For IchneumanWasp, Geoff's neutral monism clarified.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's interesting that you look at this system and find it suspiciously close to stimpy's slightly odd physicalism. Historically, neutral monism has often been accused of being suspiciously like idealism, but only very rarely has it been accused of being suspiciously like physicalism. The system is deliberately designed to walk the line between the two of them, and if materialists are worried that it's too much like idealism and idealists are worried that it's too much like materialism then I think I'm doing something right. It means I'm getting the "neutral" bit right.

Exactly what are the problems with materialism and idealism that you have eliminated by opting for neutral monism?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Stimpy was proposing a scientific epistemology, not a metaphysic. I would not evaluate it by comparing it to various ontologies.

Ah. We wouldn't want to mix those up. We can't answer questions about that until we have decided how define science and what it is for.

Hammegk is bothered by his using the words real and physical, but Stimpy's point is to attempt to define the words in a way that makes no metaphysical assumptions. If that bothers people, they can use other terms.

Yes...you want to be VERY careful about the word "real". It's a hot potato.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think that is why you're embracing "neutral monism," because you have realized that materialism and idealism are equivalent.

~~ Paul

Not quite "equivalent". But as closely related to each other as yin is related to yang.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Exactly what are the problems with materialism and idealism that you have eliminated by opting for neutral monism?

~~ Paul

1) There is no need to choose between them, because they are both accounted for.

2) There is no need to eliminate either of them, because they are both accounted for.

3) There is no need to claim either of them are "epiphenonemal" or "emergent", because both mind and matter are incorporated/embedded within the neutral entity.

4) There is no suspicion of interactionist dualism.

There is a much longer list of things which make neutral monism attractive, like it's compatibility with Bohmian QM.

 

[Complexity]

COPYRIGHT GEOFF. Please do not re-use this material. It does not belong to the JREF either.

Geoff, I can assure you that I have absolutely no interest in reusing this material.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

1) There is no need to choose between them, because they are both accounted for.

2) There is no need to eliminate either of them, because they are both accounted for.

What? So materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all equivalent? Then why are we having this conversation?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What? So materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all equivalent? Then why are we having this conversation?

~~ Paul

Materialism, idealism and neutral monism are NOT all equivalent.

Here is a diagram:

Yin is not equivalent to Yang. Neither is equivalent to the whole diagram. They are intricately inter-woven, but not equivalent. The relationship between materialism, idealism and neutral monism is captured perfectly in this diagram. Materialism is like Yang on it's own. Idealism is like Yin on it's own. They are somehow both different and totally inter-dependent at the same time. Take one away and the other loses it's meaning. Within neutral monism mind and matter co-exist in a completed and neutral unity. Cartesian dualism isn't really represented by this diagram at all. It's more like:

MIND <<<<--------------->>>> MATTER

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry, if one isn't a function of the other, then I don't see how it isn't dualism. Or possibly they are both functions of a third thing, and you really have Third-party Monism.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry, if one isn't a function of the other, then I don't see how it isn't dualism. Or possibly they are both functions of a third thing, and you really have Third-party Monism.

~~ Paul

Would you say yin and yang were subcomponents of a third thing? No. The third thing isn't anything more than the two things we already have. The third thing is "made of" the two things. Yet the "two things" aren't seperate and independent either. The yin/yang diagram is perfect. On one level, it is only one thing. On another level it is two things. But that doesn't make it three things.

Also, neither mind nor matter are "functions" of anything at all. They are more fundamental than that. Neutral monism is not a form of emergentism. It is a form of reductionism. But is neutral reductionism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/#6

9.1 Neutral Monism and Other Forms of Reductionism

[...]

The worry that neutral monism collapses into mentalistic or materialistic reductionism can also be raised on a quite general level. It might be argued that the category of the neutral is inherently problematical and that therefore the so-called neutral entities will either be mental or physical but not neither. In this case the debate will have to address the concept of neutrality, not particular accounts of neutrality offered by this or that version of neutral monism.

In other words, we may have to take a closer look at the chosen strategy for acheiving neutrality. Which is why I base my system on Zero/Nothingness. I am starting at the most neutral place I can think of to start. Not that this has stopped people from accusing my neutral monism of being idealism in a dress.

 

[LW]

I wasn't expecting that question. Maybe it would help if you tell me how you define addition in standard mathematics and I can tell whether the same definition works in symmettry maths.

New try, without LaTeX this time.

There are many different ways to formalize numbers so that they behave in the "expected" way. I will here consider only natural numbers since the definitions for real numbers are rather messy.

Natural numbers are what we usually represent with 0, 1, 2, and so on.

The important things to notice are:

• 0 is the first natural number
• every natural number has a immediate successor (1 succeeds 0, 2 succeeds 1, etc).
• there are no cycles in the number line: no number is the successor of two different numbers.

One of the standard ways to construct numbers is to use set theory. We can define numbers so that:

• We represent '0' with the empty set {}.
• For any natural number x, its successor S(x) is defined as S(x) = x union { x }.

So, using this formalism our number line looks like:

• '0' is {}
• '1' is S(0) = {{}} or it could be written also as {0}
• '2' is S(S(0)) = {{},{{}}} or {0, 1}
• and so on.

Then, we can define addition as a recursive funcition that does some set manipulation:

• The base case is that for all numbers x, we set x + 0 = x.
• For all numbers x and y, we set x + S = S(x+y).

If we want to compute, say 1+2, we would first remove one layer of syntactic sugar and write the addition as: S(0) + S(S(0)). Here we note that this addition is of the second form, so S(0) + S(S(0)) = S(S(0) + S(0)). This is again of the second form, so S(S(0)+S(0)) = S(S(S(0)+0)). This is of the first form so we get the final result S(0) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(0))).

The two most important things to note are:

• each number has a well defined representation
• the arithmetic operations can be defined in terms of manipulating those representations in a systematic way

The definition of "symmetric maths" in the web page fails on both counts. It defines numbers as sets of numbers (or that is the only interpretation that I can come up with for the "0 includes all numbers" stuff) without resolving the circularity in any way.

It fails to present systematic rules that would allow us to do the actual computation. There's the problem that if we have the numbers 1 and 2, how exactly do we get their expected sum of 3?

It seems to me that the author is doing the arithmetic in terms of normal natural numbers and then adding some philosophical sounding magic on top of it. And he has also added positive and negative infinities into the set of numbers. So, if you use "symmetric maths", you haven't actually gained anything but you have lost consistency since trying to treat infinities with the same rules as finite numbers will not work.

 

[Darat]

We've been through all this before. Geoff wouldn't it be much quicker to get to the point where you say "the maths don't matter" rather then getting people to jump through hoops that when you get down to it you aren't really interested in?

ETA - As support for the above:

24th March 2003, 10:34 PM - THREE YEARS AGO

...snip...

Are you denying the long series of posts regarding the mathematics of your theory of "zero". Remember your claim that "negative-Infinity + positive-Infinity = zero", and the explanations from several people as to why this is incorrect? Are you denying that eventually you changed your position to "the maths doesn't really matter, it's the principle that's important"?

...snip...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello LW

Whilst I'm not a mathematician, I am a software engineer, and that explanation of addition as a function seems pretty straightforwards to me.

From the page:

An empty set in this system is recognized as the ultimate combination of all sets. And naturally, the values on either side of zero are less than the whole set that is zero.

So the only difference is that what previously looked like addition now becomes, in a way, subtraction (and vice versa). In this system, +1 is a "larger" number then +2.

Again from the page:

In the same way that there are two distinct forms of order in nature, there also exists two entirely different ways of seeing zero and all other numerical values. It is a whole other type of value system, a system as valid as the one we presently use, one of no use within the abstract world of individual things, yet immeasurably valuable in cosmology where a mathematical value for the universe as a whole is of critical importance in any attempt to understand for example, the implications of the many worlds theory.

So the author is basically admitting that if we try to apply this number system to the normal world of "individual things", its useless.

It seems to me that the author is doing the arithmetic in terms of normal natural numbers and then adding some philosophical sounding magic on top of it.

Yes. Or maybe magical-sounding philosophy.

From the page....

Our present mathematical system is based upon a perspective derivative of grouping order, or thingness. This unique mathematical system, which we will continue to explore, is derived from symmetry order, its foundational axiom reflecting the innate singleness and wholeness of existence. As a perspective it doesn't see isolated or separate objects. Although its values are definitive, it does not see finite things.

It sounds to me like the author is aware of the sort of problems you are talking about. When we think of "thing A" and "thing B" we are seeing finite, individual, things - and we can add them together and get the sums of those things. The author seems to have admitted that this system is no use in this case. So you just continue to use normal mathematics most of the time. He isn't suggesting we use symmettry math for the things we currently use normal maths for. He has invented the system in order to apply to cosmological problems issues MWI.

The very concepts of addition and subtraction seem to have new meanings under this system. "Addition", as you've described it, depends on starting with nothing (the smallest possible value) and as you add things to it the number gets larger. These two conditions can't be emulated in this system. In this system, the smallest number is -infinity, not zero. So if you wanted to still start with the smallest number you would have to start with -infinity (an infinitely small number) and start adding things in the same way your function already does. But you would never reach zero because there are an infinite number of numbers between -infinity and zero. On the other hand, if you wanted to still start with zero then the problem is that as you "add" units to zero, the value of the numbers is decreasing rather than increasing, making it sound like subtraction instead of addition.

I can understand why somebody well versed in normal mathematics might find this system both very strange and practically useless for nearly all of the things we use normal numbers for. But if we are going to be fair on the author, shouldn't we judge his system by its usefullness for dealing with the cosmological problems he claims it is usefull for?

And he has also added positive and negative infinities into the set of numbers. So, if you use "symmetric maths", you haven't actually gained anything but you have lost consistency since trying to treat infinities with the same rules as finite numbers will not work.

Well, we haven't really given the guy a chance to see whether we gain anything. Firstly, I don't know how best to respond to the technical questions you've raised, and since it's not my system I'm not going to offer any solutions. However, if the system can indeed by applied to cosmological problems and make them less intractable, then we would have gained something. And we haven't lost anything because we can still use normal maths in normal situations - the author isn't trying to replace normal maths.

So the justification for doing this seems to rest on the claim that turning maths inside-out in this way actually helps to solve some difficult problems in cosmology. Since I have chosen to adopt this system to the very reason that it helps me to solve some difficult problems on the borderlands of cosmology and metaphysics (like the something-from-nothing problem), I wouldn't find it especially surprising if it turned out to be useful for other problems, further over the border in cosmology. The proof of the pudding, in this case, has to be the eating - whether his number system helps to sort out any otherwise intractable cosmological problems (and I can think of several of those).

Geoff

P.S. Cheers for demonstrating that it is possible to question and disagree with someone without feeling the need to treat them as if they were somehow sub-human. Not that difficult, is it?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Darat

"the maths doesn't really matter, it's the principle that's important"?

I'm not sure why this is such a big thing for you. Let me explain again.....

To the creator of symmettry maths, the maths is important. It's important because he is using that mathematical system to attempt to solve problems in physics and cosmology.

To Geoff, what is more important is the principle. That is because Geoff isn't using the system to solve problems in science, he is using it as a conceptual device to solve problems in metaphysics and ontology.

Why are you singing and dancing as if you've managed to "get me to back down" over some majorly important point? All that has happened is that you were originally mistaken when you (and other people) thought that the fine details of the mathematics was important to me. I didn't "back down". All that happened is that you found out what my position actually was rather than what you originally (mistakenly) believed it was. This sort of misunderstanding happens to me on this board continually. Some people, instead of actually listening to what I say and trying to understand it, have a tendency to latch on to one thing or another thing and attack it relentlessly as a subcomponent of what I am saying, in the belief that if they attack the subcomponent they see as weak (which it may well be) they can bring the whole system down. However, they don't bother to try to understand the relationship between the subcomponent and the whole system, so more often than not they completely miss the point of the argument and fail to realise that the subcomponent they are attacking isn't a structurally crucial part of my position at all. Two weeks later, when they've finally calmed down enough to realise what's going on they dance and sing and claim I've backed down on something (or like you - "Your system has been totally refuted!!!!" "Why can't you see?") when all that has happened is they misunderstood the whole point of what I was saying in the first place. That's why I am not taking much notice of your posts. They aren't relevant to me, for the reasons given above. To me, they are just "noise".

Geoff

 

[Darat]

...snip...

P.S. Cheers for demonstrating that it is possible to question and disagree with someone without feeling the need to treat them as if they were somehow sub-human. Not that difficult, is it?

I don't treat you as sub human, indeed it is the fact that I consider you a human being and responsible for what you post that I think it is right to expose the dishonest tactics you use in these debates. (And when I do this I present evidence for my claims.)

I do not make the claim of dishonesty lightly but you have for almost five years being using the tactic of presenting these types of arguments as if they were "the what" that led to your stated conclusions and claims. That is why I state you are dishonest since that is not the truth. You started with your faith and have been for at least 5 years that I know being trying to find arguments that "prove" your faith.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't treat you as sub human, indeed it is the fact that I consider you a human being and responsible for what you post that I think it is right to expose the dishonest tactics you use in these debates. (And when I do this I present evidence for my claims.)

I wasn't talking about you, Darat. I don't think you make much effort to understand me, but you usually treat me with an acceptable level of respect.

I do not make the claim of dishonesty lightly but you have for almost five years being using the tactic of presenting these types of arguments as if they were want led to your stated conclusions and claims.

No, I haven't. This is one of the things you've never really understood about me. What you are saying is PLAIN WRONG, as evidenced by the first post in this thread:

I am asking nobody to just “accept” this. I am explaining this only because I want people to have a better idea where I am coming from. I am not attempting to “prove” it is the “correct answer”.

That is why I state you are dishonest since that is not the truth. You started with your faith and have been for at least 5 years that I know being trying to find arguments that "prove" your faith.

Darat, I have to believe that you have simply made a mistake. There's nothing dishonest here. You have just got it wrong. READ THE QUOTE. What don't you understand about it???????

I have no idea why you think I think I have PROVED this system is correct. I do not believe I have. I do not wish to have. I never claimed I had. All that is imagined by you.

Please stop projecting your own fears and misconceptions onto me. Please read what I actually write.

 

[Darat]

Darat



I'm not sure why this is such a big thing for you. Let me explain again.....

To the creator of symmettry maths, the maths is important. It's important because he is using that mathematical system to attempt to solve problems in physics and cosmology.

To Geoff, what is more important is the principle. That is because Geoff isn't using the system to solve problems in science, he is using it as a conceptual device to solve problems in metaphysics and ontology.

Why are you singing and dancing as if you've managed to "get me to back down" over some majorly important point? All that has happened is that you were originally mistaken when you (and other people) thought that the fine details of the mathematics was important to me. I didn't "back down". All that happened is that you found out what my position actually was rather than what you originally (mistakenly) believed it was. This sort of misunderstanding happens to me on this board continually. Some people, instead of actually listening to what I say and trying to understand it, have a tendency to latch on to one thing or another thing and attack it relentlessly as a subcomponent of what I am saying, in the belief that if they attack the subcomponent they see as weak (which it may well be) they can bring the whole system down. However, they don't bother to try to understand the relationship between the subcomponent and the whole system, so more often than not they completely miss the point of the argument and fail to realise that the subcomponent they are attacking isn't a structurally crucial part of my position at all. Two weeks later, when they've finally calmed down enough to realise what's going on they dance and sing and claim I've backed down on something (or like you - "Your system has been totally refuted!!!!" "Why can't you see?") when all that has happened is they misunderstood the whole point of what I was saying in the first place. That's why I am not taking much notice of your posts. They aren't relevant to me, for the reasons given above. To me, they are just "noise".

Geoff

It is important because you bring it into these discussions as if it somehow supports something you are saying, however when it is shown (as has happened before) that what you have brought into the discussion is a load of rubbish you distance yourself from it by claiming "the maths doesn't matter it's the principle". (It also shows that you will grasp at anything that you just think supports your faith, whether you understand it or not.)

In the meantime people do you the courtesy of looking at the "evidence" you bring to the table, spend time and effort to understand it, point out the flaws in it only for you to say "the flaws don't matter it's the principle".

Can't you see what is wrong with that? You claim that something supports your beliefs but when it is shown to be wrong it isno longer relevant (even though you bring it up time an time again)? It is a dishonest way to argue for your beliefs.

An honest way would be for you to clearly state your belief, state these are the actual arguments and the actual evidence that led to that belief.

However that poses a problem for you since your beliefs are not evidence or even based on rationale thought - they are a faith you have been holding for many years. And your only evidence is your experience of "paranormal" events some of which you have mentioned in this forum such as:

*Documents magical appearing on your computer which explain great truths but you can't publish here because of copyright reasons​

*Websites that are two years old but weren't there yesterday​

And so on. (The two examples above are still to be found on the forum.)

 

[Complexity]

Geoff - You remind me a lot of Ian. I have scanned (i.e. not invested much energy in) what you've been writing and I haven't seen anything of value.

You have failed to write or think clearly enough to warrant any more of my attention.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Darat,

I can't put you on ignore, but I'm not going to continue with this.

Whenever I am in a debate with you, and you have run out of constructive things to say, you make a post like that one. Your last roll of the dice is to bring out those claims at the bottom of the page - in a naked attempt to undermine my credibility in the eyes of newbies. WHAT HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH THIS THREAD? Nothing.

You are like scribble. What is the point in you existing? None, as far as I can see. You're like a mosquito.

Sorry, but that's how you seem to me. small-minded, with a small "s".

Geoff.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoff - You remind me a lot of Ian. I have scanned (i.e. not invested much energy in) what you've been writing and I haven't seen anything of value.

You have failed to write or think clearly enough to warrant any more of my attention.

Why'd you bother making that post then?

It's like "You're wrong. You haven't thought about. I can;t be bothered to explain why. Bye."

Whoopie Doo! What a clever boy!