Essence and Existence

[Kurieuo]

To add my two cents in response to some things said.

If math is discovered, then it's not constructed, its that simple as I see. Do we not universally teach math, and there really is wrong and right answers to mathematical equations? If so it's discovered. If discovered, then it is something real in and of itself no matter how much smoke is blown to confuse such.

Realism is not Platonism, if you think they're one and the same then do more reading. Though I can understand why Materialists would be quick to assume such of those who consider math real. Such find it hard to conceptualise anything as real that doesn't have a basis in some sort of matter. Universals like math need not be materialised objects found in some plane of existence to be real. Eg, research Neo-platonism, the next "new" development of platonic thought.

QM most definitely does not change 1 to equal 2 just as well as 1. You'll not find a legit physicist who says such nonsense. 1over137 could weigh in here. Superposition doesn't change math, rather our understanding of laws that govern our world do.

[neo-x]

To add my two cents in response to some things said.

If math is discovered, then it's not constructed, its that simple as I see. Do we not universally teach math, and there really is wrong and right answers to mathematical equations? If so it's discovered. If discovered, then it is something real in and of itself no matter how much smoke is blown to confuse such.

Realism is not Platonism, if you think they're one and the same then do more reading. Though I can understand why Materialists would be quick to assume such of those who consider math real. Such find it hard to conceptualise anything as real that doesn't have a basis in some sort of matter. Universals like math need not be materialised objects found in some plane of existence to be real. Eg, research Neo-platonism, the next "new" development of platonic thought.

QM most definitely does not change 1 to equal 2 just as well as 1. You'll not find a legit physicist who says such nonsense. 1over137 could weigh in here. Superposition doesn't change math, rather our understanding of laws that govern our world do.

You are right on that front K. I am not that well versed in philosophy so may be I am just misunderstanding the position taken here.

As far as Qm goes I didn't think that in the sense that 1 becomes two. Rather 1 is in two states at the same time. That is why I referred to quantum superposition. However I need to recheck my reference as Byb seems confident that I am wrong on that.

[neo-x]

Byb, you were right. I apologize. I was wrong on the Qm bit. It clearly isn't relevant to the discussion anyway. Thanks for the correction on that.

[Byblos]

BTW, the reason I had "glossed over" the reference to Higgs' and Maxwell, as you have noted is that I can still see them as valid without maths being universal or in the divine mind. In fact, from what I have gathered over the years on the topic of maths is that it is not a science unto itself, rather it is a way of describing things or the world around us. And following that approach, it can predict as well, however, not in all cases.

Where the math is sound and where it does predict, the predictions are extremely accurate and universal. There are many more examples than the ones I provided.

However, my main contention with the idea is that I don't see math as the final solution to the problems indeed in physics or natural sciences. Consider for a moment, that until Newton, math was largely simple, later Einstien came up with another idea and a little later the QM was discovered.. The problem is human beings are not equipped to observe the QM naturally, any more than you can visualise 11 dimensions of the string theory. Using math, you can because there is no other way for us to visualise it other than adding an x, y, z and so on to add dimensions on a paper. But to me, it is just that, language.

And how does that invalidate math as a universally true? In fact it supports it. Take the Higgs boson again as an example, when it was predicted mathematically some 5 decades ago we certainly didn't have the technology to "observe it" but when developed the technology at CERN the prediction was validated.

And I'll give you an example, consider triangles again. Why do we know that triangles or even the concept of it, works? Because we live in a space, physical space, like planet earth where you can draw an accurate triangle in the sand. That is how you know it works and thus you can say that even if there are no humans, the concept of it is still true - that it exists in the divine. That is your proof that math is correct because it can be verified that the sum of all angles is 180.
Now, I am saying that if you do not live on this earth and you lived in vaccum space, then the idea becomes fundamentally false. Why? because you cannot make a triangle in space, no matter what you do, the sum of the three sides will never be 180. Because spacetime is curved. So it would be your squared-circle, an absurdity.

That's just not true. When I first talked about triangularity and the sum of angles, what did I preface with? Euclidean Geometry, i.e. geometry of flat surfaces. Of course it doesn't apply to curved space-time because then we would need non-Euclidean Geometry (Riemannian, for example). You would not invalidate the formula for computing the volume of cylinder, given only a circle would you? Of course not, because it simply doesn't apply.

So the idea that triangularity is universal is not really true, it fails in space and there is no way solution for that, not even in maths. And again, humans have evolved to see things in 3 dimensions, therefore if a lifeform similar to us ever rose again say a billion years from now, they will be able to detect patterns in 3-dimensional space and hence come up with the idea again, it is not because triangle exists in the abstract that they will discover, it is because any lifeform like us that can detect patterns and can reason will come to the same conclusions. However, anyone in space will never discover or detect triangle even in the abstract then anyone thinking of a fire-breathing dragon. Even if they do, it will be false because the triangle will never make sense in reality since it won't have the sum of 180.

Your reasoning is faulty because you are not applying the rules where they belong. Are you familiar with the concept of Boltzmann brains? In a nutshell, it is the theory that it is much more probable that the universe is filled with unembodied intelligent minds instead of rational animals; and yet it isn't. My aim is not to argue the merits of the theory but to use it as an illustration. Assume humans are the only intelligent species in the universe and we are annihilated tomorrow. Further assume that Boltzmann brains evolved, highly intelligent unembodied minds, capable of analyzing the environment in which they exist with only their minds. I would submit that they would come to virtually the same conclusions we have as a species and so would they have discovered the same math we have. The only difference is that they may not be able to test their theories and discover the applicability of such math to their environment (other than thru mental observation) until such time that they develop mind-matter manipulation. And when they do they will make the same connection we have. How could they not, it is the same reality.

By the way, do you agree with DS? Depending on your answer, how do you define, the Divine mind?

Yes, of course I agree with DS (Divine Simplicity). It is the foundation upon which monotheism rests. The Divine Mind is absolutely simple (pure act with no potentiality whatsoever), whose essence is its existence (no distinction between the two, hence why it is called subsistent existence itself), absolutely unique, incorporeal, timeless, omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent, and fully good.

I don't think God can think of any anything, not even an abstraction. God can never have a thought, actually. There is nothing to think of. I'd even go as far as to say, taking your words here, that if "all possible worlds" exist in God's mind than possible worlds exist in reality and abstract objects as well (which means they aren't abstract anymore). There is no potentiality in God.

How do you get around this?

I don't have to get around it because I don't need to. You're right when you say the divine mind cannot "think" because the implication is that it "gaining knowledge" by thinking, which further implies potentiality. But by definition the divine mind is pure act with no potency.

And all possible worlds existing in the divine mind as abstract ideas (or as potentials) does not entail potentiality in the divine mind. Now we have to get a bit more philosophical and introduce the difference between real properties and Cambridge properties. A real property is that when I was 12 years old I was 5'00'' and now I am 5'10''. That's a real change in me and therefore, a potential that was actualized through time and proper nutrition. My younger brother was also 5'00 at 12 but he is now 6'00''. I am now shorter than he is but what kind of change does that represent in me? Is it a real change? Of course not, it's not a potential in me that was actualized so that I became shorter than my brother. It is a Cambridge change insomuch as my brother growing taller than me. And so are abstract objects as potential in the divine mind. It is a mere Cambridge change when those potentials are actualized; they do not represent any change in the divine mind itself.

By the way, I almost forgot to mention that one particular reason I don't like the argument from scholastic realism or platonic for that matter is the nature of the argument itself. It presents itself as an almost a cop-out. There is no elegance to this argument. It has to appeal, subtly, to a GOG to justify itself.

When asked, where does it exist?
It is in the divine mind and hence why it is universal.

It narrowly dodges the bullet unlike platonic realism but I don't think it is a very convincing argument.

You could not be more wrong. God of the gaps arguments rely on the absence of proof, therefore God. The arguments from scholastic realism use logical proofs whose necessary conclusions are the Divine Mind, and whatever that entails (certainly DS).

[PaulSacramento]

I really don't understand the confusion in accepting that what something IS, is different then THAT it is.
We do that with extinct animals all the time.

[Byblos]

I really don't understand the confusion in accepting that what something IS, is different then THAT it is.
We do that with extinct animals all the time.

We do that in virtually everything. In fact, science presupposes it.

[PaulSacramento]

I really don't understand the confusion in accepting that what something IS, is different then THAT it is.
We do that with extinct animals all the time.

We do that in virtually everything. In fact, science presupposes it.

Indeed, Physics, Math, engineering, they all have it at their core.
What something is ( actuality), that it exists (existence), it's potential to be whatever ( potentiality), these things ARE science and science depends on them.