The unsupportability of realism about abstract objects

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
1. I show that abstract objects are presupposed in physical theories.
2. If we good justification for believe in our physical theories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. We ought to commit to the presupposition of our theories, abstract objects.
Do you mean i assume "physical theories are abstract objects"?

Another question, why dont you try to deal with the issue? If you cant, then your position is irrational.
Premise one of your argument is obviously false, if it were true there would be no contentional issue, there would be no fictionalists capable of doing mathematics. We dont need to presume the existence of an abstract object.
Premise two is equally false, and this was pointed out in the opening post.
Take a similar argument, with supportable premises:
1) if prayer is effective, then there must be some entities which enable the efficacy of prayer, let's call all these "god", so, prayer presupposes the existence of god
2) psychologists tell us that we can benefit by reducing stress, for example, in the case of consecutive days of rain, shouting "give me a break" at the sky is psychologically productive, it's efficacious
3) any attempt to control the world by the strength of one's personality is prayer
4) prayer is efficacious, therefore we should believe in god.

The above argument is better supported than yours, and it establishes a conclusion that I expect you to reject. If you reject a better supported argument of the same form as that which you present, surely you cant expect me to accept your argument. The mystery is, why would you present an argument which, apparently, you yourself shouldn't accept?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

I feel that I have raised some objections to your OP, which you haven't understood, and I don't understand many of the things you say, either.

The fact is that you haven't raised any objection. Let's imagine that the claim is that I can only visit pubs by helicopter (helicopters are essential for visiting pubs(mathematics is essential for science)), if you show me that there are one or two pubs which are accessible by helicopter, that does not show that I cant visit those same pubs by taxi, bicycle, on foot, etc. You need to show what is claimed.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Forgive me but can you tell me what the "point" of this discussion is ?

Unless participants on agree on the usage of terms we might as well be discussing whether or how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.

One thing is for sure, "logicality" has little to do with the concept of of "objects" in contemporary physics. To add a little seasoning to our word salad allow me to sprinkle on a couple of Niels Bohr quotes:

Quote:

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.

No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Unless participants on agree on the usage of terms. . .

There is a specific claim, made by realists, they define the terms of the discussion. If you define the terms otherwise, then you are outside that discussion.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Okay, define an "abstract object" for me once more.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Okay, define an "abstract object" for me once more.

No.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

I still say you don't understand my criticisms. You have a tendency to define your terms in such a way that seem never to loose an argument, but what is actually happening is that you fail to grasp the arguments that are being used against you.

In other words, you are not amenable to reason.

Now the fact is that mathematical reasoning obviously enables us to discover things about nature which were previously completely unknown on the basis of any amount of observation or reasoning from natural phenomena alone. If your basic argument was correct 'scientific progress' would be impossible. We would only discover what we already know. In fact, we have discovered things which were completely unthinkable, even at the time that Einstein completed his General Theory, as a consequence of that theory. I can think of no better example than the atomic bomb. But I do wish you were correct, because then we never would have discovered it.

1 Reply

anyway I think more people are likely to agree with your outlook. As often the case, I am arguing with modernism, not you in particular.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

you fail to grasp the arguments that are being used against you.

You haven't given an argument.

jeeprs wrote:

Now the fact is that mathematical reasoning obviously enables us to discover things about nature which were previously completely unknown on the basis of any amount of observation or reasoning from natural phenomena alone.

I partly accept this, though I reject the claim that the mathematics doesn't have a basis in observation of natural phenomena, it obviously does have such a basis, otherwise there would be no relevant values in the expressions.
You now have a premise, but a lone premise is not an argument. And neither this

jeeprs wrote:

If your basic argument was correct 'scientific progress' would be impossible.

nor this

jeeprs wrote:

We would only discover what we already know.

follow from your premise.
What you have is the statement that sometimes, in some fields, mathematics is useful, but so what? Sometimes, in some situations, deceit is useful, does that imply that there exists an abstract object corresponding to this deceit? If not, then you have no inference to realism about abstract mathematical objects, if so, you need to spell out the inference.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

All I will say is that for someone who is interested in philosophy, you seem to be conspicuously lacking in a sense of wonder.

As far as the argument goes, I also don't believe in abstract objects, so if your major premise is that they don't exist, I can't argue with that, because I agree they don't. However I also don't believe empirical theories of mathematics. But I won't repeat the arguments that you have already failed to recognize. No use flogging a dead horse, eh? Anyway thanks for the thread, it is a topic that will always come up again.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

What you have is the statement that sometimes, in some fields, mathematics is useful, but so what? Sometimes, in some situations, deceit is useful, does that imply that there exists an abstract object corresponding to this deceit? If not, then you have no inference to realism about abstract mathematical objects, if so, you need to spell out the inference.

The "abstract object" corresponding to deceit is the word "deceit". !
All nouns are "mathematical entities"in so far as they imply the nominal membership of "a set".

BTW You appear to be assuming "the correspondence theory of truth" and the logical positivist stance which has been dumped by Wittgenstein, Kuhn and others.

0 Replies

The unsupportability of realism about abstract objects

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know