The Hard Problem of Gravity

westprog said:
Mathematics never deals with concrete objects.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant:

Describe a mathematical property without using a concrete entity to do so.

Penrose gives a detailed description of the relationship between mathematics and physics. I recommend it.
Click to expand...

I am aware of such views although not specifically from Penrose himself.

Nevertheless the idea of a mathematics is made utterly a nonsense of by Goedel et al - although I am not surprised that there are those who would rather cling to pre-Goedelian ideas of having the complete and final mathematics to hand.

As such the statement:

"Exactly why the physical universe should be bound by mathematical truth is a mystery, "

Is just silly naval gazing - ANY physical universe would be bound by A mathematical truth because there are an infinite number of "truthes".
 
cyborg said:
Sure, if you can describe it in a completely abstract way without symbols or language and whatnot.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure what your point is. I can describe unicorns and fairies using symbols and language and what not. And there's nothing that I can describe without using symbols and language and what not--fictional or otherwise.

It would seem to me to be a phony challenge--like challenging someone to explain something on the forums without using internet protocols. Of course it's impossible to explain things without language or symbols. But I don't think that is what westprog is talking about.
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
What has this got to do with the concept of the reduction of bias error?
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out that objectivity is just a brain state. In a sense, it has no external validity. You can be entirely sensorily conscious and yet have no objectivity. Thus, in considering the validity of objectivity in uncovering the materialist basis of consciousness, I would say...if it gets the job done, great. If not drop it.

Nick
 
Of course it's impossible to explain things without language or symbols. But I don't think that is what westprog is talking about.
Click to expand...

In metaphysical debates getting agreement that the impossible is indeed impossible is usually impossible.

Well it is - all those things have a physical basis - they are not sufficiently abstract to be this "mathematics" that exists beyond the physical since they rely on physical referants such as spatiality for them to have meaning.

I'm sure westprog et al would think along the lines of, "you don't need a bunch of oranges to know how to count," but I'm not.
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
And I'm pointing out that this statement makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me. Try being objective about something without a sense of self. Without inner speech (thinking) you can't have objectivity. Anyway, I was not trying to start an argument about these things, merely pointing out that science is constrained by human needs as much as anything else. If people want to know something and science isn't getting the job done, they'll go elsewhere.

Nick
 
Makes perfect sense to me. Try being objective about something without a sense of self. Without inner speech (thinking) you can't have objectivity.
Click to expand...

I do not need to "try" anything - either I apply the proper procedure to eliminate biased data or I do not. That is the point.
 
yy2bggggs said:
You need more of an argument than that. How do you explain inattentional blindness?
Click to expand...

Now that is a much more interesting issue, there are all sorts of blindness caused by various things.

I was just saying that by definition, we are aware of perceptions.

The real problem being that 'awareness' has a rather broad and general meaing.

I am aware of very little when i am drowsy. But I am also not very conscious either,
vagueness in vagueness.
 
Nick227 said:
The point anyway was not relevant to the earlier question. Originally it was about one interpretation of GWT, specifically the notion that the body/brain is made up of multiple modules, each of which is conscious independant of the others.

Nick
Click to expand...


I could agree that there are paralell and linked processes that we sometimes label as part of consciousness at different times.
 
yy2bggggs said:
I'm not quite sure what your point is. I can describe unicorns and fairies using symbols and language and what not.
Click to expand...

And unicorns and fairies are not completely independent of physical reality. On the contrary, they are completely dependent on physical reality.

In particular, a unicorn is a horse with a narwhal horn and a fairie is a little humanoid with wings that lives in the forest. Despite the fact that neither unicorns nor fairies are real, it is impossible to describe them without referencing physical reality.

Likewise for mathematics.

yy2bggggs said:
But I don't think that is what westprog is talking about.
Click to expand...

It is. Westprog believes that mathematics exists independent of physical reality and that physical reality just happens to perfectly obey the laws of mathematics due to an unknown magic.
 
Apathia said:
I suppose my question was too stupid to deserve an answer.
At least I wasn't given an insult in reply.
Click to expand...

Maybe try re-phrasing it in a manner that can be replied to with one word ripostes. Usually does the trick! As a general rule with Pixy, asking for explanations or expansion on terms is a no-no. You'll be lucky to get a response, other than perhaps to be informed that he's already explained it all before.

Anyway, I wouldn't go around assuming your question was stupid. If it was stupid you can rest assured he would have told you so in a single word. Rather it's that your questions were potentially leading him away from his safe lair. When you're worried of being sniped at it pays to keep your head down, don't expose too much.

Nick
 
Last edited:
yy2bggggs said:
Of course it's impossible to explain things without language or symbols. But I don't think that is what westprog is talking about.
Click to expand...

Also, we should not confuse the thing itself with the description of it. Mathematics is entirely independent of the names and symbols we use to describe it.

And Godel is if anything, supportive of the view of mathematics as something independent in and of itself. The fundamental principle of the incompleteness theorem is the assumption that something can have objective truth in the absence of proof. He's asserting that things can be true in the realm of mathematics.
 
rocketdodger said:
It is. Westprog believes that mathematics exists independent of physical reality and that physical reality just happens to perfectly obey the laws of mathematics due to an unknown magic.
Click to expand...

I find it strange that Rocketdodger labels anything of which we are ignorant as magic. Why is it so difficult to accept our ignorance?
 
westprog said:
Also, we should not confuse the thing itself with the description of it. Mathematics is entirely independent of the names and symbols we use to describe it.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it.

Mathematics is the names and symbols. Mathematics is the description.

Math is a language. Just like any other language, it is a description.

People don't say "English is entirely independent of the names and symbols we use to describe it." English doesn't float around in the void independently of human experience.

Neither does mathematics.
 
westprog said:
I find it strange that Rocketdodger labels anything of which we are ignorant as magic. Why is it so difficult to accept our ignorance?
Click to expand...

Because it isn't just ignorance.

It is making something up and insisting upon the correctness of the made up thing while at the same time proclaiming ignorance of the nature of the made up thing.

That is magic.
 
Apathia said:
I suppose my question was too stupid to deserve an answer.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I started typing a reply and it got lost somewhere. Your questions are not stupid at all!

Probably "self-awareness" is another term that should be avoided.
Click to expand...
No, I like that term. Self-awareness = awareness of self. That's precisely the self-reference I'm talking about. (And that Hofstadter is talking about.)
 
Nick227 said:
Maybe try re-phrasing it in a manner that can be replied to with one word ripostes.
Click to expand...
That only works if you're spouting nonsense. If, like Apathia, you ask sensible questions, it takes longer to phrase a response.

Anyway, I wouldn't go around assuming your question was stupid. If it was stupid you can rest assured he would have told you so in a single word.
Click to expand...
Right.

Rather it's that your questions were potentially leading him away from his safe lair. When you're worried of being sniped at it pays to keep your head down, don't expose too much.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the straw-man and ad hominem, Nick. I'll add them to my collection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom