What is "2"?

[Conscious Z]

You were you intentionally trying to ask an impossible question? This very question essentially launched both analytic philosophy and the philosophy of mathematics. Frege and Russell, two of the greatest philosophers in history, devoted large amounts of their careers to this question.

This is still a difficult question to answer, and it is almost impossible on this forum because there is too much rabbit chasing and too little focus.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is still a difficult question to answer, and it is almost impossible on this forum because there is too much rabbit chasing and too little focus.

I don't disagree.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So forces can group 2 electrons without employing any other matter?

Forces don't group anything. The EM force acts on all charged particles. When you, RC, want to focus on this electron and that proton, or these two electrons, it is you doing the focusing and grouping. The EM force is just doing its thing.

So, given the animal is the referent for "cow", it can't be the referent for "hoof"?

It probably has four referents for hoof. But the cow is not a hoof. And what we refer to when we say 'cow' is not what we refer to when we say 'hoof'.

And once the cow is a steak on my plate here and a steak on your plate there, are we both eating the same steak? Cuz apparently it's arbitrary to take something that was "1" and make it "2". So, since one cow was the "reality" it must be one steak - just a different name for the same reality. Right? The cow is real but the steaks are a product of my imagination.

Is this just acting out, or are you trying to say something? [Maybe you can take that to the other logic thread and show that since A=A is an eternal verity, the cow must always be a cow, and the steaks (whether there are 1 or many) is still the cow.]

I have seen orange.

Alas, our senses are not perfect. Sometimes our minds perceive things that aren't really there.

 

[Architeuthus]

In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand wrote of the Crow epistemology. She was referring to a study done in the 1930's where researchers had a person walk across a meadow and into the woods. The crows in the meadow went and hid in the trees until the person walked back out of the woods and across the meadow the way he had come. When two and then 3 people walked across the meadow and into the forest the crows did the same thing, hiding until all three had left again. When 5 people crossed the meadow and into the trees the crows hid but when 4 left and 1 stayed, the crows came back out. So for crows it goes something like this: 1,2,3, Many.

For some birds it goes up to 5 or more, as I recall.

 

[Architeuthus]

I don't see why. When we say "That painting or that sunset is beautiful", where is the beauty happening? The painting is real, but it does not have any beauty sprinkled into the paint. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I give up. I really do.

Mathematics either describes some aspect(s) of reality; or it doesn't.

But it's beginning to look like I'm in the wrong forum, so never mind.

 

[Architeuthus]

You were you intentionally trying to ask an impossible question? This very question essentially launched both analytic philosophy and the philosophy of mathematics. Frege and Russell, two of the greatest philosophers in history, devoted large amounts of their careers to this question.

This is still a difficult question to answer, and it is almost impossible on this forum because there is too much rabbit chasing and too little focus.

I can't speak for the O.P., but I was trying to get straight answers. I think there are some reasonable answers to the question.

But I think in hindsight you're right; it is almost impossible on this forum. For one thing, there seems to be surprisingly little interest in philosophy.

 

[Resha Caner]

Mathematics either describes some aspect(s) of reality; or it doesn't.

Yep.

I give up. I really do.

I never expected anything different than what has occurred. As for my motivations, I explained them in post #74. So, just as math either describes an aspect of reality or it doesn't, people will either get this thread or they won't.

My experience is that people lock into a position very early in a thread and refuse to concede anything. Right or wrong, concessions are rarer than unicorns around here. At most they might thank you for helping them sharpen their argument. So, even if an opponent thinks you're making a good argument, they rarely admit it. Maybe some step away after the thread is over and ponder what was said, but there is no way to know.

So, do you have any conclusions? Who are the fictionalists, the nominalists, the Platonists, etc? Who is a confused contradiction of different views?

 

[Conscious Z]

But I think in hindsight you're right; it is almost impossible on this forum. For one thing, there seems to be surprisingly little interest in philosophy.

I agree. When I joined, I thought there would be a lot of people who actually had some philosophy education, and that the debates would center around actual philosophical problems. There seems to be very little knowledge of the work actual philosophers are doing here, and there is a stark inability to stay on topic. Any post relating to any type of moral philosophy will inevitably end with a discussion on how atheists can believe in moral truth, for example. For anyone who is used to doing real philosophy, this forum can be frustrating.

 

[Architeuthus]

For anyone who is used to doing real philosophy, this forum can be frustrating.

As someone who's read fairly widely in philosophy of mathematics, I agree.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, what exactly are your views? It seems to me that numbers either have a referent in physical reality (empiricism), a referent outside physical reality (Platonism and related viewpoints), or no referent at all (fictionalism).

They're parts of a shared human created language that is more or less useful for communicating certain ideas.

That does sound like what I'm calling empiricism (because I don't think you're a Platonist). If not, what aspects of empiricism do you disagree with?

Pretty much everything you've listed about it. Math isn't a branch of physics, mathematical statements don't have to refer to anything physical, etc.

To talk of "modelling reality" certainly rules out the idea of "meaningless fiction."

Right, which is why I said that none of your alternatives seemed to fit what I view math as.

It happens too often to be a coincidence.

I'll await your rigorous statistical analysis.

I don't care much for the implied accusation. And the boxes in this case arise from the fact that most of the coherent answers have already been provided by somebody or other in the past.

It wasn't directed specifically at you - all of philosophy seems to have this problem. There's a commitment to create artificial boxes that views must fit in, almost before even looking at the reality of the situation. It is as if "oh, you're an X" substitutes for actual thinking about what other people are saying. It fits in with the view of philosophy in the essay I posted - almost as if it is a history of stamp collecting of other people's bad ideas.

The example here, where you seemed determined to fit my views into a set of preconceived ideas you've made up or read about, is just another example of that failure in action.

 

[KCfromNC]

I give up. I really do.

Mathematics either describes some aspect(s) of reality; or it doesn't.

Some math is used to describe some parts of reality, other parts are abstract enough that they don't (except for the reality of the abstract math itself).

Some written texts describe reality in great detail, others describe fictional worlds. Same thing, different language. No idea why this supposed to be a huge mystery. Must be another example of the inability of philosophy to answer any questions at all.

 

[quatona]

Often it's more an attempt to strip away someone else's frame of reference and substitute your own.

So what´s the frame of reference of your consideration about "2"?
It seems to me that you are constantly shifting between different reference frames, assuming that the results of one reference frame are somewhat relevant in another.

So what frame of reference would you propose?

Me?? I never had a problem using or understanding the word "two" in any given frame of reference.

 

[Conscious Z]

No idea why this supposed to be a huge mystery. Must be another example of the inability of philosophy to answer any questions at all.

What does this even mean? Frege, the father of the analytic tradition, spend much of his career with this very question. Bertrand Russel did as well. Have you read Begriffsschrift? What about Principia Mathematica? What you are doing is the equivalent of me going on an internet forum and asking people "What is the causes of my mysterious medical symptoms?" and then declaring "That's yet another example of modern medicine not being able to cure me!" when they don't get a correct diagnosis.

 

[Resha Caner]

Some math is used to describe some parts of reality, other parts are abstract enough that they don't (except for the reality of the abstract math itself).

It would be better to say we don't know how some math might describe reality. The reason some numbers are labeled improper, irrational, imaginary, or transcendental is because at one time people thought they couldn't be used to describe reality. The same goes for non-Euclidean geometries.

 

[Ahermit]

"2" is whatever you think it is.

 

[KCfromNC]

It would be better to say we don't know how some math might describe reality.

Or even if it does at all.

 

[KCfromNC]

What does this even mean?

It means what I mentioned before - philosophy is notoriously bad at actually producing answers.

 

[Architeuthus]

I've had another go at this, casting it as a poll.