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

@fresco,

"We" is a construction of "non facts" right, because "we" don't exist either ?...great ! bye bye Fresky n drop alcohol once n for all !

0 Replies

Fresco fails to do the most elementary line of reasoning any person would do.
Things like:

What changes ? if there is no "what" to start with or point into...no thing to change if you don't have a frame of reference.

"We" doesn't exist either because "no facts" remember ? So who the frack is doing a "construction", and what is "construction" itself ? According to Fresco it means nothing...because really there aren't any constructions going on either...

In sum it is a nut job trying to even established a fair ground topic of conversation with him because he abuses the rules at his own whims...

Guys like Fresky have been fracking up the image of Philosophy in the past 50 years...thankfully not all people are ignorant enough to resume Philosophy into a crack house current of thought...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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

I disagree

An absolute can be observed , and are observed every day ;

An absolute and there are billions of them , are defined by the manifestation of their shape. A tree is a tree because what makes up that tree could be nothing else. Nor could palladium be anything more than what it is .

2 Replies

@north,

I referred to the ultimate nature of reality as an absolute. It should have been said the absolute. I used an absolute because I was referring to things as they are in their ultimate order within the whole. You have no access to this ultimate arrangement of things unless you were the final set itself with the final computed bit. And even if you were the final set you wouldn't observe nothing as you couldn't be a mind nor have any wish or desire to observe that which already is in you, in sum you wouldn't compute any more data...need of knowledge is for incomplete beings. As I think you don't have a clue to what I was referring to so never mind it, its all good.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yeah.

I usta say: What IS...IS.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You know what bothers me the most once I really love Philosophy for what it is...the one trick pony's like Farmerman that are ignoramus of anything else other then what they did for a living jumping in at philosophy and philosophers due to the enormous and prolific amount of Frescy like people that were let in the system some decades ago, because Das Kapital...

Wink

0 Replies

@Isaac-A-Russell,

Quote:

1. That which is non-physical cannot be affected by that which is physical.

Point #1 has proved philosophically that time can't be affected by the speed of objects and the gravity of bodies. Relativity is as false as a thirteen dollars bill. Lol.

Mathematics is nothing more than counting amounts.

Nothing, absolutely nothing physical can be proved mathematically. The only way to prove something physical is by physical means.

The language of science is the language spoken by scientists, which involves words to communicate one to another.

The use of numbers is just to show amounts, and by no means is the explanation of the phenomenon in question.

Carlos Le Baron.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Nothing, absolutely nothing physical can be proved mathematically. The only way to prove something physical is by physical means.

Absolutely true

1 Reply

@north,

Quote:

Nothing, absolutely nothing physical can be proved mathematically. The only way to prove something physical is by physical means.

Quote:

Absolutely true

0 Replies

On the other hand it can be argued there is no more physicality to "physical" then sheer maths at work...its the effects that cannot be reduced, the qualities themselves...as for physical, the word is meaningless...it perhaps tries to state that things are what they are in a very obscure way.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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

I disagree

An absolute can be observed , and are observed every day ;

An absolute and there are billions of them , are defined by the manifestation of their shape. A tree is a tree because what makes up that tree could be nothing else. Nor could palladium be anything more than what it is .

You are confusing "absolute" and "unique"...they are not the same. And the comparison between an element and a unique manifestation is nonsensical. Palladium may not be capable of being more than it is, but it does appear in a plethora of contexts -- unlike that singular tree you're referencing.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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

Quote:

I disagree

An absolute can be observed , and are observed every day ;

An absolute and there are billions of them , are defined by the manifestation of their shape. A tree is a tree because what makes up that tree could be nothing else. Nor could palladium be anything more than what it is .

Quote:

You are confusing "absolute" and "unique"...they are not the same. And the comparison between an element and a unique manifestation is nonsensicatl. Palladium may not be capable of being more than it is, but it does appear in a plethora of contexts -- unlike that singular tree you're referencing.

Explain further in more detail , Razzleg

0 Replies

Timelessly speaking, how much is reality plus one ?

1 Reply

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Timelessly speaking, how much is reality plus one ?

Timelessly speaking, it's about the same as reality minus one, or reality = one...your pretension to mathematical claims is about as absurd as your desperate attempts to use non-related physics films to justify your position...

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

If you didn't get from there that time may not be a fundamental property of reality and therefore the question makes perfect sense what can you get in that little brain of yours ?
Desperate attempts you say ? And non related ? Have to laugh in your face Razzy boy...dig the forum...what is said there in those films I said it long long ago. You are a small little man...make no doubts about who you are. And no less dumb then most around.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

By the way the political conciliatory film conclusion is ****. Monkeys can do it.
The only kind of mathematics invented by humans is the one kind which is wrong...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Without time one cannot have processing. You cannot ad or subtract **** to whatever is the case. For all that I know, in order to establish an order of qualities in the Universe all that you need is a 1D string of information. Even geometry can be reduced to maths.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know