3 ms·

There is at least one obvious kind of existence which isn't physical, which is the sort of existence which the things studied in math have got. That isn't parti

There is at least one obvious kind of existence which isn't physical, which is the sort of existence which the things studied in math have got. That isn't particularly controversial because the 'existence' of even numbers is logically a very different thing from the 'existence' of dodo birds, or 500-foot-tall Schwinn bicycles, or Inspector Gadget. The question of whether mathematicians are schizophrenic or mathematics represents some massive failing of science just doesn't arise because it is already well understood what is being talked about. Often the problem with theology is that we don't understand and even refuse to get clear on what it is we mean to be talking about; maybe we are just so hot to reach emotional and political conclusions...

mangodrunk 15y ago
"That isn't particularly controversial because the 'existence' of even numbers is logically a very different thing from the 'existence' of dodo birds, or 500-foot-tall Schwinn bicycles, or Inspector Gadget." That's a concept, what do you mean by existence? Does that mean Harry Potter and Inspector Gadget exist? I don't think you're using the word "existence" correctly. I may be wrong in knowing what you're arguing as it was hard for me to parse what you wrote. I'm sorry if I misunderstood it.
- slurgfest 15y ago
  If I'm using the word "exist" wrong (which I am happy to admit) then I certainly want to learn how I should be using it, for sure. For the record and hopefully to reduce confusion, I don't think that Inspector Gadget (the man) exists. But there is still something it would be for him to exist, presumably; it just doesn't happen to be true. Suppose I tell you there is (exists) a cheeseburger in the bag. You want to know if that's true, so you look in the bag. What do you look for? Depends on what you expect a cheeseburger to look like: probably you expect a physical object within a certain range of sizes, with certain parts of certain compositions, etc. Now same story but meatball sub. Well, the things to look for are different in some ways. Now same story but even number greater than 10,000. There isn't a bag you can look in for this. etc. Dodo birds used to exist, don't any more. Checking for them is pretty different from checking for numbers or cheeseburgers in a bag. Sherlock Holmes never existed. But you probably have at least some idea what it would mean if he did, and this is tied to how you'd check to see if he did exist. The idea here is that 'exists' doesn't seem (to me) to be one operator which always does the same thing; it seems to be very well bound to whatever it is we are talking about the existence or nonexistence of.
derleth 15y ago
> There is at least one obvious kind of existence which isn't physical, which is the sort of existence which the things studied in math have got. I'm a formalist, so I think things studied in math are purely mental and do not necessarily have any connection to anything in the physical world beyond human mental states. So the set of the reals is well-defined, useful, and interesting, but it isn't something you can point to any more than a unicorn is something you can point to. A thought about a unicorn is perfectly real, as is math, but that doesn't go for the concepts math involves. > Often the problem with theology is that we don't understand and even refuse to get clear on what it is we mean to be talking about The problem with theology is that it's philosophy with people claiming absolute truth based on nothing at all. They 'refuse to get clear' on some things because if they did, we could test their statements and demonstrate them to be wrong.
- slurgfest 15y ago
  "Exists" doesn't necessarily mean "you can point your finger at it." You can't point your finger at these nebulous "thought" things, either. Surely one can say something like "there exists a number such that ..." and proceed to give conditions. For example, even numbers exist (8, for example). Is this some kind of erroneous use of the word "exists"? Of course not. It's just that "exist" is a pretty generic operator - the conditions for one thing to exist can be radically different from the conditions for another thing to exist; they don't have any clear shared "flavor of existing"
  - derleth 15y ago
    > "Exists" doesn't necessarily mean "you can point your finger at it." I agree with this if you allow mathematicians to use the word 'exists' in their usual way. > You can't point your finger at these nebulous "thought" things, either. Again, largely correct, in much the same way you can't really point at a specific wind. > It's just that "exist" is a pretty generic operator - the conditions for one thing to exist can be radically different from the conditions for another thing to exist; they don't have any clear shared "flavor of existing" And this leads into a massive philosophical issue that we've probably been going around and around with since even before the Ancient Greeks. My point, though, is that saying "the supernatural exists" is either a null statement (because the "supernatural" being talked about doesn't do anything) or demonstrably false (because someone makes a testable claim and it's proven that the phenomenon under discussion has a natural cause).

mangodrunk 15y ago

"That isn't particularly controversial because the 'existence' of even numbers is logically a very different thing from the 'existence' of dodo birds, or 500-foot-tall Schwinn bicycles, or Inspector Gadget." That's a concept, what do you mean by existence? Does that mean Harry Potter and Inspector Gadget exist? I don't think you're using the word "existence" correctly. I may be wrong in knowing what you're arguing as it was hard for me to parse what you wrote. I'm sorry if I misunderstood it.

slurgfest 15y ago
If I'm using the word "exist" wrong (which I am happy to admit) then I certainly want to learn how I should be using it, for sure. For the record and hopefully to reduce confusion, I don't think that Inspector Gadget (the man) exists. But there is still something it would be for him to exist, presumably; it just doesn't happen to be true. Suppose I tell you there is (exists) a cheeseburger in the bag. You want to know if that's true, so you look in the bag. What do you look for? Depends on what you expect a cheeseburger to look like: probably you expect a physical object within a certain range of sizes, with certain parts of certain compositions, etc. Now same story but meatball sub. Well, the things to look for are different in some ways. Now same story but even number greater than 10,000. There isn't a bag you can look in for this. etc. Dodo birds used to exist, don't any more. Checking for them is pretty different from checking for numbers or cheeseburgers in a bag. Sherlock Holmes never existed. But you probably have at least some idea what it would mean if he did, and this is tied to how you'd check to see if he did exist. The idea here is that 'exists' doesn't seem (to me) to be one operator which always does the same thing; it seems to be very well bound to whatever it is we are talking about the existence or nonexistence of.

derleth 15y ago

> There is at least one obvious kind of existence which isn't physical, which is the sort of existence which the things studied in math have got. I'm a formalist, so I think things studied in math are purely mental and do not necessarily have any connection to anything in the physical world beyond human mental states. So the set of the reals is well-defined, useful, and interesting, but it isn't something you can point to any more than a unicorn is something you can point to. A thought about a unicorn is perfectly real, as is math, but that doesn't go for the concepts math involves. > Often the problem with theology is that we don't understand and even refuse to get clear on what it is we mean to be talking about The problem with theology is that it's philosophy with people claiming absolute truth based on nothing at all. They 'refuse to get clear' on some things because if they did, we could test their statements and demonstrate them to be wrong.

slurgfest 15y ago
"Exists" doesn't necessarily mean "you can point your finger at it." You can't point your finger at these nebulous "thought" things, either. Surely one can say something like "there exists a number such that ..." and proceed to give conditions. For example, even numbers exist (8, for example). Is this some kind of erroneous use of the word "exists"? Of course not. It's just that "exist" is a pretty generic operator - the conditions for one thing to exist can be radically different from the conditions for another thing to exist; they don't have any clear shared "flavor of existing"
- derleth 15y ago
  > "Exists" doesn't necessarily mean "you can point your finger at it." I agree with this if you allow mathematicians to use the word 'exists' in their usual way. > You can't point your finger at these nebulous "thought" things, either. Again, largely correct, in much the same way you can't really point at a specific wind. > It's just that "exist" is a pretty generic operator - the conditions for one thing to exist can be radically different from the conditions for another thing to exist; they don't have any clear shared "flavor of existing" And this leads into a massive philosophical issue that we've probably been going around and around with since even before the Ancient Greeks. My point, though, is that saying "the supernatural exists" is either a null statement (because the "supernatural" being talked about doesn't do anything) or demonstrably false (because someone makes a testable claim and it's proven that the phenomenon under discussion has a natural cause).