4 ms·

What about the area that isnt part of the circle, is that a property of the universe? What about when I drop crumbs on a table and they scatter, is there somet

What about the area that isnt part of the circle, is that a property of the universe? What about when I drop crumbs on a table and they scatter, is there something special about their location? Is there something more special about a circle than a triangle? Or a square? And when you say its a property of the universe... what shape is that property? What color is it? If I give you a microscope, can you point me to the property? If it the same kind of property as gravity? Is it the same kind of property as when I say 'Capitalism is the most efficient economic system'? Anyway, this is a question of ontology. You have an almost religious view of mathematical existances, but so do most non-philosophers. Plato corrupted us. For further reading, Ontology is the greater branch, but William James's Pragmatism is only a 2.5 hour audiobook and basically caused the divide between your traditional Ontology, and analytical philosophy.

1718627440 1y ago
(As a preface, I like the discussion. I've known about moral relativism, but I've never heard the positions you are defending here.) > What about the area that isn't part of the circle, is that a property of the universe? Yeah a circle as an abstract concept about the shape of a boundary. The outer area is as much defining the circle as the inner. > What about when I drop crumbs on a table and they scatter, is there something special about their location? Yes, if you compare them to the original location, you maybe get some information about the speed, or about the size of gravitational force or the material of the table or the material of the crumbs. > what shape is that property? What color is it? I don't get that part, why should it be? > If I give you a microscope, can you point me to the property? If you give me an electron microscope I can show you the "shape" of an atom. A single atom is also a property of the universe, but that is not the kind of property we are talking about. But it is strange that they all look alike, isn't it? And that the shape is somehow similar to what the behaviour of the universe is, if you breath into soap water. That's what a circle is. It is a property about the universe. It exists also in the universe, but it is not a single thing. > You have an almost religious view What makes that religious? It seams like you conclude from the fact that there are a lot of (not sure if infinite) properties of the universe, that none is really important? I don't agree with that. Also some properties are more truthy than others, not because they are somehow better or anything, but because you can infer all the others from them, because others are rehashes and combinations of them.
- resource_waste 1y ago
  >It seams like you conclude from the fact that there are a lot of (not sure if infinite) properties of the universe, that none is really important? Yeah thats basically it. Analytical Philosophy can generate linguistically true statements. I just don't find "1 = 1" interesting. You are doing the same thing with 2 x pi x r = c. That really boils down to 1 = 1. I think this is useful, but I don't think there is ontologically anything more special about circles vs 1 = 1. >If you give me an electron microscope I can show you the "shape" of an atom. A single atom is also a property of the universe, but that is not the kind of property we are talking about. But it is strange that they all look alike, isn't it? You mean, using our detection mechanisms that convert data into something we can understand with human vision and brains? How do we know they are that shape, rather than a 5D string? How do we even know they have a shape, and its not just a failure of our detection mechanisms and its merely useful to imagine it with such a shape? Not to mention, what if all atoms are technically different and we are merely assigning it to be the same shape because we don't understand the differences yet? Anyway, I reiterate, you are speaking like a Platonic Realist/Scientific Realist. The more modern understanding is withholding ontological beliefs and Instrumentationalism. I may suggest talking to chatGPT about this. But otherwise maybe send an email or add it temporarily to your profile. I put my philosophy substack in my profile, I'll respond in detail to your thoughts via substack.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    > Yeah thats basically it. Good to know. I'm the opposite, knowing how large the universe is, makes me more curious. > linguistically true You seam to perceive any kind of statement as purely linguistical and not really about the thing itself. To me this seams like taking the map for the territory. This makes it hard to argue, because I want to express something about the nature of a thing, but you take it to mean the perception of a thing and seam to reject that the nature of a thing even exists? > I just don't find "1 = 1" interesting. You are doing the same thing with 2 x pi x r = c. That really boils down to 1 = 1. Yes that's a tautology. 2 x pi x r = c is a also tautological if that is what you defined c to be. That's obviously not useful. But that's not what the meaning of pi is. It is that r -> c is computable and how. Yes you can claim that tools and perception aren't correct and giving you the truth. I think this leads to the idea that everything is just made-up by your mind and we are all just things your mind images that don't exist at all. This just means that everything is meaningless and nothing can be true at all. But this idea has a fallacy. Everything you believe or make ideas is based on that you can perceive things a being real and truthfully. If you reject that you can just reject any insight INCLUDING the idea you just had. The idea can't be true, because you just rejected that truth exists. Everything humans do and think assumes that Laplace's daemon exists and that humans somehow participate in it. Without it there is no truth, no understanding, no thoughts; nothing is anymore. > talking to ChatGPT Yeah I refrain from that especially for things I don't know about, because I know how subtly incorrect it is about things I know about quite a bit. I also like to my correspondent having a grounding in reality.

1718627440 1y ago

(As a preface, I like the discussion. I've known about moral relativism, but I've never heard the positions you are defending here.) > What about the area that isn't part of the circle, is that a property of the universe? Yeah a circle as an abstract concept about the shape of a boundary. The outer area is as much defining the circle as the inner. > What about when I drop crumbs on a table and they scatter, is there something special about their location? Yes, if you compare them to the original location, you maybe get some information about the speed, or about the size of gravitational force or the material of the table or the material of the crumbs. > what shape is that property? What color is it? I don't get that part, why should it be? > If I give you a microscope, can you point me to the property? If you give me an electron microscope I can show you the "shape" of an atom. A single atom is also a property of the universe, but that is not the kind of property we are talking about. But it is strange that they all look alike, isn't it? And that the shape is somehow similar to what the behaviour of the universe is, if you breath into soap water. That's what a circle is. It is a property about the universe. It exists also in the universe, but it is not a single thing. > You have an almost religious view What makes that religious? It seams like you conclude from the fact that there are a lot of (not sure if infinite) properties of the universe, that none is really important? I don't agree with that. Also some properties are more truthy than others, not because they are somehow better or anything, but because you can infer all the others from them, because others are rehashes and combinations of them.

resource_waste 1y ago
>It seams like you conclude from the fact that there are a lot of (not sure if infinite) properties of the universe, that none is really important? Yeah thats basically it. Analytical Philosophy can generate linguistically true statements. I just don't find "1 = 1" interesting. You are doing the same thing with 2 x pi x r = c. That really boils down to 1 = 1. I think this is useful, but I don't think there is ontologically anything more special about circles vs 1 = 1. >If you give me an electron microscope I can show you the "shape" of an atom. A single atom is also a property of the universe, but that is not the kind of property we are talking about. But it is strange that they all look alike, isn't it? You mean, using our detection mechanisms that convert data into something we can understand with human vision and brains? How do we know they are that shape, rather than a 5D string? How do we even know they have a shape, and its not just a failure of our detection mechanisms and its merely useful to imagine it with such a shape? Not to mention, what if all atoms are technically different and we are merely assigning it to be the same shape because we don't understand the differences yet? Anyway, I reiterate, you are speaking like a Platonic Realist/Scientific Realist. The more modern understanding is withholding ontological beliefs and Instrumentationalism. I may suggest talking to chatGPT about this. But otherwise maybe send an email or add it temporarily to your profile. I put my philosophy substack in my profile, I'll respond in detail to your thoughts via substack.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > Yeah thats basically it. Good to know. I'm the opposite, knowing how large the universe is, makes me more curious. > linguistically true You seam to perceive any kind of statement as purely linguistical and not really about the thing itself. To me this seams like taking the map for the territory. This makes it hard to argue, because I want to express something about the nature of a thing, but you take it to mean the perception of a thing and seam to reject that the nature of a thing even exists? > I just don't find "1 = 1" interesting. You are doing the same thing with 2 x pi x r = c. That really boils down to 1 = 1. Yes that's a tautology. 2 x pi x r = c is a also tautological if that is what you defined c to be. That's obviously not useful. But that's not what the meaning of pi is. It is that r -> c is computable and how. Yes you can claim that tools and perception aren't correct and giving you the truth. I think this leads to the idea that everything is just made-up by your mind and we are all just things your mind images that don't exist at all. This just means that everything is meaningless and nothing can be true at all. But this idea has a fallacy. Everything you believe or make ideas is based on that you can perceive things a being real and truthfully. If you reject that you can just reject any insight INCLUDING the idea you just had. The idea can't be true, because you just rejected that truth exists. Everything humans do and think assumes that Laplace's daemon exists and that humans somehow participate in it. Without it there is no truth, no understanding, no thoughts; nothing is anymore. > talking to ChatGPT Yeah I refrain from that especially for things I don't know about, because I know how subtly incorrect it is about things I know about quite a bit. I also like to my correspondent having a grounding in reality.