godelian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 4:49 am
I subscribe to mathematical realism but I have generally no opinion about the realism of abstractions other than the mathematical ones. It really depends on what it is about.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:57 am
As such the above can be studied within Physics and the other sciences; where science is the gold standard of 'what is real'. Whatever is not real is illusory, fictitious and imaginary.
Given the fact that absolutely nothing is provable about the physical universe, this looks like a poor gold standard.
Absolutely nothing is provable scientifically??
You are so lost with reality.
Note 'prove' in this case is used loosely.
All physical things are 'provable' by science to be real.
You deny this?
If there is a box filled with concentrated invisible carbon-dioxide or other poisonous gas, and someone challenged you to sit inside it, would you?
Say, someone did sit inside and died, it is with confidence we can rely on science to prove what really exist therein that cause the death of the victim.
Once upon a time, the moon was claimed to be made of cheese.
Now science has confirmed 'proven' what the moon is really made of.
You don't believe the moon is really what science confirmed [proven] it is?
The above applies to all physical things that science had confirmed [proven] as scientifically real.
What population of 100 items exactly are you sampling? Without sampling, there is no legitimacy in terms of probability theory, and therefore, no valid statistics. You see, mathematics has total control over probability theory. Probability is a mathematical theory. Are you really trying to use probability theory against itself?
You need sampling?
There is an exhaustive list of things science had confirmed [proven] to be scientifically real in the field of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, social sciences, etc.
Surely you don't doubt this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:57 am
If you insist, produce evidence to show that your mathematical entities are really real.
Why don't you show me any claim about the physical universe that is actually provable?
As I have given the above example of the real existence of the moon, so is the Sun and whatever science has confirmed [proven] to be real.
Take anything that is physical you can see [your monitor, computer, desk, trees, fruits, food, etc.] and show me they cannot be proven to be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:57 am
The point is mathematical entities are illusory but they are very useful illusions which can be transposed on the real physical [physicalism] scientific world.
Science may be able to test some stubborn observable patterns in the physical universe, but what exactly does that prove? Obviously, nothing. Don't tell me that it makes things more "probable" because probability theory is a strictly mathematical theory. You cannot use it against itself.
Ultimately, your physicalist views will always turn out to be circular.
The scientific FS proves things are real scientifically which MUST be qualified to the human scientific FS. e.g. Water is H20 is real because the science-chemistry FS said so, i.e. scientifically real.
No one can claim anything to be real without qualifying it to a human-based FS.
Whatever you claim for mathematics, it must be qualified to the human-based mathematical-FS.