[FairfieldLife] RE: On Being An Eagle
[FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
Jason wrote: You state that Kelvin's statement is inherently self-invalidating? --- waspaligap waspaligap@.. wrote: Well, yes. He makes a claim (an epistemological claim). Let's call that claim K. According to K, when you cannot express it (i.e. some claim) in precise mathematical terms, your knowledge of it, is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. But as is obvious, K is not expressed in mathematical terms. From which it follows that according to K, K is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind (whatever that means - but it seems unlikely to allow for K being true). If mathematics is the language of the universe, even that can't explain the Qualia aspect of the universe. Judy posted a youtube link on this a while back. I'd agree with you there. Which means Maths is a process and not the end in itself? I'm not sure what you mean. Does anyone think that Maths is an end in itself? However what does interest me very much is the mystery of mathematics. We live in an age of science. For many it is a substitute for religion. It's true that some sciences are more equal than others. So the iffy ones such as economics, climate science, and psychology bask in reflected glory from physics and chemistry. Yet the foundation of it all seems to be mathematics. But do we even know what mathematics is? What are mathematical discoveries? What are we discovering? Where does the necessity of mathematical truth come from? Could you rephrase Godel in a little more easier way? I doubt it! Godel's proof, like quantum indeterminacy, seems to point to something most peculiar, but no one can quite agree about what that is (or means). But perhaps we can just return to the logical positivists that were referred to earlier in the thread... I'd suggest that many folks who idealise science have in their mind some loose form of logical positivism (either explicit or implicit). Like this: Q: What makes science work? A: The experimental method Q: But why does the experimental method work? A: Because we test our theories against experience Q: What do you mean by experience? A: The evidence of our senses Q: What is sense data? A: The images in our brain Q: What other types of knowledge are there? A: That's all there is Q: So what about Logic and Mathematics? They're not sense data! A: They just describe the relations between the concepts and symbols we use to refer to sense data. Thanks Paligap. Sorry for the delayed reply. My gardener who worked for me for more than 15 years died. The very next day a 27 year old widow with 3 small children arrived to work. She is a total orphan with nobody in the world. Her husband died in a mining accident. Anyway coming to the thread, Your point is brilliant. So Logic and Mathematics are both abstract intangibles. They only describe the relationship between concepts and symbol. I remember physicist Max Tegmark stating that at the most fundamental level, there are only numbers. Does that mean the unified field is something intangible? Nirguna means no qualities whatsoever. Would you call Buddhism, a 'solipsistic reductionism' or lets say 'nihilistic reductionism'? The trouble with this idea is that the work of Russell and Frege in the twentieth century seemed to show that mathematics could not be reduced to logic (simple, self-evident tautologies). Furthermore, maths seems to result in bizarre, counter-intuitive discoveries (such as Cantor's proof that some infinities are larger than others). So the point of Godel is that he appears to add more spice to this pot with his incompleteness theorem. If Cantor's discovery does not come from the evidence of his (our) senses, and if it doesn't simply represent the manipulation of self-evident axioms. what on earth's going on? Mysterianism rules!
[FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
Jason wrote: When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in precise mathematical terms, your knowledge of it, is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind ~ Lord Kelvin I like the way the thread has evolved, though paligap hasn't responded yet. --- waspaligap waspaligap@.. wrote: Yes, that was a very deft thread hijack on your part Jason. I have been enjoying it too in so far as I can keep up. For my part, I have been consigned to purgatory by Neo (for it is I PaliGap). Apparently PaliGap (or more exactly paligap - as Yahoo thinks we would all be better off in the world of lower case) is unavailable. I have been reserved for something else it seems (or by something else). This is traumatic to my sense of identity, as you can well imagine. I am struggling with my TM too. Looking through my checking notes, I fail to see a response to the meditator who has distracting sensations of being denied existence. No, not even the delights of logical positivism, and the taxonomy of reductionism can lay low this bad feeling. This thing with Neo may be the first sign of something being seriously rotten in the state of the Cloud - Cloud apps being something I have up until now embraced heartily (anything to escape from Microsoft). When you start to look, folks are getting Neo-ed all over the place. Look at the Gmail compose improvements. Something that took me one or two clicks at best, now takes half a dozen. Do these people think I have a limitless supply of clicks? Some iYogis say you are incarnated with a fixed supply of mouse clicks; once they're gone, that's it - you die Or take scrabble. (And why not?) It seems scrabble fans are struggling just like me (us?) with Neo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22905191 But to return to the thread... Judy asks if philosophers might chat in mathematics only. But would that be desirable? After all we have a robust mathematical proof of the limitations of formal systems from Godel: The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. (from Wiki) One must suppose that Philosophy, insofar as it is about anything, is about The Truth. So one would presumably wish to avoid any system that is demonstrably limited in that respect? In any case, is it not a vestige of logical positivism (and the first incarnation of Wittgenstein) to think that philosophy might best be expressed in equations? And, returning to the noble Lord Kelvin above, does the thought that he expresses survive self-reference? You state that Kelvin's statement is inherently self-invalidating? If mathematics is the language of the universe, even that can't explain the Qualia aspect of the universe. Judy posted a youtube link on this a while back. Which means Maths is a process and not the end in itself? Could you rephrase Godel in a little more easier way?
[FairfieldLife] RE: On Being An Eagle
[FairfieldLife] RE: On Being An Eagle
[FairfieldLife] RE: On Being An Eagle
[FairfieldLife] RE: On Being An Eagle
[FairfieldLife] RE: On Being An Eagle
[FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
Seraphita wrote: Like you, it's been decades since I read any logical positivism - Carnap and Wittgenstein - so I know where you're coming from. Have to say though that the austerity of their approach had a kind of chilling beauty to it. --- authfriend authfriend@... wrote: It certainly simplifies things! That was what appealed to me at the time. One of my problems with their ideas was that although they scorned any metaphysical baggage and looked to mathematics as their ideal, I'm damned sure that when a logical positivist closed his books at the end of a working day and headed home he immediately (and automatically and quite unconsciously) reverted to common-sense materialism in his approach to life. How could a logical positivist do otherwise? I mean, how could one live one's life according to logical positivism? One thing that appealed to me about them is that they (surprisingly) were heavily indebted to Bishop Berkeley's idealism (to be is to be perceived) but where the bishop discarded matter and opted for mind, they discarded both matter and mind. Heh. I haven't looked into how they arrived at their conclusions. My attitude is that all philosophical theories are doomed to eventual failure as what's real can't be captured by concepts, but each school that comes along has something to recommend it (Everything possible to be believed is an image of truth. - William Blake), so take what you need and leave the rest - and then move on. Seems to me the biggest problem with philosophy is that its concepts are formulated in language, the meaning of which is to a great extent subjective. Of course philosophers also use math to express concepts, but I'm skeptical as to how precisely math can be translated into language. When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in precise mathematical terms, your knowledge of it, is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind ~ Lord Kelvin I like the way the thread has evolved, though paligap hasn't responded yet. --- authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I took a required philosophy survey course in college at a time when I couldn't have been less interested in it. The prof was a reputedly brilliant and well-known philosopher, but he was also known by his students for his incomprehensible lectures. I couldn't follow a damn thing he said until he got to logical positivism, which suited me right down to the ground (I wasn't interested in metaphysics or spirituality at the time either). The grade for the course depended entirely on the final, and fortunately the final involved an essay on one's choice of philosophical school. I squeaked through with a C-minus, I think, because I had been able to make some sense of logical positivism and was able to write a semi-coherent essay on it. I promptly forgot about it, only to rediscover it to my horror decades later after I had gotten heavily into consciousness and metaphysics.
[FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
Judy posted an interesting question for a change: I wonder if it's possible for two philosophers to have an argument (or just a conversation) using only mathematical formulations, no words. I can cast third-hand hearsay evidence on this question. At least on the having a conversation issue. My grandfather worked with Albert Einstein on the Manhattan Project, as did most of the other high- level physicists in the US at the time. They would occasionally get together in one of the classrooms of Princeton University, alone, and just jackpot ideas. My father describes my grandfather describing hours-long conversations in which neither of them said a word. One would just scribble an unfinished equation on one of the many blackboards in the room, and then step back and wait for the other to comment on it. Sometimes the comment was another, slightly differ- ent equation. Sometimes it was a correction to a mistake in the original equation. Rarely -- and to be celebrated -- there was a solution to the equation. They celebrated by going out for ice cream. Sure sounds like a conversation to me, but not much of an argument. There's a difference.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
The only interesting answers are those which destroy the question. - Susan Sontag Sometimes, finding an answer to a question forces you to redefine the terms of the question, or think differently about their relations to each other. These are the really interesting answers: The ones that make you change the way you see the world. - Anon comment From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle Judy posted an interesting question for a change: I wonder if it's possible for two philosophers to have an argument (or just a conversation) using only mathematical formulations, no words. I can cast third-hand hearsay evidence on this question. At least on the having a conversation issue. My grandfather worked with Albert Einstein on the Manhattan Project, as did most of the other high- level physicists in the US at the time. They would occasionally get together in one of the classrooms of Princeton University, alone, and just jackpot ideas. My father describes my grandfather describing hours-long conversations in which neither of them said a word. One would just scribble an unfinished equation on one of the many blackboards in the room, and then step back and wait for the other to comment on it. Sometimes the comment was another, slightly differ- ent equation. Sometimes it was a correction to a mistake in the original equation. Rarely -- and to be celebrated -- there was a solution to the equation. They celebrated by going out for ice cream. Sure sounds like a conversation to me, but not much of an argument. There's a difference.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
can you give example of this? From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle The only interesting answers are those which destroy the question. - Susan Sontag Sometimes, finding an answer to a question forces you to redefine the terms of the question, or think differently about their relations to each other. These are the really interesting answers: The ones that make you change the way you see the world. - Anon comment From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle Judy posted an interesting question for a change: I wonder if it's possible for two philosophers to have an argument (or just a conversation) using only mathematical formulations, no words. I can cast third-hand hearsay evidence on this question. At least on the having a conversation issue. My grandfather worked with Albert Einstein on the Manhattan Project, as did most of the other high- level physicists in the US at the time. They would occasionally get together in one of the classrooms of Princeton University, alone, and just jackpot ideas. My father describes my grandfather describing hours-long conversations in which neither of them said a word. One would just scribble an unfinished equation on one of the many blackboards in the room, and then step back and wait for the other to comment on it. Sometimes the comment was another, slightly differ- ent equation. Sometimes it was a correction to a mistake in the original equation. Rarely -- and to be celebrated -- there was a solution to the equation. They celebrated by going out for ice cream. Sure sounds like a conversation to me, but not much of an argument. There's a difference.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
No I can't. From: Steve Sundur steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle can you give example of this? From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle The only interesting answers are those which destroy the question. - Susan Sontag Sometimes, finding an answer to a question forces you to redefine the terms of the question, or think differently about their relations to each other. These are the really interesting answers: The ones that make you change the way you see the world. - Anon comment From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle Judy posted an interesting question for a change: I wonder if it's possible for two philosophers to have an argument (or just a conversation) using only mathematical formulations, no words. I can cast third-hand hearsay evidence on this question. At least on the having a conversation issue. My grandfather worked with Albert Einstein on the Manhattan Project, as did most of the other high- level physicists in the US at the time. They would occasionally get together in one of the classrooms of Princeton University, alone, and just jackpot ideas. My father describes my grandfather describing hours-long conversations in which neither of them said a word. One would just scribble an unfinished equation on one of the many blackboards in the room, and then step back and wait for the other to comment on it. Sometimes the comment was another, slightly differ- ent equation. Sometimes it was a correction to a mistake in the original equation. Rarely -- and to be celebrated -- there was a solution to the equation. They celebrated by going out for ice cream. Sure sounds like a conversation to me, but not much of an argument. There's a difference.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
I don't think I can either, unless it would be something like, The ice cream was delicious From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle No I can't. From: Steve Sundur steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle can you give example of this? From: Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle The only interesting answers are those which destroy the question. - Susan Sontag Sometimes, finding an answer to a question forces you to redefine the terms of the question, or think differently about their relations to each other. These are the really interesting answers: The ones that make you change the way you see the world. - Anon comment From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:46 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle Judy posted an interesting question for a change: I wonder if it's possible for two philosophers to have an argument (or just a conversation) using only mathematical formulations, no words. I can cast third-hand hearsay evidence on this question. At least on the having a conversation issue. My grandfather worked with Albert Einstein on the Manhattan Project, as did most of the other high- level physicists in the US at the time. They would occasionally get together in one of the classrooms of Princeton University, alone, and just jackpot ideas. My father describes my grandfather describing hours-long conversations in which neither of them said a word. One would just scribble an unfinished equation on one of the many blackboards in the room, and then step back and wait for the other to comment on it. Sometimes the comment was another, slightly differ- ent equation. Sometimes it was a correction to a mistake in the original equation. Rarely -- and to be celebrated -- there was a solution to the equation. They celebrated by going out for ice cream. Sure sounds like a conversation to me, but not much of an argument. There's a difference.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
[FairfieldLife] Re: On Being An Eagle
Sorry to hijack the thread. Tell me the differences between, 'Phenomenological materialism', 'Mysterianistic materialism' and 'reductionist materialism'. Maybe, you and Judy have a better understanding of what exactly Nagel meant. --- waspaligap waspaligap@.. wrote: Love lift us up where we belong Where the eagles cry on a mountain high The real thing: http://youtu.be/G3QrhdfLCO8
