Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ElliElephant OP t1_jb0djvq wrote

Reply to comment by TheNarfanator in Wittgenstein’s Revenge (this genuinely changed the way I look at the world) by ElliElephant

The difference is that philosophy only exists because humans exists. Math doesn’t need us

Language is tricky, yeah. It’s how we think so how can we think about language objectively

I don’t know.

But if you need something to ground yourself, consider that the only way we’re able to have this conversation with each other right now is because mathematical truth is so rigid and unambiguous that we are able to build computers. Just by alternating high and low voltages in a circuit. 0’s and 1’s

0

TheNarfanator t1_jb0gwyx wrote

To me, that's conceptually equivalent to the understanding that God doesn't need us (the conceptual/philosophical God. Not the religious one).

Without proof or evidence of Mathematics, can we really call it Truth? I think we can really only call it reliable then make the assertion that this reliability is evidence of Math's existence (in the Math-Realist way) but then I can't help but think this is a philosophical claim and that's Truth.

The closest I feel like we could get to Truth (without going philosophical, if that's even possible) is evidence. To me that's more true than Math as Math is used as evidence for factual claims (Like Algebra and Calculus is a subset of Math, Math is a subset of evidence) but then we run into "Facts", so it's not reliable anymore.

...stupid black hole keeps spinning me right round.

3

ElliElephant OP t1_jb0hrnp wrote

I don’t hate the idea of thinking of God as being one and the same as Math. Kind of elegant really

Math doesn’t exist in the same way as anything else exist

Here, this can probably explain what I mean way smarter than I can:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/#ObjMatPla

1

TheNarfanator t1_jb0jw78 wrote

I've read up a little on Platonism before so I understand where you're coming from.

To me it's more language, so you know where I'm going: black hooole...ahhh!

If you don't want to be in a black hole, avoid readings on Cantor and Gödel since you've gotten a bit into Wittgenstein already (but that probably peaked your curiosity, huh? I'm sorry).

You've been warned!! But if you do go in and come out, please let me know, and probably the world too. Humanity needs to push it's boundaries without going insane.

Edit: Schopenhauer might be the cure though, just in case.

2

ElliElephant OP t1_jb0l5mk wrote

I’m curious, yes… though a black hole that becomes more irresistible the deeper I go, until there’s no going back, sounds like something inconvenient to my life atm haha

2

vegancookie t1_jb0ia1u wrote

If humans didn’t exist, would gravity exist? Of course. If another species came along would they conceptualise gravity how we have? Unknown. It’s the same with maths. We have our ways of looking at the world, and decide how we are going to look at numbers (like what base we use), but this sadly kinda goes back to the whole “if a tree falls” side of things.

What use does maths have if there is no-one to observe the maths, to discover it? What use does gravity have if the universe became lifeless? It would be, but it would also be meaningless.

How we perceive maths, how we perceive gravity, the effects it has on us, is useful.

The concepts of maths only exist because we exist. Would the forces of the universe react differently if we didn’t exist? Probably not (in before quantum physics I don’t understand), but there wouldn’t be any concepts. There wouldn’t be any sense of a difference between a rock, a planet, gravity, light, colour, sound.

2

ElliElephant OP t1_jb0j7tz wrote

If the universe collapsed in on itself and was reborn in a new big bang which resulted in a universe with laws of physics completely different than they are in ours.. the value of π would still be the same. Even there’s no intelligent agent that ever calculates it

1

vegancookie t1_jb0jtfj wrote

There would be no one to observe pi. There would be no differentiation between any concepts at all, there wouldn’t be concepts. You need an observer for things to be observed.

4

ElliElephant OP t1_jb0lh8i wrote

Well quantum physics would suggest that absent an observer, there is no reality at all

1

vegancookie t1_jb0lsi9 wrote

Wouldn’t that be more aligned to my argument than your own?

4

ElliElephant OP t1_jb0me5j wrote

Possibly, yeah. When going thaaaat deep I can only guess blindly at answers

3

vegancookie t1_jb0px3l wrote

I did say originally “in before quantum physics I can’t understand” :p

3

ElliElephant OP t1_jb0s54u wrote

I don’t think anyone can. It seems like even to the physicists it is extremely awkward that our best, most tested scientific theory of understanding of the universe… somehow implies physical reality is directly effected by a conscious mind

1

IIILORDGOLDIII t1_jb1nsaa wrote

I think this interpretation of what "observation" means in quantum physics is generally rejected in the scientific community.

It seems consciousness is not a requirement for observation to occur in this context.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

2

ElliElephant OP t1_jb1oeja wrote

Debated for sure. Scientists never imagined they’d ever need the philosophers’ help to do science, but they do

What does it truly mean to observe? And does it require consciousness?

0

IIILORDGOLDIII t1_jb2hg3u wrote

The definition of observation in this case is clearly defined and different from how you would use it outside the context of quantum mechanics.

2

ElliElephant OP t1_jb2ifw2 wrote

It isn’t though. There is no clear definition of an observation in quantum mechanics. That’s the only whole paradox of Schrödinger’s cat being both dead and alive. Is the observation when the instrument inside the box records the value, or does the observation occur when the box is opened and the value can be read? There’s no way to know

0

IIILORDGOLDIII t1_jb2ngal wrote

If a tree falls in the forest, the vibrations that our ears translate into sound occur regardless of an ear being present.

>As John Bell inquired, "Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer—with a PhD?"

2

ElliElephant OP t1_jb2opvp wrote

Well yeah...that’s the million dollar question isn’t it.

If the universe objectively cares about life - or even more so - if the universe objectively cares about life capable of being curious about the universe..

Well, I think the profundity of the implications there is self evident

1

IIILORDGOLDIII t1_jb2qjq0 wrote

I think the big bang probably happened with or without any conscious observers.

2

ElliElephant OP t1_jb2r5fa wrote

🤷🏼‍♂️ That question goes above my pay grade

1