My head hurts now.
Posted on 04/04/2005 9:07:44 PM PDT by Ronzo
*PING*
My head hurts now.
So does mine, Enterprise...so does mine....
Hey w33, come check this out, see if it makes sense to you...(Sorry, not satire, just boring old logic...)
As you know, I believe if a tree falls in the forest it does indeed make a sound even if noone hears - and I offer the sound waves recorded in the CMB approx. 300,000 years after the big bang as evidence. So the logic is not applicable to me, but it ought to be quite interesting to see how the Nominalists respond!
"So the logic is not applicable to me, but it ought to be quite interesting to see how the Nominalists respond!"
Oh boy, now MY head hurts!
I would have posted this essay earlier, but I had a very, very busy day today!
If you get a chance, give us a quick explanation of what "universals" are (for the benefit of any lurkers out there), and the consquences for believing/not believing in such things...
Here are some definitions to help:
Realism in philosophical thinking is the belief that properties, usually called Universals, exist independently of the things that manifest them. Thus a realist would hold that even if one were to destroy all of the manifestations of the color red the universal red would still exist. Competing views contrasted with realism, such as nominalism, hold that universals do not "exist" at all; they are no more than words used strictly to describe specific objects, and do not name separately existing things.
Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there exist no universals outside of the mind.
Nominalism is best understood in contrast to Realism. Philosophical Realism holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "Green" or "Tree," the Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of world in an abstract realm. Such thought is associated with Plato. Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our imaginations.
Indeed, I'm usually up til at least midnight to post the daily Chambers' devotion.
It certainly was sad to see Illinois lose. Sigh... It'll be tough talking to relatives this week.
Is the above definition of Realism v Nominalism sufficient to describe universals or would you like more?
LOL, OK, I think that helped. I think I think it helped, I think. HELP!
The view [Platonism] as pointed out earlier is this: Mathematics exists. It transcends the human creative process, and is out there to be discovered. Pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is just as true and real here on Earth as it is on the other side of the galaxy. Hence the book's title Pi in the Sky. This is why it is thought that mathematics is the universal language of intelligent creatures everywhere....
Barrow goes on to discuss Platonic views in detail. The most interesting idea is what Platonist mathematics has to say about Artificial Intelligence (it does not think it is really possible). The final conclusion of Platonism is one of near mysticism. Barrow writes:
Do there exist mathematical theorems that our brains could never comprehend? If so, then Platonic mathematical realms may exist, if not then math is a human invention. We may as well ask, "Is there a God?" The answer for or against does not change our relationship to mathematics. Mathematics is something that we as humans can understand as far as we need.
If a tank overflows, and the guy in the control room was on his break and didn't see the alarm, does he have to clean up the spill?
Or perhaps another one. If a million people are killed in the Sudan, but the journalists are covering the story from Nairobi, is anyone really dead?
"Pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is just as true and real here on Earth as it is on the other side of the galaxy."
I admit, I didn't read this whole post, math is really not my thing, although I do work as a bookkeeper (arithematic only required).
But it does remind me of a great quote I read once in a woman's mag, I can't remember which one, and from a real lefty too, but it was so good, so true. In an interview with some "activist" woman, an American Indian, the lady described her early schooling and her disenchantment with it thus: by that point I had decided that everything I'd beeen taught in school was a lie, except Math.
I've often envied the Mathematically enabled that sureness, so well expressed by that woman, whose name I have mercifully, if regretably, forgotten.
Obviously, my essay is taking sides with the existence of universals, and, in fact, considers them a logical necessity. If we do without the concept of universals, we soon fall into the pit of the absurd.
Sadly, I have to go off to dreamland now! Hopefully I'll have some time to chat some more tomorrow evening! I then explain my motives in writing this bizzare attempt at philosophy!
Good-night All!
If I were to come to this thread, would anyone hear me clicking?
Just kidding, Ronzo! It's good stuff. Thanks for the ping!
To me, the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is one of the top three evidences in the physical world which scream that God is. (Romans 1, Psalms 19) The other two are the fact of a beginning regardless of cosmology and the existence of information in biological systems.
My two cents...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.