5 ms·

> built on top of chaos. I don't think you've taken on the full force of the argument that regularity in human activity (such as building systems) requires a s

> built on top of chaos. I don't think you've taken on the full force of the argument that regularity in human activity (such as building systems) requires a source of order for it not to simply dissolve into chaos itself. > How can it be that the patterns that we observe are so consistent? How can we claim to discern consistency (or inconsistency) without the ability to follow a rule correctly? And how can we follow a rule without a source of order or regularity in the cosmos? Wouldn't it be like trying to build a the Eiffel tower out of live slugs? If you insist on an absence of order in the physical universe, the onus is on you to explain how regularity in human activity (required for mathematics of any kind) can be achieved without it. This is not an argument for Platonic realism, BTW, or against intuitionism, roughly construed as the view that "mathematics is a creation of the mind" as per [1], or in your formulation that 'mathematical abstractions are not part of the physical universe' (if I understand what you're saying). You can perfectly well believe that mathematics is a mental construct and at the same time acknowledge that it's possible to observe regularities and order in the cosmos. If you want to insist that the regularity doesn't come from physical law, then I find it hard to see how you'll escape from some kind of Platonic belief in a non-physical realm that serves as the source of order :) In your TV screen dots analogy, isn't it usually thought that patterns appear only because of the structured, generative activity of law-observing physical components, specifically the neurons comprising your grey matter? 1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

klik99 3y ago
This argument completely ignores the observer which is bound by the same limits of our processing - indeed they are paired together. Entering purely theoretical space here: On the timescale of eternity this might be a local pocket of some logical organization but there is no fundamental logic governing everything. Our observation is limited so we can’t perceive chaos, instead evolved to only recognize patterns. Over infinity, pure chaos does not preclude long pockets of what looks like order. What we consider fundamental rules could very well be local phenomenon, which we are a product of. Of course this purely theoretical - all I’m saying is that intuitism could be true while also math being useful to predict things right now. We could also only exist for an instant and all our memories just construct, but that’s not very useful. It’s more useful to believe in scientific method because what’s repeatable is provable, whereas chaos is by its nature unprovable - which doesn’t make it impossible.
- ttctciyf 3y ago
  Well, not a possibility I considered, but nothing in the argument depends on the regularity being a permanent feature of the cosmos, just that systematic human endeavours, such as mathematics or indeed meaningful debate, depend on it, so when it goes they go. In that sense, if you wish to consider this conversation meaningful you are kind of ceding the point that for now chaos doesn't, in fact, reign. If you don't consider it meaningful, then why are you having it? :)
  - klik99 3y ago
    Not arguing anything - it's more an interesting thought experiment. This view doesn't change much other than never finding the "true unified theory of everything", which I'm not sure how many people think is truly possible (at least anytime soon) anyway. It is useful to focus on repeating things, and useless to focus on randomness. But I don't think it's necessarily true that randomness (probably a better word than chaotic since chaotic systems are complex mathematical interactions) doesn't reign. We evolved to take advantage of repeatable things, our sense organs and perception are all focused on things that are repeatable. Our definition of usefulness (what is useful/what isn't) depends on repeatable things. I believe there's a pretty high likelihood that we are blind to anything outside of that, such as true randomness. IE, we literally cannot conceive of true randomness since we are products of an environment that rewarded it. To your point, I guess this isn't exactly Intuitionism, since Intuitionism says it's a totally human construct, and mathematics has provenly predicted things in nature from purely theoretical models, whereas I just find the part that supposes mathematics isn't a fundamental part of objective reality possible. Either way, I don't think it changes anything about how we do math or science or anything - how could you even study this? By definition understanding and using things depends on repeatability. If there truly were cracks in it, they by definition couldn't be repeatable. It certainly won't help us get food. EDIT > If you don't consider it meaningful, then why are you having it? I just find it interesting since I've had this thought before and seeing what other people think of it.
    - smokel 3y ago
      Something to consider in the context of "repetition", is that it requires abstraction, and possibly memory. As noted before, I do not see any kind of repetition (identical things, counting) in nature. I think abstraction and memory are both emergent properties from human brains (or machines, brains in other mammals, octopuses, etc.) My pet theory also initially discards "things", because that again requires abstraction. For reference, my views are somewhat related to "emergentism", "connectionism", and "realism", but I haven't found a school of philosophy that I feel comfortable with. > how could you even study this? This is indeed the biggest challenge. I am currently studying this from a conceptual art perspective, because philosophy and science do not seem adequately equipped for this kind of problem.
smokel 3y ago
Thanks again for taking the time for a thoughtful reply. I am aware that I'm using terminology very loosely, and I omit many details that may be required for a full understanding. With respect to the full force of the argument: I assume that the "regularity" stems from the physical systems that make up our brain. Just as replication through DNA offers some stability in life, the shape of our neurons (and perhaps the dynamics of space-time, and the laws of physics) offer some regularity in the chaotic universe. In my view, this regularity is but an accidental blip in the totality of existence, but to us, who cannot observe the rest of the chaos, it seems fundamental -- which from the universal context, it isn't. The biggest problem that I cannot get around is that I somehow assume this chaos exists, and allows for things to exist inside of it. I do not know how to provide arguments for that, other than the negative one that it seems highly unlikely that "there is something rather than nothing". Likeliness, and the fact that I can define these abstract concepts, only make sense in the realm of human thought, so I am sort of stuck in a recursive loop there. With regards to the second part of your reply, again it is us humans who do the discerning. It is an emergent property of our brain (or possibly of slightly simpler, but still rather complex "discrete switches") that we can discern things. In the underlying universe of total chaos, there is no context, no logic, no measure to discern things. So, the source of order does arise through physical constructs, that happen to have a certain structure that allows observation. It is humans, mammals, octopuses, computers, that can use this universal form of observation to process input, and then do observation as we know it. So I suppose my idea is some kind of realism, but my reality is nothing more than pure and utter, unbounded chaos. And we live in some corner of that. The grand claim is that mathematics is nothing more than the result of some self-observing shapes in the chaos that is existence. Again, I feel sorry for all the readers who try to make sense of all my overloaded concepts. I wish I had the skills to write down my thoughts more rigorously. Or perhaps someone can save me a lot of time [1]. [1] https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/

klik99 3y ago

This argument completely ignores the observer which is bound by the same limits of our processing - indeed they are paired together. Entering purely theoretical space here: On the timescale of eternity this might be a local pocket of some logical organization but there is no fundamental logic governing everything. Our observation is limited so we can’t perceive chaos, instead evolved to only recognize patterns. Over infinity, pure chaos does not preclude long pockets of what looks like order. What we consider fundamental rules could very well be local phenomenon, which we are a product of. Of course this purely theoretical - all I’m saying is that intuitism could be true while also math being useful to predict things right now. We could also only exist for an instant and all our memories just construct, but that’s not very useful. It’s more useful to believe in scientific method because what’s repeatable is provable, whereas chaos is by its nature unprovable - which doesn’t make it impossible.

ttctciyf 3y ago
Well, not a possibility I considered, but nothing in the argument depends on the regularity being a permanent feature of the cosmos, just that systematic human endeavours, such as mathematics or indeed meaningful debate, depend on it, so when it goes they go. In that sense, if you wish to consider this conversation meaningful you are kind of ceding the point that for now chaos doesn't, in fact, reign. If you don't consider it meaningful, then why are you having it? :)
- klik99 3y ago
  Not arguing anything - it's more an interesting thought experiment. This view doesn't change much other than never finding the "true unified theory of everything", which I'm not sure how many people think is truly possible (at least anytime soon) anyway. It is useful to focus on repeating things, and useless to focus on randomness. But I don't think it's necessarily true that randomness (probably a better word than chaotic since chaotic systems are complex mathematical interactions) doesn't reign. We evolved to take advantage of repeatable things, our sense organs and perception are all focused on things that are repeatable. Our definition of usefulness (what is useful/what isn't) depends on repeatable things. I believe there's a pretty high likelihood that we are blind to anything outside of that, such as true randomness. IE, we literally cannot conceive of true randomness since we are products of an environment that rewarded it. To your point, I guess this isn't exactly Intuitionism, since Intuitionism says it's a totally human construct, and mathematics has provenly predicted things in nature from purely theoretical models, whereas I just find the part that supposes mathematics isn't a fundamental part of objective reality possible. Either way, I don't think it changes anything about how we do math or science or anything - how could you even study this? By definition understanding and using things depends on repeatability. If there truly were cracks in it, they by definition couldn't be repeatable. It certainly won't help us get food. EDIT > If you don't consider it meaningful, then why are you having it? I just find it interesting since I've had this thought before and seeing what other people think of it.
  - smokel 3y ago
    Something to consider in the context of "repetition", is that it requires abstraction, and possibly memory. As noted before, I do not see any kind of repetition (identical things, counting) in nature. I think abstraction and memory are both emergent properties from human brains (or machines, brains in other mammals, octopuses, etc.) My pet theory also initially discards "things", because that again requires abstraction. For reference, my views are somewhat related to "emergentism", "connectionism", and "realism", but I haven't found a school of philosophy that I feel comfortable with. > how could you even study this? This is indeed the biggest challenge. I am currently studying this from a conceptual art perspective, because philosophy and science do not seem adequately equipped for this kind of problem.

smokel 3y ago

Thanks again for taking the time for a thoughtful reply. I am aware that I'm using terminology very loosely, and I omit many details that may be required for a full understanding. With respect to the full force of the argument: I assume that the "regularity" stems from the physical systems that make up our brain. Just as replication through DNA offers some stability in life, the shape of our neurons (and perhaps the dynamics of space-time, and the laws of physics) offer some regularity in the chaotic universe. In my view, this regularity is but an accidental blip in the totality of existence, but to us, who cannot observe the rest of the chaos, it seems fundamental -- which from the universal context, it isn't. The biggest problem that I cannot get around is that I somehow assume this chaos exists, and allows for things to exist inside of it. I do not know how to provide arguments for that, other than the negative one that it seems highly unlikely that "there is something rather than nothing". Likeliness, and the fact that I can define these abstract concepts, only make sense in the realm of human thought, so I am sort of stuck in a recursive loop there. With regards to the second part of your reply, again it is us humans who do the discerning. It is an emergent property of our brain (or possibly of slightly simpler, but still rather complex "discrete switches") that we can discern things. In the underlying universe of total chaos, there is no context, no logic, no measure to discern things. So, the source of order does arise through physical constructs, that happen to have a certain structure that allows observation. It is humans, mammals, octopuses, computers, that can use this universal form of observation to process input, and then do observation as we know it. So I suppose my idea is some kind of realism, but my reality is nothing more than pure and utter, unbounded chaos. And we live in some corner of that. The grand claim is that mathematics is nothing more than the result of some self-observing shapes in the chaos that is existence. Again, I feel sorry for all the readers who try to make sense of all my overloaded concepts. I wish I had the skills to write down my thoughts more rigorously. Or perhaps someone can save me a lot of time [1]. [1] https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/