Possible argument against the existence of mathematical objects? (Platonism)

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I suggest that dissenters come back when they have researched "systems theory". As far as I know, only one such theorist, Bernard Scott, advocates a limit to nesting in order to rationalize his theistic agenda.

I suggest that people who write, "There are no absolutes unless you are religious" explain how that could have been written by someone claiming to be not-religious.

(I mean you, Fresco, in case you didn't get it!)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

It doesn't matter it is co extensive...The relation itself no matter how singular and specific it is a thing. An absolute

.
To whom? A second order observer ? See systems theory

Quote:

What you are saying is like saying a square is not real because it has four sides that interact

Gibberish...a square is a mathematical concept and mathematics is a human occupation.

Quote:

...observer and observed are all absolute things even if in relation..

No they are transient and co evoke each other
.

Quote:

they all are a colection of absolute phenomena,

No. They are constructs for a second order observer

Quote:

eventually there is a noum that sustains and funds them all...

No. Nouns are linguistic tokens in the human interaction we call "communication". Like dollar bills in a desert their value is always contextual.

1 Reply

@fresco,

...oh boy either reading harms you or that is a lot of Fresco wisdom for me...I am out ! Have fun with your Lego's ! Later !

0 Replies

An absolute cannot be observed as an absolute, but it is possible to see its shape, a mirror within a mirror...

An absolute does not observe since as an absolute there is nothing else to be observed or made present...and yet it is the bedrock for observers and observed.

An absolute must be transcendental as it entraps its not entrapped...

...and still "our" experiencing, better, experiencing alone, is all the proof we need and all the proof we will ever had of it.

Moreover an absolute is certainly not a mind as nothing is needed to be explained in one for one...there is no need to know when knowledge is made thing itself... nonetheless having minds is proof an absolute must be so inquiry can unfold.

Finally: Infinity is absolutely smaller then The Absolute. It spins within it. Spinning doesn't spin !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Me trying to get you reading the literature is a bit like Galileo trying to get the Pope to look through his telescope.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quite the opposite I present you a telescope but you lack the eyes...I read with my mind you read with your eyes...keep at it I know you love it. ! Wink

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Me trying to get you reading the literature is a bit like Galileo trying to get the Pope to look through his telescope.

There is an element of truth contained in that bit of fluff, Fresco...but I supect not the kind of thing you would want.

BOTTOM LINE:

Accidentally, the Inquisition was correct in ruling that Galileo was incorrect in teaching that “the sun is stationary and is the center of the world.”

The sun is not, in fact, stationary nor the center of the world.

The stuff you are attempting to "teach" so dogmatically...MAY BE CORRECT...but it may be nonsense...and in ways we humans cannot even understand right now.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

1 - Contradictions in terms can't be correct !
2 - Fresco doesn't teach as to teach requires explanation. Fresco postulates.
3 - It is nonsense !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Surely the significant point is that nobody but you appears to know how to use your telescope, but dozens of respectable researchers appear to be using mine.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Some years ago, while you were probably trying to hit little balls into holes, I was listening to a BBC drama on the confrontation between Galileo and the Pope. According to that account, the Pope was no fool. He understood that Galileo had "evidence" for a heliocentric model which would contradict Holy Writ, but he argued that he was responsible for the a society whose stability rested on that Holy Writ. In those days "science" had a social and functional status even less than that of golf today. !

Irrespective of any poetic licence on the part of the BBC, the confrontation was not about who was "right or wrong" as defined by our modern criteria of "evidence" and "explanation". It was about social functionality and power structures. The Pope could not look through the telescope without risking the social status quo any more that you or Fil are able to look through the ones I suggest without questioning yours as you see it vis-a-vis your A2K image.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...he throws away ontology and hopes to keep phenomena...how amateurish is that line of thought eh ?

Sorry, Fil, but i think that ontology, as a pursuit unto itself, is a mug's game. Phenomena are, no doubt, but, in my opinion, how we logos that ontos is always a compromise between fact and pragmatics.

Historically, every attempt to produce a working ontological model has either faltered in the wake of cosmologically unpredictable events and innovations or, at best, continued only long enough to fall out of fashion (usually because it is [or was] extremely boring [see George Santayana]). Given that "ontology" as a philosophical line of study can only be studied as a series of overlapping and competing ontologies, the idea that captial "O" ontology can represent the absolute seems more than a little...questionable?

But i'm a bottom-up style thinker, so what do i know.

0 Replies

Quote:

The emphasis with systems theory shifts from parts to the organization of parts, recognizing interactions of the parts as not static and constant but dynamic processes. Some questioned the conventional closed systems with the development of open systems perspectives. The shift originated from absolute and universal authoritative principles and knowledge to relative and general conceptual and perceptual knowledge and still remains in the tradition of theorists that sought to provide means to organize human life. In other words, theorists rethought the preceding history of ideas; they did not lose them. Mechanistic thinking was particularly critiqued, especially the industrial-age mechanistic metaphor for the mind from interpretations of Newtonian mechanics by Enlightenment philosophers.

From Systems Theory Wikipedia

1 Reply

@fresco,

As I thought you confuse a lot of things...how does holistic functioning regarding complex polivalent mechanism interactions trumps anything that has been said eh ? You think wording relativism and contextual frames of operation jumps up and the classical linear A to B mechanicism jumps out and the problem is sorted ? oh dear good Lord...seriously...talking to you is harder then talking to a bot you simply don't grasp what is pointed to you.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

the problem is sorted ?

What problem ? Only you seem to have one.

Quote:

.talking to you is harder then talking to a bot you simply don't grasp what is pointed to you.

Why should I grasp a "problem" of your own creation. I don't need any ultimate explanations or mechanisms to describe communicative interactions about words like "existence" or "reality". All I need is a concept of a social context in which they are used. Their "value" resides transactionally in "what happens next".

Quote:

Surely the significant point is that nobody but you appears to know how to use your telescope, but dozens of respectable researchers appear to be using mine.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yes deny a factual explanation to anything problemo sorted eh ? You are a funny guy...you make pragmatists look gentle Fresco...

...second I don't give a **** to authority appeals. I care about reasoned thoughts and compelling arguments or evidence. You have none of it. In fact your point is precisely about not handing any.
So just who is not looking through telescopes now eh ? In your world the freaking telescope shows nothing, blank...you couldn't have picked a worst example to your little crusade...its amazing that you appeal to evidence about there being no evidence. Stop getting lost at straw men.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The suggested "telescope" is an established paradigm for philosophical inquiry. It is suggested in the spirit of one of Wittgenstein's adages about the aim of philosophy “to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle”. His method was to dissipate the "bottle" (problem) by examining futile "language games", where one party assumes the meaning of a word is agreed by another party. For example, I do not agree with your usage of "fact" as a context independent item of knowledge. I agree with the pragmatists view that "facts" are "constructions" (from the Latin facere to make).

We will obviously continue to talk across each other if we each stick to our paradigms. My transcendent point is simply that nobody appears to commune with yours whereas they do mine.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Some years ago, while you were probably trying to hit little balls into holes, I was listening to a BBC drama on the confrontation between Galileo and the Pope. According to that account, the Pope was no fool. He understood that Galileo had "evidence" for a heliocentric model which would contradict Holy Writ, but he argued that he was responsible for the a society whose stability rested on that Holy Writ. In those days "science" had a social and functional status even less than that of golf today. !

Irrespective of any poetic licence on the part of the BBC, the confrontation was not about who was "right or wrong" as defined by our modern criteria of "evidence" and "explanation". It was about social functionality and power structures. The Pope could not look through the telescope without risking the social status quo any more that you or Fil are able to look through the ones I suggest without questioning yours as you see it vis-a-vis your A2K image.

Actually, there is little evidence that the pope was ever invited to look through Galileo's telescope...although some of the investigators from the Inquisition apparently did refuse.

They were frightened.

I have done the essential equivalent with you of looking through the scope you offer...and so have may here in this forum.

But your further offer for us essentially to go back to college is an absurdity...and you know it. That is why I have consistently mentioned to you that you are not here to "teach" us anything...you are here to massage your ego.

It seem pretty certain that you...and that list of "authorities" to whom you constantly appeal...do not know any more about the true nature of the REALITY of existence than I or any of the others of us.

The fact that you and they put so much emphasis on the function of humans in the nature of the REALITY...is about as wrong-headed as some of the ideas that prevented those cardinals and prelates from looking through that particular telescope, Fresco.

You are the one refusing to look right now...or you would see that you have confused the understanding and explanation of what is happening and what IS...with what actually IS.

Wish I could discuss this more...but the course calls. I have to be there for a 6 am start this morning.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You know very well I have local professional sources of "ego massage" should I care for them. Why would I need that of amateurs who have probably never even discussed the very concept of "self" ?
I may indeed have a "teaching style" given that I have spent much of my life doing it, but you have a "dog in the manger style" which we all know is a smokescreen for your failure or ability to keep up with philosophical developments. Tragically your college days may indeed be over, the significance of which has meaning to myself when I encounter many older than you eager for further education.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Who constructs the fact if there are no facts of any kind Fresco ? Get real !
There are drunkards making more sense then you.

PS - Also when you say a vast majority agrees with you you lie, and lie big time. Some people in academia have doubts about our ability to know, an epistemological problem, but they have nothing to say regarding ontology. They assume it but avoid making claims about it. Your turf on the other hand belongs to a rare kind that really thinks there is no subtract to anything but keep claiming things and evoking things all the same...A bunch of drunkards no less...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Who does ? We do.

You have just attempted to construct this one...

Quote:

...when you say a vast majority agrees with you...

( which of course I would never say) has been constructed for your purposes, maybe to deflect the more likely "fact" from me that nobody has a clue what you are talking about.

Here endeth this conversation. No doubt we will fail to communicate elsewhere.

1 Reply

Possible argument against the existence of mathematical objects? (Platonism)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know