mathematical models are descriptive, not causal.I think you are simply misunderstanding my meaning of the word "realization" = real situation behaving as described by the model.
I am not interested in discussing empty semantic issues
But I have never said that mathematical models are causal; we can conceive many mathematical models which do not describe any real situation; it is obvious that mathematical models are not causal. If you think that I have implied that, you have certainly misunderstood my meaning.It's not mere semantics, it's a substantive issue. Yes, the real situation "behaves" and the model "describes." Mathematical models are descriptive, not causal.
So yes, the observable features of the universe can be described in terms of mathematical models.But I have never said that mathematical models are causal; we can conceive many mathematical models which do not describe any real situation; it is obvious that mathematical models are not causal. If you think that I have implied that, you have certainly misunderstood my meaning.
Well, I must have misunderstood something, because your discourse seems to boil down toBut I have never said that mathematical models are causal; we can conceive many mathematical models which do not describe any real situation; it is obvious that mathematical models are not causal. If you think that I have implied that, you have certainly misunderstood my meaning.
Number (as distinct from many forms of mathematics) seems even more fundamental than that to me. Even more basic. You could reframe it to be only about existence though. If something exists at all And is distinct, and then another thing exists, that's number, but...number could exist even if objects did not.Mathematics is a symbolic language humans have invented to describe the universe.
Why should it be surprising in any way that it can be used to describe the universe?
In my view, number exists even if only as an abstraction, regardless of whether the abstracting entities still exist, or will in the future, etc. That is, regardless of whether entities exist to realize or understand that basic idea.In what sense?
In my view, number exists even if only as an abstraction, regardless of whether the abstracting entities still exist, or will in the future, etc. That is, regardless of whether entities exist to realize or understand that basic idea.
In my view abstraction has to come well before consciousness, so I think it should be able to exist outside of some entity with consciousness.
Living beings for instance seem to me to need to "define" the world and maintain physical boundaries with it to exist and perpetuate themselves.
I don't think there are any objective abstractions though, boundaries and definitions are built and maintained by subjective entities, their maintenance of a separation of sorts, and their interaction with the rest of the universe.
Well I'm glad to see you're getting around to acknowledging that it takes a living being to come up with the concept of objectivity .. It is therefore, an artificial concept.Living beings for instance seem to me to need to "define" the world and maintain physical boundaries with it to exist and perpetuate themselves.
Their 'separation of sorts' is an idealisation of convenience (ie: the 'expediency' you mentioned before) .. as is totally ignoring themselves and the role their mind plays in that idealisation.variant said:I don't think there are any objective abstractions though, boundaries and definitions are built and maintained by subjective entities, their maintenance of a separation of sorts, and their interaction with the rest of the universe.
.. and in order to do that, ie: 'discover', it must deny the abundant observational evidence remaining, which demonstrates just how it went about making that discovery .. and therein lies the evidence pertaining to its own constraints and its role in creating reality as it went about that business of 'discovery'... It would not matter where or how the intelligence exists, it would in some sense discover this absolute thing, this fundamental...thing, that exists outside of any constraints of any kind.
How on earth could one rationalise such a notion? (I'm just curious here). I can't imagine any way that could possibly happen without invoking some kind of pure belief of some kind ..?In my view abstraction has to come well before consciousness, so I think it should be able to exist outside of some entity with consciousness.
Well I'm glad to see you're getting around to acknowledging that it takes a living being to come up with the concept of objectivity .. It is therefore, an artificial concept.
Their 'separation of sorts' is an idealisation of convenience (ie: the 'expediency' you mentioned before) .. as is totally ignoring themselves and the role their mind plays in that idealisation.
The sooner that mind gets reintegrated with the idealisation, the sooner this thread might (hopefully) come to an end ..
If the abstraction is undiscovered, it still exists, waiting for possible discovery. The laws of physics are evidently like this -- in an absolute sense existing independently of whether we discover them... and in order to do that, ie: 'discover', it must deny the abundant observational evidence remaining, which demonstrates just how it went about making that discovery .. and therein lies the evidence pertaining to its own constraints and its role in creating reality as it went about that business of 'discovery'.
How on earth could one rationalise such a notion? (I'm just curious here). I can't imagine any way that could possibly happen without invoking some kind of pure belief of some kind ..?
and I have cited my test and produced the resulting evidence in dozens of posts now .. but you have to actually look at them to see it ..Bungle_Bear said:It's your argument, so you need to tell us. If you want to insist that semantics is so important you need to support your position.SelfSim said:So you need to know whether reality is mind dependent, or mind independent, before you’d know the answer to that question? (Is that right??)
How do you propose to go about knowing that, then?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?