Existential Time

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;163246 wrote:

This is a great issue, and one I have been reading about. Are numbers transcendentally intuited? Or are they really there, outside us? Another thread perhaps...

The numbers themselves, i.e. "1" and "2", are just representations of quantifiable concepts, which is why I find it hard to hold them to a standard different from any other concepts. I know you have studied the philosophy of mathematics in greater detail than I, and I am a bit interested to hear your opinion concerning the differences between mathematical truths and any other truths.

Can an ontological distinction be made?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;163246 wrote:

This is a great issue, and one I have been reading about. Are numbers transcendentally intuited? Or are they really there, outside us? Another thread perhaps...

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 12:16 AM ----------

For me, this makes sense. But I'm a finitist. It seems to me that thoughts themselves are circumscriptions. But it also seems to me that our system of thought is always changing, even if particular circumscriptions remain intact.

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 12:27 AM ----------

MMP2506;163250 wrote:

The numbers themselves, i.e. "1" and "2", are just representations of quantifiable concepts, which is why I find it hard to hold them to a standard different from any other concepts. I know you have studied the philosophy of mathematics in greater detail than I, and I am a bit interested to hear your opinion concerning the differences between mathematical truths and any other truths.

Can an ontological distinction be made?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;163253 wrote:

I feel the illusion is a product of our finiteness. Plato felt that finiteness is merely an illusion of the infinite, and if you understand finitude as a certain perspective, than it makes more sense to say that finitude is merely trying to be infinite, despite its restrictions.

In other words, the many don't make up the One, but they represent it in a less than perfect way. What the One is is not a collection of all the many, but a perfect representation of them all individually.

Any thoughts?

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;163259 wrote:

I feel the illusion is a product of our finiteness. Plato felt that finiteness is merely an illusion of the infinite, and if you understand finitude as a certain perspective, than it makes more sense to say that finitude is merely trying to be infinite, despite its restrictions.

In other words, the many don't make up the One, but they represent it in a less than perfect way. What the One is is not a collection of all the many, but a perfect representation of them all individually.

Any thoughts?

I think it is both...a set of it all and a representation of them individually...you see I do believe that the whole is not more then the sum of its parts if it happens that you also care to ad dynamics and context...that was what was missing !

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 12:41 AM ----------

Of course, dynamics and context imply the Whole itself...there we go again, pattern repeating...

@qualia,

There are several major topics here. One is mathematical realism. this is the view that mathematical objects are objectively real, independent of our ideas of them. It has some very credible supporters, including Roger Penrose and Kurt Godel. It also has many detractors. The main argument against it has been the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and the possibility of a potentially endless number of mathematical schemas which are logically consistent. These all suggest that mathematics are mental operations. For a discussion see Is God a Mathematician by Mario Livio.

Platonism generally supports the realist outlook. In fact 'realism' in platonism doesn't mean what 'realism' means now. Realism in the Platonist context means that numbers and universals are real in a different way to corporeal objects. I have a great discussion of this in the Cambridge Companion to Augustine if anyone is interested.

As for truth with a capital T, it is an obsolete concept in modern philosophy. Nobody thinks there is such a thing. There are only true or false propositions. I can direct you to a contributor who will argue about this until the heat death of the universe. :bigsmile:

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;163249 wrote:

On the other hand Truth is self sufficient, and cause as process is a consequence of Truth...meaning cause is not true cause, but the temporal ordered manifestation of all there is, as it is...for no reason !

This is a strange and beautiful thought.

@Fil Albuquerque,

YouTube - The Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;163271 wrote:

There are several major topics here. One is mathematical realism. this is the view that mathematical objects are objectively real, independent of our ideas of them. It has some very credible supporters, including Roger Penrose and Kurt Godel. It also has many detractors. The main argument against it has been the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and the possibility of a potentially endless number of mathematical schemas which are logically consistent. These all suggest that mathematics are mental operations. For a discussion see Is God a Mathematician by Mario Livio.

Platonism generally supports the realist outlook. In fact 'realism' in platonism doesn't mean what 'realism' means now. Realism in the Platonist context means that numbers and universals are real in a different way to corporeal objects. I have a great discussion of this in the Cambridge Companion to Augustine if anyone is interested.

As for truth with a capital T, it is an obsolete concept in modern philosophy. Nobody thinks there is such a thing. There are only true or false propositions. I can direct you to a contributor who will argue about this until the heat death of the universe. :bigsmile:

Very well summed up. That still leaves us with vagueness concerning how Truth is manifested and whether or not Truth is dependent upon the manifestations of it. Any thoughts concerning that? As I am assuming you still adhere to its existence.

I would also be interested in reading that discussion if you have it handy.

@qualia,

Incidentally, the argument as to whether mathematics is objective or subjective, or both, is a textbook case of one of the kinds of metaphysical argument in Western philosophy which can never really be solved. Although it is a very nice idea to contemplate. Maybe that is all it is good for.

As for Truth with a capital T - the only way I can really conceptualise it is in Sanskrit where it is called SAT. The reason I can only think about it in Sanskrit (incidentally I am not fluent in it) is because Indian philosophy provides an epistemology, metaphysic, ethic, and praxis in relation to Sat which is very difficult to find parallels for in Western philosophy. Before I get severely flamed for saying that, I find the closest parallels to it are actually in Catholic philosophy, for example, Gilson, Maritain, Stanley Jaki, and so on. There are also some parallels in Bradley. But I am not across all of this material. I know parts of it and how to join a few of the topics, but it is a very big subject.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;163271 wrote:

There are several major topics here. One is mathematical realism. this is the view that mathematical objects are objectively real, independent of our ideas of them. It has some very credible supporters, including Roger Penrose and Kurt Godel. It also has many detractors. The main argument against it has been the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and the possibility of a potentially endless number of mathematical schemas which are logically consistent. These all suggest that mathematics are mental operations.

This actually ties into the time theme, in my opinion. If we say that number is imposed by the mind, we have to imagine a world apart from our mind, a sort of noumena. So the anti-realists seem dependent upon this noumena, which is actually, and ironically, just a concept. I feel that the notion of time apart from humans depends on this same noumena. We have to conceptualize a world devoid of conceptualization, and see if time is there.
No dount, the noumena or mind-independent world is a useful notion, but quite tricky if one wants to be as logical as possible.

As far as Non-E. geometry, it's counter intuitional. Euclid was first for a reason. I personally don't think that formalist math like non Euclidean geometry makes Euclid's seem less "transcendental." I'm not surprised that we can go against our intuition, while imitated the axiomatic style.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;163132 wrote:

This is where I believe that freedom and determinism are two aspects present in the same reality.

I don't know what that has to do with potentiality and actuality, and neither do I have any idea what it means to call freedom and determinism "aspects" of anything, but if you mean that determinism and freedom are both true, well, that is compatibilism, and I do think that compatibilism is true. In fact, it is hard to see how it could not be true.

@qualia,

Here is the link on 'intelligible objects' according to Augustine. I have quoted this passage a few times on the Forum but I don't think anyone has realised what it is about. I find it rather fascinating, I must admit.

The Cambridge companion to Augustine - Google Books

@jeeprs,

At some point in this video we can see a pattern forever repeating...very close to what I believe. I also agree with the part containing the Whole...As for the rest of it, some is interesting ,and some roughly glued in a Theory...

YouTube - What is the real reality?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;163271 wrote:

As for truth with a capital T, it is an obsolete concept in modern philosophy. Nobody thinks there is such a thing.

it's out of fashion, isn't it? The strange thing is that a refutation of Truth is itself either the truth or just an opinion. A good pragmatist can navigate these waters, but there are those who don't see how they pull the rug from beneath their own feet when they mock the possibility of truth (or Truth, or tRUTH...) Smile

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;163284 wrote:

Here is the link on 'intelligible objects' according to Augustine. I have quoted this passage a few times on the Forum but I don't think anyone has realised what it is about. I find it rather fascinating, I must admit.

The Cambridge companion to Augustine - Google Books

Oh, that's all right. I find Scarlett Johanson rather fascinating. These are quirks all of us have. No need for embarrassment.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;163283 wrote:

I don't know what that has to do with potentiality and actuality, and neither do I have any idea what it means to call freedom and determinism "aspects" of anything, but if you mean that determinism and freedom are both true, well, that is compatibilism, and I do think that compatibilism is true. In fact, it is hard to see how it could not be true.

A things potentiality is intrinsically related to what a thing is, or its form/essence. Its potential will be freely fulfilled due to its form, only if its situation allows for this fulfillment to occur. Therefore, the thing posses freedom, but also is determined by factors immediately outside of its locus of control. Thus the two, for a lack of better word, aspects, are as you say compatible due to the relationship between potentiality and actuality.

We actually seem to be in agreement on that point, and you were almost able to infer what I meant to say despite my convoluted way of describing it; however, the potential is still there for greater understanding. Thats a scary thought.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;163284 wrote:

Here is the link on 'intelligible objects' according to Augustine. I have quoted this passage a few times on the Forum but I don't think anyone has realised what it is about. I find it rather fascinating, I must admit.

The Cambridge companion to Augustine - Google Books

Frankly not too different from Whiteheads eternal objects or God as an eternal acutual entity wherein Truth with a capital T resides and derives from.
Truth can not reside in the flux and change of the temporal "actual world". Most religious people (and most of the world still is religious) believe in Truth even though they disagree about what it is.

Time as measured with calenders and clocks is clearly a human invention. The temporal sequencing of events is fundamental to casual reality.
Time and temporality are different conceptions.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;163289 wrote:

A things potentiality is intrinsically related to what a thing is, or its form/essence. Its potential will be freely fulfilled due to its form, only if its situation allows for this fulfillment to occur. Therefore, the thing posses freedom, but also is determined by factors immediately outside of its locus of control. Thus the two, for a lack of better word, aspects, are as you say compatible due to the relationship between potentiality and actuality.

We actually seem to be in agreement on that point, and you were almost able to infer what I meant to say despite my convoluted way of describing it. Thats a scary thought.

I also agree with this, but it happens that I cannot in last final instance, call that freedom...

..pardon me my enthusiastic language, but the bloody "Thing

@prothero,

prothero;163290 wrote:

Truth can not reside in the flux and change of the temporal "actual world". .

Then how come it is true that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;163292 wrote:

I also agree with this, but it happens that I cannot in last final instance, call that freedom...

..pardon me my enthusiastic language, but the bloody thing is done, its True, and it cannot be otherwise !!!

It is freedom if you accept it. Your will can become free even your situation is determined. I am free to fulfill my potential to the point that my situation allows for it to be fulfilled, but if I decide not to fulfill it, that will further hinder my progress towards actualization. Hence, I am free to do whatever I am able to do within any given situation, but a situation always exists.

On the other hand.

Actualization is dependent upon, what it would seem, both me and the world. But since I exist in the world, the actualization of the event does just happen, so in that since you may have a point. It comes down to how much you consider a person's will to be within is control. I like to believe my will is autonomous, but I guess there is no definite answer.

I guess it all comes down to the viewpoint you are viewing it from. From my viewpoint I am free, but from a universal viewpoint, I am determined. We are just seldom given the ability of hindsight prior to the act.

Philosophy Forum

Existential Time

Quick Links

My Account

able2know