Spiritual Logicism

Author: Math_Enthusiast
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 59
Topic's author
#31
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
The organic computer doesn't process numerically.

We acquire this ability, some better than others.

Whereas A.I. processes numerically  and can convert readily. 
Certainly.
And if you consider how we process and appreciate data,  then simulation isn't really a hypothetical consideration.

Everything is an internal projection, derived from incoming sensory signals.
So are you saying that we live in a simulation because our senses simulate the world for us? That's an interesting idea.
Therefore truth and reality are always an assumptive simulation of an assumed external reality. 

So we can qualify to degree by agreement, but agreement is a still only a collection of assumed truths and realities.
What is stopping there from being objective truth outside of us? Other than that, I totally agree with everything you said.
#32
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Well,

External reality probably is, and therefore what is is.

And so this would be a truism.

Though truth as a concept is only the necessity of an internally dependant organism, and so an external reality can only be indirectly assessed.
Topic's author
#33
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4

External reality probably is, and therefore what is is.

And so this would be a truism.
I would agree.
Though truth as a concept is only the necessity of an internally dependant organism, and so an external reality can only be indirectly assessed.
I would mostly agree. Things like math and logic, however, are very important and very real parts of external reality, but can still be analyzed directly within our own minds.
#34
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
But still can be analysed directly within our own minds.
Yes, I would agree that it is reasonable to have faith in such processes.


Though I would still contend that external reality is what it is.

Whereas logic and math require conscious effort.



Topic's author
#35
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, I would agree that it is reasonable to have faith in such processes.


Though I would still contend that external reality is what it is.

Whereas logic and math require conscious effort.
They certainly require conscious effort for us to draw new conclusions about them, but they don't require conscious effort to exist. Perhaps you would be interested to spectate this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4381-math-is-objective.
#36
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,307
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Does stuff conform to math, or does math conform to stuff?

Math is an internal assessment of an internally assessed externality.

Therefore math is subjective, and external stuff at best is probably real, but this is also based upon an internal and therefore subjective assessment.

As such, objectivity can only be an internal qualification of an internal assessment. Therefore Math can only be said to be internally objective.

Ultimately, objectivity, subjectivity and an awareness of existence are wholly reliant upon conscious appreciation.

No thinker, then nothing to think about.






#37
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,298
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Does stuff conform to math, or does math conform to stuff?
Meta-space math is complementary to occupied space, and vs versa. Conformity does not come into play in these cosmic regards

Math is an internal assessment of an internally assessed externality.
Meta-space math is neither internal nor external. Collective set of molecules ex brain/nervous system cells, are external to the individual atoms and electrons that collective define those cells.

The external information is taken in { internal } via visuals of EMRadiation, auditory, olfactory and/or tactile senses. 

No thinker, then nothing to think about.
Depe.nds on how we define " thinker ".  If we define thinker as a human or other animal, then occupied space Universe may exist for billions of years, without any  human animal or other animals existence in Universe.

If change the above definition of " thinker " to something else, then, that when may.

......I think about my occupied space finger with my occupied space nervous system, ergo, I exist as an occupied space something or another......ebuc

Consciousness is at minimum twoness { OO } ergo other-ness ergo aware-ness of each other requries third factor, the line-of-relationship by which the two are aware ---to whatever degree--- of each other.

The line-of-relationship can be considered as a straight line vector  between the two ex ...O-----O... ergo, threeness. Or the line-of-relationship can be considered as geodesic trajectory  ex ....(O)(O).... in this scenario the geodesic is tangent to each of the two and carrys the info on geodesic rather than a straight line scenario.

Both of the above are base line three-ness of occupied space existence, however, there is 4th factor/phenomena that has to be considered, and that is the background within which the above three-ness exists.  Ex lets see it was two fish, then the background would be water/ocean. Or two birds the background would be atmosphere

On cosmic scales, we could say there exists, as occupied space Univerese, just these three parts, and the background would then be the macro-infinite non-truly occupied space, that, embraces these three finite parts. ..................(O)(O)..................

So, the minimal scenario of existence and conscicous-ness, cannot be less than these four factors. Simple, when we follow logical, common sense, critical thinking pathways.








#38
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Things like math and logic, however, are very important and very real parts of external reality ....
I doubt that.
They are human constructs. They are not "out there" during the times when humans do not exist.
#39
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,298
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@b9_ntt
They are not "out there" during the times when humans do not exist.
Thats correct.  Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts ergo math, is not Pi in the sky, that,we can look and see written in solar system, astreroid belt, or galaxy.

Water { medium } is not the wave { pattern }.  Geometry is the science of pattern. Here is one example to help others be able to make this distinction between occupied space aka medium { mass, charge, spin, flavor taste etc } and Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts { no-mass, no charge, no spin, no flavor taste etc }.

Extend our arm and hand out in front of us. Now move extended arm and hand back and forth laterally, while raising and lowering. We create a sine-wave pattern.

Now stop moving our extended arm and hand. We still see the hand and arm.  We no longer see the sine-wave pattern. We recall from a collective pattern memory neurons, a Meta-space pattern we label as wave or sine-wave pattern { geometry }.

I had another better example in mind other night in bed, then forgot it in AM.  Was really good one.

Consider this. ...."The answer is that the light was made of many different photons. Each of them behaved in a separate way. The researchers observed some photons acting like particles, and others acting like waves. Imaging both types simultaneously is what was done for the first time in their experiment."....

..."It is possible to measure some weakly wave-like and weakly particle-like properties in a photon simultaneously, Carbone said, as long as the combined uncertainties in the measurements do not violate the uncertainty principle."....

#40
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,298
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Go to this site below and see a similar graphic I started presenting to my friends back in 90's in regards to what exactly is a quantum fluctuation, so I drew the following concept
.../\/\/*\*/\/\/\/*\/*\/\/........and what I was saying was, the a quantum fluctuation is that some consciousness { bilateral? } is throwing a monkey wrench into the quantum wave, and that causes a fluctuation that created the big bang.  I was only joking around.

Qbits ergo superpostition.."So how does he describe the photon? "I'm not sure I can give you a one-sentence answer," says Minev. "I'm currently reevaluating my own understanding." Currently, he thinks the photon is a "quantum of action," where "action" refers to an abstract quantity describing the allowed behavior of his system."..

So here above his work substitutes quantum of energy with quantum of action.

...."Still, the true nature of the photon eludes physicists.".....
#41
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
It's no wonder that experts revise their ideas and wonder about what's really going on. Humans are to the universe like subatomic particles are to us. It is hubris to think that we could ever devise a "theory of everything."
#42
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,298
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@b9_ntt
Humans are to the universe like subatomic particles are to us.
I like that comment a lot, even tho only equilvalent in scale of size considerations and even then, the Universe size is still and unknown, compared to 50 years ago.

It is hubris to think that we could ever devise a "theory of everything."
True and yet i think we can accomplish that. Ive posted Leornard Susskinds remarks on recent quantum superposition { spooky-action-at-a-distance } aka non-locality Bells theorem etc in regards to black holes and the quantum tunnel wormhole or whatever. And that is in light of Googles quantum computer creating the a quantum superpostion between black holes, at least in some kind of theoretical way.

I think it involves Gravity and Dark Energy. I posted another popular theoretical physicist vid and he states what ive been stating for few years now, that Gravity and Dark Energy are likened to two sides of the same coin. Gravity (  )  and Dark Energy )(......(   )(   ).... bisected slice through a torus.

I believe all quantum particles of Universe are eternally connected via Gravity and Dark Energy via quantum space-time tori and each of these tori are an occupied space field.

Without going into the complexity of this specifics of superposition via a string of tori, Ive early on presented to others in a much simpler way. Particle A is precessed to Particle B i.e. they are 90 degrees to each other ex | and -- is symbol for vertical and horizontal precession. So when particle A is split away a particle B they are both in quantum spin of sorts, So A is constant fluctuating between being | or --.

And as B flys away, it remains connected and is always precession i.e. at 90 degrees to whatever particle A is.

A+--+--+--+--+--+--B Understand?  Involving quantum space-time tori just means were adding geodesic trajectories, tho to explain  or visualize is harder for me to with texticonic keyboard characters.  A linear string of tangentally touching quantum space-time tori { my specical-case design }

A(/\/\/)(-----)(/\/\/)(------)(/\/\/)(-----)B    The quantum space-time field, involved in quantum wormhole/tunnel whatever, includes only a single linear set of tori, and the field is Gravity, Dark Energy and Sine-wave of Reality all as the one field, that, particle that is constant precessional flux.  Whenever particle A is measured, particle B is already in precessed 90 degree opposition to A. Understand?

There is no folding of space or hyper-space or parrallel Universe space. None of that.

#43
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
The quantum stuff is over my head. I don't have the math to understand the physics. All I know is that experiments have shown that photons travel as a wave and impact as a particle.
#44
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,298
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@b9_ntt
The quantum stuff is over my head. I don't have the math to understand the physics. All I know is that experiments have shown that photons travel as a wave and impact as a particle.
Paraphrasing from the great Richard Fyenmans book GED, that, I first read in early 90's....' forget what anyone told you about a photon being a wave, as it only appears to us as a particle.'......

.."QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter is an adaptation for the general reader of four lectures on quantum electrodynamics (QED) published in 1985 by American physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman."


Feynman is considered to be the father of Quantum Electrodynamics { QED }. Have you heard of Feyman Diagrams? When my wife and I went to Los Alamos in New Mexico, one of the multi-story buildings there, has the name Feynman in large latters spelled out vertically on the side. There were several differrent teams of physicists and mathmaticians working on how which ideas would work to  create the atomic bomb.

Feynman was not on the team that created the solution. Each team was tasked with a differrent approach and were assigned to work on that approach only.


#45
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
What I recall about Feynman is that he came up with first new way to calculate something in quantum dynamics since the 1930s, and that he was called upon to find the cause of the Challenger disaster.
Topic's author
#46
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
RE: Post #38

Things like math and logic, however, are very important and very real parts of external reality ....
I doubt that.
They are human constructs. They are not "out there" during the times when humans do not exist.
Let's start with this. Do you agree or disagree with the following:

The proposition "every statement implies itself" is objectively true.

I'm not implying that that necessarily means that logic is objective, or that math is objective, or that it proves anything specific, I just want to know whether or not you agree with it, and we can continue from there.
#47
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Let's start with this. Do you agree or disagree with the following: The proposition "every statement implies itself" is objectively true.
I disagree.

Topic's author
#48
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
Okay then. I intend to prove otherwise.

We say that A implies B whenever in the case that A is true, so is B.

From the definition I simply need to show "in the case that A is true, so is A." But in the case that A is true, A is true by assumption! This is a definitive argument that A implies A for any statement A. It follows that indeed the proposition "every statement implies itself" is objectively true.

Notice that this argument also applies to cases where the statement A is subjective, or even meaningless, because A is still either objectively true, or it isn't. It being subjective or meaningless would mean that it is not true. Perhaps not false either, but still not true.


#49
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
You have shown that A and the proposition “every statement implies itself” can be classified as true using the rules of human language and the rules of human logic. That classification is not external to humanity, and does not show that they are “very real parts of external reality.”

Topic's author
#50
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
You have shown that A and the proposition “every statement implies itself” can be classified as true using the rules of human language and the rules of human logic. That classification is not external to humanity, and does not show that they are “very real parts of external reality.”
What I've shown is that "every statement implies itself" is true by definition of "implies." Don't confuse this with the "rules of human language and rules of human logic." I don't deny that it is a fine line.
#51
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
What I've shown is that "every statement implies itself" is true by definition of "implies."
Don't confuse this with the "rules of human language and rules of human logic."
I don't see any confusion here. The "definition" is a human linguistic construct.
I see in that sentence a collection of symbols which is meaningful to human beings. The symbols are not meaningful in any other sense that I know of.
What I don't see in that sentence is any connection to an "external reality." It is self-referential and says nothing about the physical world. Is there some other world that I don't know about?
Topic's author
#52
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
I don't see any confusion here. The "definition" is a human linguistic construct.
Um, yeah? What is true about the world "implies" is that which is true according to its definition. That's how definitions work.

I see in that sentence a collection of symbols which is meaningful to human beings. The symbols are not meaningful in any other sense that I know of.
It is in the form of something only meaningful to human beings, but the statement which it represents is objectively true.

What I don't see in that sentence is any connection to an "external reality." It is self-referential and says nothing about the physical world. Is there some other world that I don't know about?
This particular statement isn't very applicable, but more complex logical statements are. Also, it's not self-referential. I'm not sure where you got that from. For it to be self-referential it has to refer to itself. (Hopefully needless to say.) This particular statement refers to statements generally. 
#53
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
For it to be self-referential it has to refer to itself.
"every statement implies itself"
OK, that was a cheap shot. I get that you meant the entire statement of which the above is a part, is not self-referential.
Be that as it may, lets discuss what “objectively true” means (or doesn’t mean). You seem to mean it in a non-local way, such that a non-human, intelligent being in another star system would acknowledge the truth of your statement (assuming that it was presented in a way intelligible to that being), and that is always true, no matter what. Is this correct?

If it is, you probably would need to educate said intelligent being about the context in which the statement is true. And it is at least possible that said being could have an entirely different way of perceiving the universe and communicating about it, and disagree (as I am disagreeing) based on its own understanding.

For instance, for a being which perceives everything as a one, continuous thing, talking about separate things would make no sense. Why focus on a particular microscopic feature of the universe as a separate thing, they might say. And I'm sure there are many other ways of seeing things that could possibly cause a being to deny the truth of your statement.

I'm being really nit-picky here because to me "objectively true" is an extreme claim about something that sets off my bs detector. Of course I could be wrong, but you haven't convinced me yet.
Topic's author
#54
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
Be that as it may, lets discuss what “objectively true” means (or doesn’t mean). You seem to mean it in a non-local way, such that a non-human, intelligent being in another star system would acknowledge the truth of your statement (assuming that it was presented in a way intelligible to that being), and that is always true, no matter what. Is this correct?
Yes.

If it is, you probably would need to educate said intelligent being about the context in which the statement is true. And it is at least possible that said being could have an entirely different way of perceiving the universe and communicating about it, and disagree (as I am disagreeing) based on its own understanding.
I am fairly confident that the only background a sufficiently intelligent being would need is the definitions of each term, as this statement is a tautology, so it is basically just true by definition. 

For instance, for a being which perceives everything as a one, continuous thing, talking about separate things would make no sense. Why focus on a particular microscopic feature of the universe as a separate thing, they might say. And I'm sure there are many other ways of seeing things that could possibly cause a being to deny the truth of your statement.
This is less a denial of the statement and more a denial of its usefulness. Why focus on it? For the sake of this specific argument! Otherwise, it's almost entirely useless. I don't deny that.

I'm being really nit-picky here because to me "objectively true" is an extreme claim about something that sets off my bs detector. Of course I could be wrong, but you haven't convinced me yet.
Objective truth is almost entirely impossible to prove but for the cases of math and logic. That is why they are so powerful. I can understand, however, why generally such claims would be naturally suspicious.
#55
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Thanks. I need to think some more about this before I continue.
#56
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I concede on this issue.
I've been reading some philosophy the last couple of days. The topic about whether numbers and logic are real or not is a minefield, and philosophers can't agree. My own intellectual taste aligns with conceptualism, but I am not educated enough to argue it. So I think I should keep quiet about that (for now).
Topic's author
#57
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
Okay. I appreciate the interesting discussion we've had thus far nonetheless!
#58
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Thanks. I enjoyed it too.

79 days later

#59
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Do you claim Spiritual Logicism holds the belief that all spiritual truths about the universe can be derived from abstract logic based on the idea that there is a valid and complete notion of truth that can be extended to all possible contexts, including reality and mathematics?