I sort of split the last 2 posts to make my response more coherent to the related subjects, I hope you don't mind.
neo-x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm
I didn’t say math breaks at the qm. I said Its different that Normal rules and equations such as 2+2= 4 don't necessarily hold true.
To state that 2 + 2 does not yield 4 is to state that math broke down. There are no exceptions in math. Math by its very nature is propositional, either true or false (remember that as we discuss logic, propositions, possible worlds, and abstract objects and whether or not they exist and where).
neo-x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pmIt is in fact true that the particle exists in two states simultaneously. That is why the uncertainty exists at all, until observed and one of the two states is realized by the observer.
neo-x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
And the QM argument we were having. I'd go back and check if I am wrong on it. Though going on memory here, I may have been referring to quantum superposition where, if I am not wrong, unobserved, a particle can exist in two separate locations at the same time.
You are simply factually wrong. At first I thought you were referring to quantum entanglement which has to do with distinct particles at a distance (given your example of you in the East and me in the West) but you clarified in a later post (partially quoted above) that you were referring to quantum superposition, which is obviously different than entanglement but still a fundamental principle of QM. In any case, neither shows that the same particle is in 2 different states at the same time and in the same respect. Let's talk about superposition a bit.
QU (quantum superposition, to distinguish it from QS: quantum state) states than any two states can be combined (summed) to become another valid quantum state. Conversely, any QS can split to become 2 distinct and valid quantum states. This means that the properties of such states allow for them to combine and split (familiar?). Obviously this no more means that 1+1=1 (when combining) or 1=2 (when splitting) than when in biology a cell divides and becomes 2 cells means 1=2 or when 2 parents have a child means that 1+1=1.
Math is logic. When math is true it is also logical and when false it is also illogical. 2+2=5 is analogous to stating a married bachelor or a square circle. It is false, a contradiction, illogical. One of the most fundamental a priori assumptions in science is that the world is intelligible, coherent, follows a certain order. Otherwise we could not conduct experiments and hope to get the same results given the same conditions, or different results given different conditions. When math breaks down, logic breaks down, and with it not only does science break down but rationality itself.
neo-x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:15 pm
That is what I think. However I am very interested to know about how you think its exists outside of the mind? How so, where does it exist?
And again, where do triangles exist? We know that they don’t exist in reality, not a real thing.
I do not ask this for a is argument or challenge you to prove anything. Even though you may, I am interested in your reasons and how you arrived at this conclusion.
Thanks.
neo-x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pm
Byb,
Just to clarify. I think that historically a lot of other types of mathematics was never developed (consider axioms which were never realized). And the reason why I don't agree with the platonic idea of math is simply that a lot of maths is developed by humans. Take calculus for example. Newton invented it because the maths of his day couldn't describe the motion of the objects.
I will address the platonic thing later. There are some (many, the majority in fact) mathematical theories that do not lead to correlations with nature; thats a fact, but what are the reasons? Well, they are as follows:
A. The math is faulty, in which case if corrected, we are left with B and C only
B. The math is correct but does not correlate with our nature (perhaps with some other instantiated nature we don't know about or some other uninstantiated nature)
C. The math is correct and does correlate to our nature (whether or not this correlation is discoverable is a different matter)
What does this mean? If math is truly universal in every sense of the word, we would expect to see all 3 possibilities A, B, and C. Not only that, in the case of C, we would expect to see cases where math is not descriptive but more importantly prescriptive, such as in the examples I gave you of the Higgs boson and Maxwell's equations which I note you simply glossed over. And in fact that is precisely what we find. Time and again we see mathematical theories describe a theoretical characteristic of nature to later discover it in nature exactly how it was theorized. And again, it doesn't diminish the argument one bit to state many mathematical theories don't pan out. That there is even one example where it does is remarkable. That there are many is not a happy coincidence.
neo-x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pmI have always thought, even as a child, that math was something that helped solve a lot of problems, that like a language it helps to understand what's going on around us in a way which is better than words.
And that is why I have never found theism and math being eternal, relevant. And I don't agree with the correlation either, unlike you, as I surmised from your statement earlier that they are quite dependent on each other.
To say that numbers exist outside of space or time to me is ridiculous. I understand why people say it, for instance, like you emphasized on the brilliance of maths, of it being accurate, just tells me that it is that, accurate or successful in solving a problem, that doesn't mean it must also exist outside of time and space. And that is why I think that people see it solving something and they say "it's a miracle", to borrow your terminology.
neo-x wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:03 pmPlus, I am not really a fan of platonic usage of maths which was more of gibberish than something useful.
First, let me state emphatically that I am NOT a platonist. But there is a third alternative to platonism on one hand and nominalism (materialism) on the other. When I mentioned realism I was referring to scholastic realism, not platonic. But in order to know what the difference is we'd have to go back and discuss universals such as abstract objects (and math and logic and possible worlds and propositions). By the way, this will eventually tie in with the intended subject matter, i.e. essence and existence but we'll let that be for now.
Let's take one of them, abstract ideas, and a good example is one you already mentioned, i.e. triangularity (with respect to Euclidean geometry). That there are triangles is trivial but what does the concept triangularity mean? Is it in our minds as we observe triangles and generalize (abstract away)? In other words, does the concept triangularity exist outside our minds and if so, where?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are 3 schools of thought for the existence of universals:
- Nominalism that denies universals exist at all (associated with materialism)
- Conceptualism that affirms the existence of universals but only in the human mind
- Realism that affirms the existence of universals independent of the human mind
On realism, there are three tracks:
- Platonic realism that affirms the existence of universals in some distinct third realm
- Aristotelian realism that affirms the existence of universals but only in the objects they were instantiated from
- Scholastic realism that affirms the existence of universals in the mind and independence of the human mind (ergo, in the divine mind)
Obviously discussing any of the above topics in greater detail requires tons of research and a mountain of books. Suffice it to say that all fail with the exception of scholastic realism. Let me give you a brief failure reason for each:
- On nominalism, the mere fact we are even talking about universals proves that abstract objects exist and so nominalism is false
- On conceptualism, that we can refer to triangularity as a 3-sided figure whose interior angles sum up to the angles of two right angles, without referring to a specific triangle, and that this triangularity concept exists even if the human mind was never here or is wiped out tomorrow and replaced by a new intelligent life billions of years from now. Triangularity would remain true then as it is today.
- On platonic realism, that we need to explain the so-called third realm's existence alone sufices to see how platonism fails
- On Aristotelian realism, the same argument as in conceptualism applies here is well
= And finally, on scholastic realism, universals are affirmed to exist in the mind and are independent of the human mind (or any other contingent mind). They do not exist in some third, inexplicable realm but they do exist in the divine mind (same as math, logic, all possible worlds, all propositions, and abstract objects).
Obviously we can go a lot further with this but my aim to tie all of this to the original topic of essence and existence (and my discussion with Nils, whom I am still hoping he'll answer my reply to his last post).
What I would suggest to you Neo is for you to reconsider your stance on all of this because it has many ramifications you may not be aware of. To that end, I would highly recommend a book by Edward Feser called "Five Proofs of the Existence of God". You can download it as an ebook. Do yourself a favor and get it. You can thank me later (or perhaps not, we'll see).
