Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems



17102017, 03:47 PM




Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
I haven't had much free time, but I managed to respond to a video I saw a long time ago. It was a video Robvalue made on abstract systems.
Robvalue's Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjZkLkNhTdg My Response: https://youtu.be/ruwXmVX_l5U "I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious  you write backward Es!"  Hilary Putnam 

17102017, 03:57 PM




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
My video's link isn't working at the moment. The video is still processing and, thanks to university wifi, will probably be doing so for a while.
"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious  you write backward Es!"  Hilary Putnam 

17102017, 04:53 PM




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
Ok should be working now.
"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious  you write backward Es!"  Hilary Putnam 

18102017, 12:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 18102017 01:09 AM by Robvalue.)




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
Well, it's a highly disrespectful response which just makes assertions. You're doing exactly what I've told you about a hundred times, which is trying to impose our models/observations/frameworks onto reality. Statements like "this is always true at all times" is a huge claim, one you can't possibly ever hope to demonstrate. How exactly could you ever give proof that such a statement is true? You'd require access to every possible configuration reality can have, including all time values, to check every single one. (See my post below also to show the added extent of the evidence this claim would require.) This is the mistake people make when they try to bypass science and just use philosophy to prove things. You're complaining about the basis of my episotomigly, while you're making way more claims than I am. That makes no sense at all.
Since we've talked about that endlessly already I don't know why you decided to make a video repeating what you've said before. I'm acknowledging the limits of abstract systems; you seem unable to distinguish between reality itself and abstract systems modeling it, and you think you can just tell reality how it behaves. I know what set theory is. I have a degree in maths. You seem to be saying there is only one type of mathematical system that is allowed. That's simply false. And set theory is all about abstract systems. It's not metaphysics, nor does it need to have anything to do with reality. You're conflating mathematics, science and philosophy as all one thing. If you weren't being such a jerk in the video I'd watch the rest of it, but that's as much as I care to see. Maybe someone else would like to critique the rest of the video. If anyone else would like to chime in on these fundamental points I've discussed above, please feel free! I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all. 

1 user Likes Robvalue's post 
18102017, 01:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 18102017 01:21 AM by Robvalue.)




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
The added problem with such overreaching claims as mathematics working a certain way at all times in all places is that it can be applied in any number of ways too. It could be used to just count, and even that is an overreach to generalize; but numbers can represent all manner of other functions as well. So to say any way we could possibly use these numbers, and the rules of mathematics will always produce this particular result no matter what we're considering, is ridiculous. We simply don't know that. The "plus" operator could represent any kind of function we like in reality. How well the mathematics will model it will then remain to be seen.
I did make a verbal mistake in the video regarding the oranges example, where I said "put two oranges together" or something instead of "one orange and another orange". I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all. 

18102017, 01:27 AM




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
Example: we have a box big enough to contain three metal cubes. The + operator is defined as such:
A + B = C means you take A number of cubes, put them into the box (as many as will go), and then put as many of B number of cubes into the box as you can also. The result, C, is how many cubes are in the box. So we can see: 1 + 1 = 2 1 + 2 = 3 2 + 1 = 3 2 + 2 = 3 5 + 5 = 3 In this case, our intuitive addition works normally to begin with, but then breaks down. I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all. 

18102017, 01:35 AM




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18102017 12:32 AM)Robvalue Wrote: Well, it's a highly disrespectful response which just makes assertions. You're doing exactly what I've told you about a hundred times, which is trying to impose our models/observations/frameworks onto reality. Statements like "this is always true at all times" is a huge claim, one you can't possibly ever hope to demonstrate. Clearly you didn't watch my response in it's entirety. We need to have infallible knowledge of certain things. There must exist absolutes. I explained this. And I explained how your attempt to escape this leaves you contradicting yourself. As for it being disrespectful, I don't see how that's the case. But even if it were, we're not here to drown each other in respect. We're here to let ideas clash. So let's leave respect at the door. Quote:How exactly could you ever give proof that such a statement is true? You'd require access to every possible configuration reality can have, including all time values, to check every single one. Again, I explained this in the video. Absolutes are known a priori through thought. You don't need to dogmatically test everything. In fact, such an attempt would be absurd. For how would you ground the beliefs that allow for the testing to even be considered reasonable? Quote:(See my post below also to show the added extent of the evidence this claim would require.) This is the mistake people make when they try to bypass science and just use philosophy to prove things. You're complaining about the basis of my episotomigly, while you're making way more claims than I am. That makes no sense at all. No one is bypassing science here. I'm merely showing you the place of science. Science is not an epistemic or ontological foundation nor can it be. You, in opting to merely trust science on blind faith, have foregone any attempt at an epistemology or ontology. And in doing this, you are giving up any right to make knowledge claims at all. Quote:I'm acknowledging the limits of abstract systems; you seem unable to distinguish between reality itself and abstract systems modeling it, and you think you can just tell reality how it behaves. Did you watch the video at all? How do you escape telling reality what it is in your worldview? If every concept is just an abstract system, then even your empiricist standard that you use to test observations against is an abstract system. All you're doing is telling reality that it must behave such that you can test observations against it. You're doing the very thing you're condemning. Quote:I know what set theory is. I have a degree in maths. You seem to be saying there is only one type of mathematical system that is allowed. That's simply false. And set theory is all about abstract systems. It's not metaphysics, nor does it need to have anything to do with reality. You're conflating mathematics, science and philosophy as all one thing. I never said you didn't know what set theory is. And I never even implied only one type of mathematical system could be allowed. What I did say was that there are certain mathematical truths that cannot be denied within reason. This isn't a conflation at all. It's simply acknowledging the place of mathematics. Quote:If you weren't being such a jerk in the video I'd watch the rest of it, but that's as much as I care to see. Maybe someone else would like to critique the rest of the video. If anyone else would like to chime in on these fundamental points I've discussed above, please feel free! Ah so you didn't watch the video. This is why you're response was so ridiculously stupid? Well maybe I'm being a little crazy here, but I think it would be best if you either watched the rest of the video before trying to respond to it or you just don't respond at all. Good day. "I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious  you write backward Es!"  Hilary Putnam 

18102017, 01:40 AM




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18102017 01:27 AM)Robvalue Wrote: Example: we have a box big enough to contain three metal cubes. The + operator is defined as such: Don't understand how you get the last two results. If I put two A cubes in the box and two B cubes in the box, how do I not have 4 cubes? "I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious  you write backward Es!"  Hilary Putnam 

18102017, 01:42 AM




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
Quote:I did make a verbal mistake in the video regarding the oranges example, where I said "put two oranges together" or something instead of "one orange and another orange". That's the issue though... 1 and 1 is 2. That could even work as a definition for the concept of 2. "I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious  you write backward Es!"  Hilary Putnam 

18102017, 03:07 AM




RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
I should add that the difference being discussed is between pure mathematics and applied mathematics. These are very different.
In pure mathematics, we needn't ever leave the room, so to speak. It's mathematics in a totally selfcontained form. It just has to be internally consistent, it needn't have any applications at all. Even if it does, those aren't explored within the field of pure mathematics. Applied mathematics is where we take these tools and try to use them to model reality. We approximate our observations using the best mathematical functions that we can. We're not longer selfcontained, we're producing results that are actually testable in the real world. There is no "1" in reality, nor "2", "+" or "=". These are all abstract ideas that we have come up with to help us understand reality. Of course most of pure mathematics was developed out of necessity and observation, before being refined and then applied back in more sophisticated ways. The strange thing is that we can use tricks within pure mathematics to help us with real world problems, even though we may enter abstract realms that don't correspond to reality at all. For example, we can turn an integral into the real part of a complex integral, which is easier to perform. We then use the rules of complex numbers (real and imaginary) to produce a result which can be applied back, but which makes no sense in the middle as far as the problem itself is concerned. I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all. 

1 user Likes Robvalue's post 
« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)