Mathematical Platonism

[Philosophy Now]

Our philosophical science correspondent Massimo Pigliucci takes a dose of it.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/84/Math ... _Platonism

[Bill Wiltrack]

.

On May 12, 2011, at 19:22, william wiltrack wrote:

> Hello Massimo,
>
> I just read your article in the Philosophy Now Magazine.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would like you to participate in the philosophical discussions at the Philosophy Now Forum site: index.php
>
>
>
> Best to you & I will speak with you at the site!

Bill








Massimo's response:



Thanks for the invite. I'll consider it, but at the moment I'm involved in way too many other activities of this type.

Cheers,
Massimo

-------------------
PlatoFootnote.org
RationallySpeaking.org




Really?


Too involved?


Way too many other activities?







Wow, really?




.

[Thundril]

I think this article is excellent. Informative (ie has lots of stuff I didn't already know); provocative (ie has lots of stuff I don't agree with, yet, and maybe never will), and well worth discussing. Just because the author isn't able to join us directly (Plato is dead, after all ) that shouldn't hamper us.
Hey Bill, do think you should maybe watch TV for a while, then get some sleep?

[Thundril]

How about I start from my own perspective.
I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that the universe exists independently of any consciousness.
Now, this universe will have some properties. When an intelligence evolves, it will start making discoveries about the universe. Including discoveries about its space: for example that only shapes that have certain proportions can fit into it.
Wouldn't that just mean that the Universe's properties, (incuding its space-time properties) have certain limitations, which we are trying to discover?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I don't think consciousness exists independently of the universe.


Your own perspective Thundril, your assumptions, were created by the universe.

Time does not exist the way that we perceive it. Time does not unfold.

Intellect discovering things is just the mirage created by our misunderstanding of the figures on the wall of the cave.


Our perception of the universe's properties certain limitations is just our misunderstanding of pure thought through a more pure self-consciousness.








.......






.

[Thundril]

.


I don't think consciousness exists independently of the universe.


Your own perspective Thundril, your assumptions, were created by the universe.
.

Yes Bill. That's exactly where I'm starting from.
What I wrote was:

I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that the universe exists independently of any consciousness.

So we're not completely at odds on the whole materialism/idealism axis, I think...
However, I'm not a trained scientist or philosopher, and I think Pigliucci probably is.
And this is a philosophy forum, and a Philosophy Now Magazine-type thread; For discussing articles in the magazine, not my half-ass guesses versus someone else's misinterpretations of my half-ass guesses. So:
What did you think of the actual article?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Unimpressive...



I like the stuff you write better.



.

[Thundril]

Nice of you to say so.
What I'm not getting about Pigliucci's article is in the last paragraph:

If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math, one has to face several important philosophical consequences, perhaps the major one being that the notion of physicalism goes out the window. Physicalism is the position that the only things that exist are those that have physical extension [ie, take up space] – and last time I checked, the idea of circle, or Fermat’s theorem, did not have physical extension. It is true that physicalism is now a sophisticated doctrine that includes not just material objects and energy, but also, for instance, physical forces and information. But it isn’t immediately obvious to me that mathematical objects neatly fall into even an extended physicalist ontology. And that definitely gives me pause to ponder.

So either one 'goes Platonic with math', which is inconsistent with an 'old-fashioned' physicalism, or one has to move to a more complex view, in which existence is granted to all the 'properties' of the universe, including the shape of space-time, which obviously does not itself 'take up space'.
Or have I just completely misunderstood what he's perplexed about?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



yeah................your stuff.................much better.



.