5 ms·

This XKCD strip comes to mind: http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/ . I don't think anyone is actually saying nature is math. In that strip you can see th

by RevRal 16y ago

This XKCD strip comes to mind: http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/ . I don't think anyone is actually saying nature is math. In that strip you can see that the line continues rightward, though I don't know if that was intentional. Math is just symbols that happen to have congruence with something deeper in reality. They're representations that can effectively substitute. Math just inherently works to explain nature and physics. And as far as philosophers, well I wouldn't say it's far-fetched to call someone like Stephen Hawking a philosopher. The danger is the philosophers who misunderstand, or who ignore the advancements in mathematics and scientific knowledge we've been making.

Confusion 16y ago
Math is just symbols that happen to have congruence with\ something deeper in reality. In which you already sidestep an enormous debate about whether such a thing as 'a deeper reality' exists. Nietzsche's 'God is dead' doesn't apply to the Christian God or Gods in general: it applies to every absolutist philosophy. Wittgenstein's work on the limits of language may have consequences for even what thoughts can possibly make sense. Their whole lineage, including people like Heidegger, Davidson and Rorty, is completely ignored by such an implicit, seemingly innocent, assumption. The danger is the philosophers who misunderstand, or who ignore the advancements in mathematics and scientific knowledge we've been making. Philosophers tend to have a pretty good understanding of the meaning of physics. It is taught to them at length, because of the importance of the scientific advances you refer to. It's certainly not the other way around. The fact is that most intelligent people are mostly unaware of the last 150 years of philosophy. The time before that is all they hear about, because it is pretty easy to explain. After that, it gets hard. However, those folks, among each other, just keep repeating the debates of back then, without realizing the advancements that have already been made. It's a damn shame. Even when you have progressed as little as I have, just to understanding how complicated these dualities are, discussing the Cartesian mind/matter duality with them over and over again gets like teaching yet another kid to integrate. They may be top-notch phycisists, but they simply don't know philosophy.
- RevRal 16y ago
  To a very large degree, I agree with what you say. If we go any further I think it would amount to nit picking.
- Retric 16y ago
  Philosopy is as far removed from reality as math. Philosopy like math is only limited by being self consistant, but it need not be consistant with our reality. PS: It's not hard to argue that there been zero progress in Philosopy since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho ;-)
  - eavc 16y ago
    Since when does philosophy only need to be self-consistent? I don't think you know what philosophy is.
    - Retric 16y ago
      Really? Name three other constraints on philosophy. Note: They must apply to philosophers of antiquity and modularity, secular and of faith, eastern and western, human and non human etc.
      - jayruy 16y ago
        huh? define a philosophical constraint and i'll undefine it for you... i believe the import is that it helps us come to terms with our humanity, which has no formal definition, by definition mathematics certainly informs philosophy, the most pertinent example that comes to mind is godel on the works of wittgenstein... if you look at philosophy post godel/wittgenstein it has become continental philosophy (analytically formed 'novels') and analytic philosophy (which informs the impact of logic on natural language)... each of these activities carries as much or as little weight as you would like to give it... but conservative thinkers might say the same of even pure sciences - are we really better off with all the devices/distractions of modern life?
      - eavc 16y ago

by RevRal 16y ago

Confusion 16y ago

Math is just symbols that happen to have congruence with\ something deeper in reality. In which you already sidestep an enormous debate about whether such a thing as 'a deeper reality' exists. Nietzsche's 'God is dead' doesn't apply to the Christian God or Gods in general: it applies to every absolutist philosophy. Wittgenstein's work on the limits of language may have consequences for even what thoughts can possibly make sense. Their whole lineage, including people like Heidegger, Davidson and Rorty, is completely ignored by such an implicit, seemingly innocent, assumption. The danger is the philosophers who misunderstand, or who ignore the advancements in mathematics and scientific knowledge we've been making. Philosophers tend to have a pretty good understanding of the meaning of physics. It is taught to them at length, because of the importance of the scientific advances you refer to. It's certainly not the other way around. The fact is that most intelligent people are mostly unaware of the last 150 years of philosophy. The time before that is all they hear about, because it is pretty easy to explain. After that, it gets hard. However, those folks, among each other, just keep repeating the debates of back then, without realizing the advancements that have already been made. It's a damn shame. Even when you have progressed as little as I have, just to understanding how complicated these dualities are, discussing the Cartesian mind/matter duality with them over and over again gets like teaching yet another kid to integrate. They may be top-notch phycisists, but they simply don't know philosophy.

RevRal 16y ago
To a very large degree, I agree with what you say. If we go any further I think it would amount to nit picking.
Retric 16y ago
Philosopy is as far removed from reality as math. Philosopy like math is only limited by being self consistant, but it need not be consistant with our reality. PS: It's not hard to argue that there been zero progress in Philosopy since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho ;-)
- eavc 16y ago
  Since when does philosophy only need to be self-consistent? I don't think you know what philosophy is.
  - Retric 16y ago
    Really? Name three other constraints on philosophy. Note: They must apply to philosophers of antiquity and modularity, secular and of faith, eastern and western, human and non human etc.
    - jayruy 16y ago
      huh? define a philosophical constraint and i'll undefine it for you... i believe the import is that it helps us come to terms with our humanity, which has no formal definition, by definition mathematics certainly informs philosophy, the most pertinent example that comes to mind is godel on the works of wittgenstein... if you look at philosophy post godel/wittgenstein it has become continental philosophy (analytically formed 'novels') and analytic philosophy (which informs the impact of logic on natural language)... each of these activities carries as much or as little weight as you would like to give it... but conservative thinkers might say the same of even pure sciences - are we really better off with all the devices/distractions of modern life?
    - eavc 16y ago