I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Belz...]

Not "imagination" the "imaginary."

Same thing. There's no imaginary without people imagining it.

 

[Belz...]

The hand-waving response is actually your style in the considered subject

Really, you're going to use a "I know you are, but what am I ?" tactic ?

as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

Yeah, that's a post by you, so that's your hand-waving response, not mine.

Moreover, your multiplicity reasoning

What is multiplicity reasoning, anyway ? You keep saying it but never explain it.

 

[Nonpareil]

Any way, lets address the traditional 0/1 excluded-middle reasoning, as follows:

For those wondering, that translates to "let's talk about the idea that propositions are either true or false".

Apparently, doronshadmi believes this is not true.

<snip table>

As can be seen Unity is the substance of the 16 logical connectives between the 2 propositions p and q, which is not bounded p,q or anyone of the 16 logical connectives.

The table means nothing, and the rest is gibberish.

For those wondering, doronshadmi is constructing a rudimentary binary tree. Trace any particular string of numbers down the length of the tree and you get a string of four numbers. The string "0011" is referred to as p, while "0101" is q. Yes, these values are completely arbitrary; they're just ones that give a pretty table.

All the stuff like "p AND q", "p XOR q", and so on is just pointing out which strings of numbers correspond to what bitwise operations between those two values. "0001" is what you get if you perform the AND operation on p and q, when he talks about implication he's talking about bitwise logic implementation, and so on. It's actually fairly basic, and all correct so far as actually performing the operations and getting the right values goes.

But it doesn't actually mean anything.

Like I said, the values of p and q in this example are arbitrary. Aside from that, putting the word "unity" at the base of the tree is worse than meaningless. The tree uses binary values - zero and one - because it is talking about comparing strings of bits; a non-binary, non-numeric value as the root is incoherent, unless doronshadmi means to imply that "unity" means "any string of binary values of any length", and the two values being compared are simply differing ends to the string. Which would be valid, but doesn't help his other arguments much, since his whole "unity/multiplicity" thing can't take that as its definition.

There's also his placing the values "tautology" and "contradiction" at differing ends of the tree. Like the use of "unity" as the root, this can make sense if you substitute the right values, but it still doesn't mean anything for the rest of his arguments. "Tautology", in this context, must be said to mean "I performed any string of bitwise operations that resulted in a result of 1111", while contradiction is the same but for the string "0000". Again, not technically wrong, but unnecessarily complicated, and not helpful to the rest of his arguments.

It also doesn't "address the traditional 0/1 excluded-middle reasoning". Or, rather, it does, but not in the way he wants it to.

Keep in mind that this tree is a demonstration of bitwise operations. It's computer programming, and, in programming, "true" and "false" are represented by 1 and 0, respectively. Bitwise operators - AND, OR, XOR, and so on - all work by comparing two bits (that is, values of 0 or 1) and "returning" (giving the answer) 0 or 1. That is, bitwise operations only function explicitly because they work on the principle that doronshadmi claims they can disprove.

As for the strings they return, well, that's just doronshadmi failing to distinguish between 0 and 1 as truth values - which are called Boolean variables, in programming - and as simple strings of bits which can mean anything depending on how they are processed.

So no. He hasn't addressed anything. He's just constructed a fairly simple binary tree showing, grabbed two arbitrary strings of bits, and then worked out where each bitwise operator is expressed on the tree. He then slaps on three terms that don't really make sense in the context unless taken in the loosest way possible (but which look very impressive, dontcherknow) and claims he's proven something.

We can use 0/1 tree in order to demonstrate Unity as the substance of Materialism and Idealism

You can't, actually.

Putting aside literally everything that I said above, and ignoring for the moment that trying to represent materialism and idealism as binary 0 or binary 1 is a category error, and letting slide for now the fact that you still don't have a definition of "unity", there's another problem here.

Literally all you have done is build a binary tree with an invalid value as its root and said "materialism = 1, idealism = 0".

This doesn't mean anything. This means less than nothing. It is un-learning things from my brain.

By the logic presented here, you could substitute literally any two things you wanted into this tree and prove that "unity" is the root of both. I could use this diagram to say unity is the root of teddy bears and the color purple. If this table is valid, you still haven't proven anything. You have, in fact, un-proven everything, ever.

Try again. And this time, don't assume that your audience is completely ignorant of computer science and unable to call you out on your nonsense.

And, once again, misrepresented and incoherent programming-related pseudomath is a staple of doronshadmi's posts.

 

[doronshadmi]

What is multiplicity reasoning, anyway ? You keep saying it but never explain it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619.

 

[marplots]

Same thing. There's no imaginary without people imagining it.

So does it exist? I mean, does the imaginary start to exist when people imagine it, or can we imagine things that do not exist?

 

[Nonpareil]

So does it exist? I mean, does the imaginary start to exist when people imagine it

Only in the loosest sense possible. It "exists" as an idea.

So no.

or can we imagine things that do not exist?

Yes, we can.

 

[doronshadmi]

By the logic presented here, you could substitute literally any two things you wanted into this tree and prove that "unity" is the root of both.

Exactly Nonpareil, Unity is the substance of mutiplicity (no matter what multiple things are considered), but not vise versa, exactly because Unity is (by its very own nature) not the sum of many things (it is not derived from multiplicity).

and "one_of_many thing" is a nonsense phrase.

Not at all, one_of_many thing is exactly one_of_multiple things, where Unity (by its very own nature) is not one_of_multiple things.

 

[Nonpareil]

Exactly Nonpareil, Unity is the substance of mutiplicity (no matter what multiple things are considered), but not vise versa, exactly because Unity is (by its very own nature) not the sum of many things (is not derived from multiplicity).

We have reached an impasse.

I have pointed out that your argument is nonsense. I explain how and why it is nonsense. I show that, if you ignore the fact that it makes absolutely no sense and has no basis in any sort of rationality whatsoever and follow this argument through to its (il)logical conclusion, you are left with an incoherent mess that means less than nothing.

And you say "exactly!"

I think we're done here.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have pointed out that your argument is nonsense.

Once again you have pointed out that your reasoning is limited only to multiplicity.

and "one_of_many thing" is a nonsense phrase.

As a result you can't comprehend one_of_many (or one_of_multiple) thing, exactly like a fish that is surrounded by water but can't comprehend it.

 

[marplots]

... can we imagine things that do not exist?

Yes, we can.

Then somehow, I need to connect these things that do not exist to what we imagine, in order to connect the non-existent to the existent. That is, to show that things which do not exist can influence things that do.

Here's my latest try. I propose that we there are types of imaginings that have rules, so that the rules influence not only what we are capable of imagining, but allow us to do a bit of mental manipulation on those imaginings.

I'm after a structure that says a certain type of non-existent thing has a kind of shape to it, a property bound to that thing which then is carried over into our imaginings and influences them.

 

[doronshadmi]

Try again. And this time, don't assume that your audience is completely ignorant of computer science and unable to call you out on your nonsense.

Try again. And this time look also beyond the bound of your multiplicity-only reasoning.

And, once again, misrepresented and incoherent programming-related pseudomath is a staple of doronshadmi's posts.

So you don't have the guts to air your view in the other thread.

 

[Nonpareil]

Then somehow, I need to connect these things that do not exist to what we imagine, in order to connect the non-existent to the existent. That is, to show that things which do not exist can influence things that do.

So you're honestly attempting to prove that, somewhere out there, in some sense, there exists a real Death Star, which is the reason that George Lucas came up with the fictional one for his movies?

Honest question.

Here's my latest try. I propose that we there are types of imaginings that have rules, so that the rules influence not only what we are capable of imagining, but allow us to do a bit of mental manipulation on those imaginings.

All right. For the sake of argument, I will grant this.

Now, how does showing that the human imagination has limits get you closer to proving that the nonexistent can have an effect on the existent?

I'm after a structure that says a certain type of non-existent thing has a kind of shape to it, a property bound to that thing which then is carried over into our imaginings and influences them.

Great. How can you differentiate between that and ordinary imagination?

 

[Nonpareil]

Try again. And this time look also beyond the bound of your multiplicity-only reasoning.

This remains incoherent.

So you don't have the guts to air your view in the other thread.

On the contrary. I just don't care to.

 

[Fudbucker]

There's nothing else to be said.

The idea isn't even coherent, let alone supported by any sort of evidence. It's the same issue that idealism and neutral monism have. They are defined only in the loosest sense, and that definition collapses the minute you begin to look deeper. What exactly is this "higher plane" where mathematical entities, void somehow of all other characteristics other than the fact that they are mathematical entities, exist? How do we interact with it? How does it impose itself upon our world?

You don't just get to wave a hand and say "magic", then complain when someone dismisses your idea. If you support mathematical realism, then give us a reason to consider it.

I gave you reasons, and your argument isn't with me but with all the mathematicians that believe in it:
"Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics."


Just like the fine-tuning thread, we come to a point where the consensus opinion of authorities is discarded, and we're supposed to believe the ramblings of some message board members. I hardly need to tell a bunch of skeptics how non-skeptical that is.

 

[Belz...]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619.

Yeah and I still have no clue what you mean.

 

[Belz...]

So does it exist? I mean, does the imaginary start to exist when people imagine it, or can we imagine things that do not exist?

You've been here long enough to know that thoughts are brain processes. There is no imaginary if there's no one to imagine anything.

 

[Nonpareil]

I gave yu reasons

No. You gave me assertions.

They are not equivalent.

and your argument isn't with me but with all the mathematicians that believe in it:
"Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics."

Popularity is not a defense when the entire philosophy is demonstrably incoherent and lacks all evidential support. Especially when this argument is not mathematical. The fact that mathematicians support it is irrelevant.

Just like the fine-tuning thread, we come to a point where the consensus opinion of authorities is discarded

The area they are experts in is not equivalent to the one being discussed.

Stop trying to pretend that it is.

EDIT: For the record, I actually agree with Fudbucker, generally speaking, about the fine tuning thread being an absolute train wreck because people are spouting off about things they don't understand and ignoring the relevant authorities. I won't say I agree with everything he says in it, but on that point we have consensus. I refrain from posting there because I am not an expert, and I have read enough of Hawking's work on the subject to know that it is completely out of my league, and the thread is a complete Charlie Foxtrot as is.

However.

In this case, the field being examined is not math. It does not take an expert mathematician to dismiss a claim about a magical realm of "pure" triangles. There is no evidence presented. The claim as it stands is incoherent. The arguments put forth in its favor all fall flat because they end up making an unwarranted leap from "mathematics is objective" to "magic triangles".

You don't have to be a mathematician to see the problem here.

 

[Fudbucker]

No. You gave me assertions.

They are not equivalent.



Popularity is not a defense when the entire philosophy is demonstrably incoherent and lacks all evidential support. Especially when this argument is not mathematical. The fact that mathematicians support it is irrelevant.



The area they are experts in is not equivalent to the one being discussed.

Stop trying to pretend that it is.

EDIT: For the record, I actually agree with Fudbucker, generally speaking, about the fine tuning thread being an absolute train wreck because people are spouting off about things they don't understand and ignoring the relevant authorities. I won't say I agree with everything he says in it, but on that point we have consensus. I refrain from posting there because I am not an expert, and I have read enough of Hawking's work on the subject to know that it is completely out of my league, and the thread is a complete Charlie Foxtrot as is.

However.

In this case, the field being examined is not math. It does not take an expert mathematician to dismiss a claim about a magical realm of "pure" triangles. There is no evidence presented. The claim as it stands is incoherent. The arguments put forth in its favor all fall flat because they end up making an unwarranted leap from "mathematics is objective" to "magic triangles".

You don't have to be a mathematician to see the problem here.

I think you underestimate how mathematicians struggle with the ontology of math, and how much effort goes into understanding what math is.

However, it does have philosophical implications, so you do have a point. It's not as strong as you think, though.

My own argument is fairly straightforward: if mathematical entities like Pi (and numbers in general) had a mental foundation, they would be derived at through induction, and therefore capable of being wrong (there is no deductive argument that 2+2 must equal 4. Wittgenstein tried to reduce mathematics to logical principles and failed). In other words, math is not invented, it's discovered.

If math is discovered, then it must exist in some form in order to be discovered. Math cannot exist in a material form (what is the material version of Pi or the number "3"?), so math must exist in some non-material form.

 

[marplots]

So you're honestly attempting to prove that, somewhere out there, in some sense, there exists a real Death Star, which is the reason that George Lucas came up with the fictional one for his movies?

Honest question.

No, I'm not attempting to prove that. Because if there existed a real Death Star, it wouldn't be a non-existent thing. What I'm thinking of is some kind of rule that helps shape what we can imagine, even about non-existent things. The problem is going to be when I get to the step where I say the "rule" isn't just a property of how imagination works. This might be a dead end.

 

[doronshadmi]

This remains incoherent.

Your reply

He then slaps on three terms that don't really make sense in the context unless taken in the loosest way possible (but which look very impressive, dontcherknow) and claims he's proven something.

clearly demonstrates once again, that you still try to comprehend my Neutral monist model of Unity by using municipality-only reasoning (that is exactly the context that is used by you here), which wrongly comprehends Unity as one_of_many thing.

So, there is no wonder why you can't comprehend my Neutral monist model of Unity, and totally missing posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379381&postcount=627, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.

Once again, here is what you are missing again and again (exactly because you are using multiplicity-only reasoning):

If Unity is the unbounded source of all bounded forms, it is naturally unbounded by contradiction or tautology, which are clearly the bounds of logic at the level of multiplicity.

So is the case about Material or Ideal phenomena, which are some bounded forms at the multiplicity level that is derived from Unity, but not vise versa.

Moreover

So you still don't have a definition, then.

Since multiplicity is derived from Unity, but not vise versa, Unity is defined only in terms of analogy, whether this analogy is words or a given diagram.

Since your reasoning is limited only to multiplicity, it does not have the needed abstraction in order to comprehend what Unity is.

---------------------------------------

On the contrary. I just don't care to.

Ho, yes you care to use other posters' replies about the other thread (and this time by using small letters)

And, once again, misrepresented and incoherent programming-related pseudomath is a staple of doronshadmi's posts.

exactly because you don't have the guts to do it by yourself.