Plato's Theory of Forms...

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by raw_thought »

When you say that distance is just a human narrative, that means that the statement "my home is 5 miles from work" is meaningless. That is silly.
You claim that distance does not exist because how far is distance? Level confusion. That is like saying," You believe in dogs? Show me a dog!" I show you a dog. You say,"I wanted a universal dog not a particular dog."
Or the famous example,
Show me London
You take me to London.
I say, I see people,buildings, cars but where is this thing called London?
Last edited by raw_thought on Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by raw_thought »

Obvious Leo wrote:In the absence of a referent 2+2=4 has no meaning.
Unicorns do not exist. But the word "unicorn" has a meaning, horse with a horn.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Scott Mayers »

raw_thought wrote:What does that last sentence mean? Are you saying that math does not apply to reality? Can you give one example where a mathematical equation is not obeyed in the real world? Somewhere 2+2 does not equal 4?
Although we agree, the ones who use this question often use other examples. One example I remember is a reference to a drawing from an old math book "Mathematics for the Million", which had a large cylinder of four unit volumes marked but had a pipe on the side just above the third unit mark that siphoned off the water limiting it to that height. As such 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 1 = 3, but 2 + 2 = 3, 4 + 7 = 3, etc... In other words any sums greater than 3 in this real world example is intended to suggest that the nature of numbers is somehow invalid. But I think if misses the point. We also use vector addition by respecting different directions to determine displacement.

This is what I believe Leo is thinking in kind, though. [I thought I'd mention this first before responding to Leo as this is what he's likely referring to. (my charity?)]
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by raw_thought »

I think that machine obeyed math!
The equations are not 2+2=3 (for example) but instead 2+2-1=3.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Our disagreement is simply about the nature of determinism. We both agree that there are patterns of organisation in nature and that it is possible to model these patterns mathematically. However what you are claiming is that nature is the way it is because it has been caused to be that way because of some mathematical laws of supernatural origin which physics has managed to discover. What I claim is the exact opposite. I claim that nature is the way it is because it is SELF-ORGANISING and as such it is beholden to no laws beyond the single meta-law of cause and effect. Self-organising systems are evolutionary systems and therefore evolve increasingly more informationally complex sub-structures within themselves over time and my claim is that it is these evolutionary algorithms which our mathematical tools are attempting to model in physics, with spectacularly piss-poor outcomes I might add, since evolving systems are non-Newtonian and the tools of physics are exclusively Newtonian.
I also agree to "self-organizing" but call it "evolution"....and not just for biology either. As to some "supernatural" origin, I don't believe this for certain. I see that we can have an infinite set of universes and even an infinite set of universes through time(s). Yet, an origin too can at least be true ONCE for all of these worlds. Given our own, it can be the case that in some future everything returns to a condition that is exactly as it initiated. While less occasional to win a lotto by any individual, we are almost certain that at least someone will win in only a limited handful of draws between jackpots.

If an end point of this universe is possible such that everything is 'returned' to some nothingness, then it would also imply that even this one could be recycled. At the same time, if it at such a point is nothing, than it too suggests that the lottery of even one possible origin is just as valid a possibility. Thus it is best to start there given the Occam Razor idea (or reductionism).

If we DO come from nothingness, this world would represent a concept we measure as equating to absolute zero of everything. Yet, also in the concept of nothing (as zero), it too implies that an infinite set of things can be true there too (just as an infinite set of non-real things can be found greater than in any contingent world.)

I see all possibilities as 'true' with respect to totality but only limited in any one contingent world. Also, not all worlds require being consistent. And any evolutionary concept requires accepting a sea of options which narrow themselves to something that fits this world (as an environment) by 'borrowing' what works in all possibilities that exist in totality AND by eliminating those things that do not fit. My view is both determinate and indeterminate depending upon which perspective you are referring to.

You assume at least one dimension (time through your cause and effect law). I assume even less than that with regards to totality. So there's no room for any supreme being there! But this doesn't dismiss an infinite one either since in nothing, there are 0 x 0 = 00 (where the symbol of infinity comes from) things simultaneously. Thus my theory of including "contradiction" as a motivating factor or reality.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Scott Mayers »

raw_thought wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:In the absence of a referent 2+2=4 has no meaning.
Unicorns do not exist. But the word "unicorn" has a meaning, horse with a horn.
Wait a sec...I'm sure that there are horny horses:
71189.jpg
71189.jpg (216.22 KiB) Viewed 2883 times
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by raw_thought »

Of course I believe in evolution. However, to say that constants (such as the size of electrons,speed of light etc) evolved, that over time they changed because the universe was self organizing seems silly to me.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Scott Mayers »

raw_thought wrote:When you say that distance is just a human narrative, that means that the statement "my home is 5 miles from work" is meaningless. That is silly.
You claim that distance does not exist because how far is distance? Level confusion. That is like saying," You believe in dogs? Show me a dog!" I show you a dog. You say,"I wanted a universal dog not a particular dog."
Or the famous example,
Show me London
You take me to London.
I say, I see people,buildings, cars but where is this thing called London?
This is where I see the confusion. If I showed you a box and you open it, you might discover "nothing" in it. The ancients called this "nothing", Nun (= fluid, like water or air), or Spirit (= that magical nothingness that seems somehow necessary to keep your sister from fussing so much when you cover her nose and mouth with your hand!).

That's why I used the computer analogy to try to show my concern before with Leo's position. To Leo, if he doesn't think that space is real other than some referent, than this is no different than thinking that every "thing" is like a random access memory location such that only the program defines their distance from one another through some other means. If it takes one minute to transfer some random memory to any given other random point, you'd have to define distance based on this transfer time alone. If it takes two minutes to transfer to another different memory, then this would define its "distance" as two times the other. Yet, in reality, these memory spaces could be anywhere. So then it is the formula of these distances which are the the magical essence based on some program that must purposely delay the times distinctly different to each memory space.

I think this is way more complex than reserving time as a fourth dimension and leave the first three (not counting a possible zeroth dimension) as those which define the static part of reality to which matter latter resides in. Space IS Real either way. But Leo's way requires a more complex way of describing only time, then, somewhere matter, and then some program that defines how each and every "thing" is with respect to each and every other thing by relating how close they are through some hypothetical need for one "thing" to get to another "thing".
raw_thought
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by raw_thought »

Great analogy Scott! The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly, the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However the odds of a universe being suitable for life if there are trillions of universes is great.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Scott Mayers »

raw_thought wrote:Great analogy Scott! The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly, the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However the odds of a universe being suitable for life if there are trillions of universes is great.
Yes. Thank you. That's two of us now. We only have 6 999 999 998 more people to convince! [Assuming 7 Billion people in the world, that is.] At least that splits my effort to only half of that!
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Obvious Leo »

raw_thought wrote:Of course I believe in evolution. However, to say that constants (such as the size of electrons,speed of light etc) evolved, that over time they changed because the universe was self organizing seems silly to me.
Nevertheless this is accepted by almost all physicists to be absolutely the case. It has already been shown that the fine structure constant, the cosmological constant and the gravitational constant cannot possibly be constants and it is generally assumed that this must be the case for all of them. It would be utterly astonishing if it wasn't but it would be in irrefutable proof for the existence of god so some folks would probably welcome it.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Obvious Leo wrote:
raw_thought wrote:Of course I believe in evolution. However, to say that constants (such as the size of electrons,speed of light etc) evolved, that over time they changed because the universe was self organizing seems silly to me.
Nevertheless this is accepted by almost all physicists to be absolutely the case. It has already been shown that the fine structure constant, the cosmological constant and the gravitational constant cannot possibly be constants and it is generally assumed that this must be the case for all of them. It would be utterly astonishing if it wasn't but it would be in irrefutable proof for the existence of god so some folks would probably welcome it.
I like thinking of a multi-verse idea which allows for all possibilities even the inconsistent ones. However those inconsistent possible worlds are simply not consistent to be sensible anyways even where they exist. As such it defaults to assuming everything possible like data as represented as infinite puzzle pieces or pixels on a screen (and through time) in which only some favor consistent pictures. Then, the evolution involves fitting pieces/pixels to every type of possible arrangement in position AND time. Eventually the pieces/pixels that 'fit' consistently can also persist longer including to making them more complex.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Obvious Leo »

You don't need to assume an infinite number of Newtonian universes to arrive at only one non-Newtonian one with an infinite index of possibilities, Scott. You'll never understand complexity unless you first take the trouble to learn some of the basic principles of non-linear dynamic systems theory. Try to think the world as a dissipative structure and you won't need all these mystical laws of supernatural origin.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Obvious Leo wrote:You don't need to assume an infinite number of Newtonian universes to arrive at only one non-Newtonian one with an infinite index of possibilities, Scott. You'll never understand complexity unless you first take the trouble to learn some of the basic principles of non-linear dynamic systems theory. Try to think the world as a dissipative structure and you won't need all these mystical laws of supernatural origin.
I haven't a clue where you are coming from here. You're sounding as unusually mystical to me accusing me of this. I guess this is just something we'll have to disagree on. I'm certain you have a rationale on your own ideas but struggle equally trying to convince some who can't or won't give you the time of day of the charity you won't grant of me here.

Note that a computer can have different architectures which cannot run the same exact programs in each of their own machine languages but they all follow the same logical roots necessarily by their theories. In kind, you and I may tackle it differently but to dismiss me offhand only means that you can't or won't allow my software to be tried on your machine. I understand your perspective although get thrown off by your particular preferred language. I prefer using C as a computer language over C++ because it is functional oriented. C++ is more of an object-oriented language best suited to working in large groups whereas C is best if you are writing your own software. But even underneath these, they both compile into Assembly or Machine language where they are both used on the same architecture. So I'm not saying that you are 'wrong'. I just prefer to think based on how my experience has lead me to understand things differently.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Plato's Theory of Forms...

Post by Obvious Leo »

I have no objection to your use of the computer as a template for reality because I do the same thing but you're speaking of a computer executing a programme and I'm referring to a computer which programmes its own input, which you should understand is the Universal Turing Machine. An eternal reality maker needs no programme because cause and effect is all that is needed as an evolutionary algorithm for a universe sufficient to its own existence. Your Platonic mathematical forms cannot specify for such a universe because they are of supernatural origin. Your philosophy is intrinsically creationist.
Post Reply