Actually thing behind the objection to mathematical realism is that it contravenes a major empiricist dogma, namely that there is nothing innate to human nature.
mathematical structure is also innate to the universe itself.
how is the axiom of choice related to the idea of mathematical realism.
jeeprs wrote:It seems to be an essential mathematical object.how is the axiom of choice related to the idea of mathematical realism.
Science deals with this world and existence. What occurs in your mind only occurs in your mind and may not exist. If you feel you were created by a demon so be it. Science deals with reality and the whole human society revolves around the discoveries of science not the musing of effete snobs who think manipulation of words, ideas and thoughts amount to much.
Even the early philosophers dealt with real world issues such as politic science. Not useless and time wasting questions whether one can determine something exists. You need science to establish it. You can go on musing but the fact remains it needs scientific methods to prove its existence.
There are all kinds of theories about multi-universes which are just ideas. Till they come up with proof with tests and data it is just speculation and philosophy just like Monads of a well known philosopher.
let them contemplate the "existence of one's country" in terms of its physical and non-physical connotations.
Most arguments about "existence" are based on equating "reality" with "physicality". Once it it understood that "physicality" is an anthropocentric concept (i.e. based on the relativity of human physiology to its surroundings) the equivalence between "reality" and "physicality" breaks down.
"Reality" remains a matter of anthropocentric functionality, but that functionality is not confined to "the physical". Hence questions about "the existence of God" deflate to arguments about "the functionality of a God concept".
For those who doubt this line of reasoning, let them contemplate the "existence of one's country" in terms of its physical and non-physical connotations.
"what is real is what remains when you have stopped believing in it".
kennethamy wrote:"what is real is what remains when you have stopped believing in it".
One can see this as a kind of mysticism.
Dreams are chemical reactions in the brain. You may not believe in your dreams but it doesn't necessarilly imply that the chemical reactions are not "real".
Like in "the past is a foreign country"?
You shouldn't take my erratic digressions too seriously, fresco.
Precisely what my philosophical thoughts led me to believe, but also to what you write..
However, when you say "no one", it's a bold generalization on your part which pratical foundation I wish were true.