a thought

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

a thought

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

In thinking about Cassirer, I have some thoughts...

for those who believe that science/math can be the end all, be all,
science/math can lead us into a certain direction... science can tell
us the how of existence.. How stars are made, how life is possible,
the size of something.. like the weight of the all the dark matter in
the universe.. how chimps are different from human beings...
the how of existence...

but what science/math cannot tell us is the why...science can tell
us that the earth is 93 million miles from the Sun... that the
sun is made up of hydrogen and other gasses.. the how stuff, but
not the why stuff..

take a easy math problem... 1 + 1 = 2.... that is a simple problem
even for school children.. look at that problem.. really look at it...

1 + 1= 2

what does this problem tell us? the question of what that problem means
revolves around the equal sign....what is that equal sign?

the equal sign =.. is really a mental connection.. not a sign that exists
in reality... when we see 1 + 1 = 2... what do we see?

that the 1... is a separate and distinct thing.. it has no connection to
the 2... we, in our minds, create the connection between the 1 + 1
and the 2.. the distinct and separate 2..but that there is no connection
between the 1 + 1 and the 2...it is an artificial connection between
the equation of 1 + 1 and the 2.. with the artificial connection being
the equal sign... and how does an artificial connection between two
numbers, a connection that does not have any basis in reality..

as Hume says, it is force of habit that creates a connection between
the equation of 1 + 1... and the 2...

now the second thing to note, is the fact that the equation,
1 + 1.... does not have any real value.. for example, you can't create
a why from 1 + 1... you can't find morals or rights or values or
justice, peace, equality, hate or anger.. or any other value within
1 + 1..... to make a value from an equation, means you have to
artificially create something... make a connection that does not exists
in real life...a connection within your own mind, but not existing in
the real world...

1 + 1 has no real world connection.. thus it has no value in the real world..
it cannot show us values or give us moral answers or give us a why...

Science can give us the how but not the why...

as it is late, tomorrow, I take on the second part of this post..

Kropotkin
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: a thought

Post by Dubious »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am
but what science/math cannot tell us is the why...science can tell
us that the earth is 93 million miles from the Sun... that the
sun is made up of hydrogen and other gasses.. the how stuff, but
not the why stuff..

Kropotkin
It never ceases to amaze as to why people always think there has to be a "why" involved as if the "why" were an inquiry into some inscrutable intent beyond human.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: a thought

Post by Age »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am In thinking about Cassirer, I have some thoughts...

for those who believe that science/math can be the end all, be all,
science/math can lead us into a certain direction... science can tell
us the how of existence.. How stars are made, how life is possible,
the size of something.. like the weight of the all the dark matter in
the universe.. how chimps are different from human beings...
the how of existence...

but what science/math cannot tell us is the why...science can tell
us that the earth is 93 million miles from the Sun... that the
sun is made up of hydrogen and other gasses.. the how stuff, but
not the why stuff..

take a easy math problem... 1 + 1 = 2.... that is a simple problem
even for school children.. look at that problem.. really look at it...

1 + 1= 2
Why do you call this a 'problem'?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am what does this problem tell us?
But it is not even a 'problem'.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am the question of what that problem means
revolves around the equal sign....what is that equal sign?
What the 'equal sign' is, is the 'equal sign'.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am the equal sign =.. is really a mental connection.. not a sign that exists
in reality... when we see 1 + 1 = 2... what do we see?
I do not know about 'you' but 'i' see a one, a plus sign, another one, an equal sign, plus a two.

What 'you' see?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am that the 1... is a separate and distinct thing.. it has no connection to
the 2... we, in our minds, create the connection between the 1 + 1
and the 2.. the distinct and separate 2..but that there is no connection
between the 1 + 1 and the 2...it is an artificial connection between
the equation of 1 + 1 and the 2.. with the artificial connection being
the equal sign... and how does an artificial connection between two
numbers, a connection that does not have any basis in reality..
What does the word 'reality' mean, or refer to, to you?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am as Hume says, it is force of habit that creates a connection between
the equation of 1 + 1... and the 2...
What is the ACTUAL 'connection' between any two things?

And, the connection between the two ones here, which you claim a human being known as "hume" says is a force of habit, is a connection that only occurs when I WANT to make one.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am now the second thing to note, is the fact that the equation,
1 + 1.... does not have any real value.. for example, you can't create
a why from 1 + 1...
Was ANY one meant to create a 'why' from 1 + 1 ...?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am you can't find morals or rights or values or
justice, peace, equality, hate or anger.. or any other value within
1 + 1.....
In case you are unaware, this is because they are numbers, and symbols, which have no actual relation to the things you mention here.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am to make a value from an equation, means you have to
artificially create something...
It could also therefore be argued that to make a value from words or an argument, means you have to artificially create something as well.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am make a connection that does not exists
in real life...
What do you mean, or refer to, by 'real life'?

What do you think 'this life' is, exactly, where these connections exist?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am a connection within your own mind, but not existing in
the real world...
Besides the fact that those connections are appearing on this and other screens, which are in 'real life', where do you think or believe 'your own mind' is, exactly, if it is NOT in the 'real life'?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am 1 + 1 has no real world connection..
If 1 + 1 has no real world connection, then the words, 'has no real world connection', also has no real world connection. But then what does have real world connections.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am thus it has no value in the real world..
That was about one of the weakest arguments that I have seen here for a while now.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am it cannot show us values or give us moral answers or give us a why...
The same can be said for ALL symbols made up and created by 'you', human beings, which, obviously, includes ALL of the letters or symbols of the alphabets.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am Science can give us the how but not the why...
'Why' is obtained through gaining understanding, itself.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am as it is late, tomorrow, I take on the second part of this post..

Kropotkin
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: a thought

Post by Age »

Dubious wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:57 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am
but what science/math cannot tell us is the why...science can tell
us that the earth is 93 million miles from the Sun... that the
sun is made up of hydrogen and other gasses.. the how stuff, but
not the why stuff..

Kropotkin
It never ceases to amaze as to why people always think there has to be a "why" involved as if the "why" were an inquiry into some inscrutable intent beyond human.
Could it be the case that there is a 'why', to EVERY thing? Or, is this an IMPOSSIBILITY, to you?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: a thought

Post by Walker »

Dubious wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:57 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am
but what science/math cannot tell us is the why...science can tell
us that the earth is 93 million miles from the Sun... that the
sun is made up of hydrogen and other gasses.. the how stuff, but
not the why stuff..

Kropotkin
It never ceases to amaze as to why people always think there has to be a "why" involved as if the "why" were an inquiry into some inscrutable intent beyond human.
Is it just coincidence that they’re the same size to the eyes?

(Now, that's a thought that leads to a lot of thoughts, like thoughts about numbers, or a long posting, or this thought.)

One at a time.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: a thought

Post by Sculptor »

Walker wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:48 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:57 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:50 am
but what science/math cannot tell us is the why...science can tell
us that the earth is 93 million miles from the Sun... that the
sun is made up of hydrogen and other gasses.. the how stuff, but
not the why stuff..

Kropotkin
It never ceases to amaze as to why people always think there has to be a "why" involved as if the "why" were an inquiry into some inscrutable intent beyond human.
Is it just coincidence that they’re the same size to the eyes?

(Now, that's a thought that leads to a lot of thoughts, like thoughts about numbers, or a long posting, or this thought.)

One at a time.
keep taking the meds buddy
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: a thought

Post by Walker »

:lol:

The moon. Sun and moon. Same size. To eyes.
To eyes on the earf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2SJozORyL4
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6669
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: a thought

Post by Iwannaplato »

Well, this is fussy but I think some of Peter's how answers are actually what answers. Like what is the distance between the earth and sun? What is the sun made of? Not how is the distance, or how is it made of?

But, yes, science often answers how questions.
And it also answers why questions.

It's certain kinds of why questions it so far has not answered and generally isn't aiming at.

And those of to do with values, as he says, and perhaps meaning.

But why questions often have to do with causation and with animals, let's say badgers, they might even have to do with intentions. There, I said a dirty word.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: a thought

Post by Walker »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:06 pm Well, this is fussy but I think some of Peter's how answers are actually what answers. Like what is the distance between the earth and sun? What is the sun made of? Not how is the distance, or how is it made of?

But, yes, science often answers how questions.
And it also answers why questions.
I would think that moon and sun the same size to the eyes might have something to do with proportion, distance, and gravity. That might be enough meat for a scientist to get revved up.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6669
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: a thought

Post by Iwannaplato »

Walker wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:14 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:06 pm Well, this is fussy but I think some of Peter's how answers are actually what answers. Like what is the distance between the earth and sun? What is the sun made of? Not how is the distance, or how is it made of?

But, yes, science often answers how questions.
And it also answers why questions.
I would think that moon and sun the same size to the eyes might have something to do with proportion, distance, and gravity. That might be enough meat for a scientist to get revved up.
I'm not sure what you are responding to in my post.
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: a thought

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

as I mentioned last night, here comes my second part of this thread..

many think the why of existence is a various number of reasons...
for example quite a few believe that the why of existence is to seek
or find god.. Aristotle wrote in one of his books... first sentence in fact...

"All men by nature desire knowledge"
The Metaphysics...

thus, suggesting that the why of existence isn't the seeking of god, but
of knowledge...(one could make the argument that seeking god is part
of seeking knowledge, but for the sake of this argument, I shall not)

the question of what we exist for, is a complicated one...
knowledge, love, god, peace are some examples of what people seek..
but each of these are really just needs.. and what we are really doing
is seeking out our needs.. as a living being, I must have food, water, shelter,
education, health care... as bodily needs, as every living thing needs..
but as a human being, I have needs outside of my bodily needs..
I have emotional, psychological needs... I have the need for love,
for esteem, the need for safety/security... the need for belonging..
these psychological needs are just as powerful needs as the bodily needs..

thus, I would suggest that the goal of, the why of existence is to meet our
needs... to fulfill our needs is the point of existence...
but now comes the interesting part... if we say that our needs can
be met by one aspect of our needs, for example, our needs can be met
by finding love or finding god.... we miss the other important needs we have
for example, if I say, I am seeking love, as my primary need, then I miss
seeking my other needs like seeking knowledge as Aristotle suggested...
to focus on one or two needs to be fulfilled, we then fail to meet
our other needs.. to say, we can be fulfilled by meeting one need
is to paint human being as simple creatures that can have our needs
met by meeting one or two needs.. human beings are complicated...
meeting just one or two needs isn't going to fulfill us.. for we have
a multitude of needs that must be met... for example, meeting
our need for certainty, that need is met with the certainty of religion,
of god...but that certainty, that need fulfilled doesn't allow other
needs to be met.... if we believe we hold the truth, in god for example
then we fail or have no need to seek other truths....if I am in love with
someone, I have no need to seek love, if I have it already...
to hold a ''truth'' blinds us to other needs, other possibilities...
we human beings have many diverse and different needs to fulfill...
in part, some of our alienation and disconnect with ourselves
and society, lays in the fact that while some needs are met,
many others are not.. it doesn't matter how much money I make or
how esteemed I may be in the world, if I don't have love in my life..
and I can have love in my life, but if I am starving and lacking
shelter, my bodily needs are not being met... and thus I can be
angry or alienated or I feel discontentment...

now there is a third part to this... which I will get to in a bit...

Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: a thought

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

Now some will say, but Kropotkin, you are contradicting yourself,
you are not engaged with the facts as I know them.. I hold that
X is true.. for example, that there is a god... I hold this to be true.
and your "story" isn't in line with what I know to be true..
now this brings up an interesting point... how come we
human beings have so many different stories about existence?

human beings tell quite different and contradictory stories about
what existence means for them...

why? I can see some action, say people marching, and my story
will quite often differ from the story you will tell about these
people marching...why? Why the vastly different stories we tell
about the same events? Part of it I am sure, is the childhood indoctrinations
we each receive.. because I was born in a certain place and time, I was
indoctrinated with different values than you are... in my own family,
there are 5 siblings.. I am the second, and you would think being born
of the same family, we would hold similar beliefs, but we don't..
I have a sister who is a born-again Chistian, whereas the other siblings
don't believe in god....and I hold different beliefs than my brother
and my sisters hold different beliefs from the others...
and yet, each of us, was given the same indoctrinations from our parents...
yet, we hold different beliefs...and some of these beliefs contradict
each other.. but why? We operate that the reason for the contradictions
and different beliefs lie within our own framework of what we know to be
true... I hold there is no god, my younger sister holds there is a god...
given our similar indoctrinations, we should hold the same beliefs, but
we don't, why?

I suspect we fail to understand each other and hold different beliefs,
not based on our childhood indoctrinations, but based on the nature
of the universe...we get vastly different signals from the universe,
because the universe itself is wildly different...

Our individual and collective understanding of the universe is different
because the universe isn't one collective whole, as we picture it..
we get different understanding of the world/universe because the
world/universe itself is contradictory, random, chaotic... and our
vision of the universe is wildly different because we, each of us,
see random, chaotic, contradictory aspects of the world/universe...
our seeing and comprehending the universe/world is diverse because
the world/universe itself is diverse, random, chaotic, contradictory...

we are unable to create a "theory of everything" because the universe
itself is random, chaotic, unpredictable, contradictory....

for example, in quantum mechanics is the study of matter and its
interactions with energy on the scale of atomic and subatomic particles...
and that study tells us something different about the universe than classical
physics which explains matter on a scale familiar to human experience such
as the moon...

the two systems, quantum mechanics and classical physics tell us something
different about the universe.. it is not a unified understanding of
existence...we understand light for example as both as particles
and as waves....so how do we build a unified theory of matter and
energy if our understanding of light itself is contradictory, random,
chaotic?

This tells us that we cannot understand the universe/world in a consistent
manner, that everyone tells the same story about existence if we see,
individually, random, chaotic, contradictory events in the world/universe...
if we see these chaotic and random events, then each of us will tell a different story
about existence...the story I tell will be different than my sisters or brother because
we see different and random events in the world/universe...

so the reason that we cannot create or tell a common story about who we are
and what it means to be human is because the world/universe itself is
random, chaotic, contradictory... and as we each see a different aspect of
this random, chaotic, contradictory world, universe, we tell different stories..
and no two stories will exactly match because of how we individually see
the world/the universe...

the failure in expressing what it means to be human, lies in the changing
and random nature of the world/universe... we cannot get our stories "straight"
because the world/universe shows each of us something different...

Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am

Re: a thought

Post by Peter Kropotkin »

I am coming off of ankle surgery.. I was in a cast and housebound
for a couple of months...I still haven't gone back to work, (in a month or so)
but given I was unable to walk or stand, you would think my days were the
same boring day, after day after day and yet, each day was different because
of the random events that would occur... some days, neighbors would stop by,
(I live in a condo) and some days, Amazon would deliver something new.
I could rarely ever get it because of my leg, but on occasion I would be able
get a small package..

In other words, even given my lack of mobility, my days were quite often
different due to random and chaotic events.... I didn't change but the world
around me changed and that change created a random, chaotic and sometimes
contradictory world around me.....

most of the time, I was reading or writing but with every changing situation,
my days would change....now that I can walk and stand, my days are ever
changing in a random and occasionally contradictory way...

I am walking, building up strength in my legs and ankle
I have physical therapy twice a week... My last week of
PT is next week.. my days are changing and evolving.. reacting to
the quite often random, chaotic and contradictory ways of the world/universe

Kropotkin
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: a thought

Post by Walker »

Peter Kropotkin wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:22 pm thus, I would suggest that the goal of, the why of existence is to meet our
needs... to fulfill our needs is the point of existence...
Sooner or later all needs will spontaneously combine into one need. If later, the one need will be the next breath. If sooner, the one need will be the answer to self-enquiry.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: a thought

Post by Walker »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:28 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:14 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:06 pm Well, this is fussy but I think some of Peter's how answers are actually what answers. Like what is the distance between the earth and sun? What is the sun made of? Not how is the distance, or how is it made of?

But, yes, science often answers how questions.
And it also answers why questions.
I would think that moon and sun the same size to the eyes might have something to do with proportion, distance, and gravity. That might be enough meat for a scientist to get revved up.
I'm not sure what you are responding to in my post.
I'm pointing out apparent portals to deduce some of the scientific answers that you reference with all those question marks.

Here's a fresh question.
Bottom line: The sun’s diameter is about 400 times larger than that of the moon – and the sun is also about 400 times farther from Earth. So the sun and moon appear nearly the same size as seen from Earth. What are the odds?
https://earthsky.org/space/coincidence- ... om%20Earth.
Indeed. What are the odds that to the eye, the spheres appear to be balanced.

Could be that every habitable planet exhibits these proportions. Who knows, but Who's on first.

As we gaze upward with nothing between us and forever, could it be that over hundreds of millions of years the symmetry of same-sized night-lights and day-lights has affected the evolution of bilateral symmetry in your higher life forms? Or, are the answers to bilateral symmetry to be found somewhere in a fermenting chemical soup struck by lightning?
Post Reply