personal truth

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:37 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:50 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:41 am Why don't you think there's intelligence?
I think there is intelligence behind the Creation. I just look around, and it seems the most obvious hypothesis.
Why can't intelligence be within the creative manifestation/flow? Why do you think there must be something behind it, rather than within it?
Well, that's just turning "nature" into "Nature" (note the capital). So it's Pantheism of some kind, which is actually something that people sometimes do. You can do it, of course; but I think it's incorrect. "God" is the Creator, and "nature" is one of His creations. They are not the same.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:40 pm "God" is the Creator, and "nature" is one of His creations. They are not the same.
I believe in the God that created your God.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:40 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:37 pm Why can't intelligence be within the creative manifestation/flow? Why do you think there must be something behind it, rather than within it?
So it's Pantheism of some kind, which is actually something that people sometimes do. You can do it, of course; but I think it's incorrect. "God" is the Creator, and "nature" is one of His creations.
Well, I don't label it as anything. Did your god require a creator? No? Then why does nature?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: personal truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:13 pm I'm just wondering if it's a linguistic phenomenon in your view.
You can call mathematics a "language" if you want. Some people do, and it's not entirely wrong. But you can't call language "a mathematics."

So you'd have to say that, at most, mathematical symbols are a subset of linguistics, not coextensive with linguistics. That's a mathematical/philosophical way to put the situation.

In other words, there are lots of things that can be done linguistically that are not mathematical. Think of my "sheep" example, given earlier.

I can tell you're itching to make some point, and you need me to say something in order to allow you to make it. But I'm not sure what it is.

Why not just say what's on your mind?
Again, at the moment I'm really just asking you about your view. It's weird that it's so difficult to get you to answer that straightforwardly.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:23 pm It depends on how you're using the word "linguistic." Do you mean merely "symbolic"? Or do you mean, "Can somebody say 'two' instead of writing '2'?"

Linguistics are not reducible to mathematics. What's your equation for, "In two weeks, I expect that the wool on these sheep will be ready to be made into an excellent, water-resistant coat for my girlfriend"? :wink:
It seems you are the one treating negation as "merely symbolic".

Language is a system of differences. Surely you have the ability to distinguish linguistic from the non-linguistic.

What (in your view) is the meaning of negation in the term "non-linguistic" ?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:11 pm Did your god require a creator? No? Then why does nature?
Well, "nature," as we can show scientifically, is contingent. And we can prove that very easily, from multiple scientific perspectives, including the "red shift effect," the laws of entropy, the mathematics of causality, and so on.

So that question's easy to answer.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:26 pm It's weird that it's so difficult to get you to answer that straightforwardly.
I just did. I told you exactly what I thought. And somehow, that didn't amount to a "straightforward answer," you say? :shock:

You see, that's why I wonder what you're thinking... You somehow still seem to want something other than a straightforward answer. If that were all you wanted, you've got it already.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: personal truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:24 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:26 pm It's weird that it's so difficult to get you to answer that straightforwardly.
I just did. I told you exactly what I thought. And somehow, that didn't amount to a "straightforward answer," you say? :shock:

You see, that's why I wonder what you're thinking... You somehow still seem to want something other than a straightforward answer. If that were all you wanted, you've got it already.
Sorry, I didn't understand your answer then. Was it yes, that you consider mathematical negation linguistic, or no, you do not consider it linguistic?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:39 pm Sorry, I didn't understand your answer then. Was it yes, that you consider mathematical negation linguistic, or no, you do not consider it linguistic?
Maths is, at most, a subset of linguistics.

Do you understand "subset"? :shock:
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: personal truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:52 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:39 pm Sorry, I didn't understand your answer then. Was it yes, that you consider mathematical negation linguistic, or no, you do not consider it linguistic?
Maths is, at most, a subset of linguistics.

Do you understand "subset"? :shock:
Sure. Just trying to find out whether yes, you consider negation in mathematics linguistic, or no you do not. Whether you consider mathematics a subset of linguistics would help us answer that, but you sound like you're speaking hypothetically above rather than actually saying whether you consider mathematics a subset of linguistics or not.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:58 pm Sure. Just trying to find out whether yes, you consider negation in mathematics linguistic, or no you do not. Whether you consider mathematics a subset of linguistics would help us answer that, but you sound like you're speaking hypothetically above rather than actually saying whether you consider mathematics a subset of linguistics or not.
As I said, it depends on your definition of "linguistics." Do you mean, in the most general way, "language"? Then maths is a kind of "language," in that it communicates information. But do you mean the kind of language that has a non-universal grammar, syntax, morphology, phonology, and so forth, like Hebrew, or Urdu, or French? In that case, maths is not a subset of "linguistics."

Maths is, in one sense, a universal "language." But it's not like other "languages."

So if I seemed to have difficulty responding to the question, the fault was in the question. "Linguistics" is ambiguous.

So perhaps you want to clarify your term?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: personal truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:07 pm As I said, it depends on your definition of "linguistics."
Hold on a minute. How would YOUR view depend on MY definition of "linguistics"?

Why wouldn't it depend on YOUR definition of "linguistics"? It's supposed to be YOUR VIEW.

If you were writing a paper about this, you'd need to check with me first for my definition before presenting your view?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:22 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:11 pm Did your god require a creator? No? Then why does nature?
Well, "nature," as we can show scientifically, is contingent. And we can prove that very easily, from multiple scientific perspectives, including the "red shift effect," the laws of entropy, the mathematics of causality, and so on.
Multiple perspectives demonstrate a god's contingency on the various stories and beliefs of cultures and individuals across periods of time. Can science measure or verify any consistent results or existence for any supposed god? Or is science only good to you for attempting to discredit what you see as shallow physicality, while you champion your invisible imaginings?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:07 pm As I said, it depends on your definition of "linguistics."
Hold on a minute. How would YOUR view depend on MY definition of "linguistics"?
Yep. You asked the question.
Why wouldn't it depend on YOUR definition of "linguistics"? It's supposed to be YOUR VIEW.
Because YOU asked the question. So you must know what you meant. But I can't know how to answer unless I first know what you meant.

That's why I answered it two ways: whichever definition of "linguistics" you have, you can see which answer is appropriate, and you have your definitive answer.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: personal truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:20 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:07 pm As I said, it depends on your definition of "linguistics."
Hold on a minute. How would YOUR view depend on MY definition of "linguistics"?
Yep. You asked the question.
Why wouldn't it depend on YOUR definition of "linguistics"? It's supposed to be YOUR VIEW.
Because YOU asked the question. So you must know what you meant. But I can't know how to answer unless I first know what you meant.

That's why I answered it two ways: whichever definition of "linguistics" you have, you can see which answer is appropriate, and you have your definitive answer.
I'm asking for your view, not mine. You had written, "The term 'negate,' when we use it in reference to language, is a figurative term, drawing on maths only as a metaphor"

So I'm trying to confirm that you don't consider mathematics to be a language. The above seems to suggest this.
Post Reply