Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do Numbers Exist?

Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 12:34:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This video by a philosopher of maths outlines the main three approaches to what numbers fundamentally are. It's wonderfully clear and each position generalises to the philosophical inquiry about abstract objects. What do people here think about what numbers are?
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:25:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Numbers don't exist in the real world since numbers are just something which we humans created. It exist just in our mind. I remember I heard this by a philosophy dude at YouTube who learned epistemology or something like that.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:30:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
They're non-spatio termporal representations. A number doesn't itself exist in the physical world, we just apply our definitions of numbers to physical phenomenon. I suppose though it depends on how you define exist.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanteAlighieri
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 1:45:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nice video. It does miss out on some nuances to mathematical realism, like Armstrong's immanent realism, but it is a nice discussion of the views.

I have sympathies for platonism, but I'm also strongly attracted to nominalism. As I see it, there seem to be a couple of major arguments for Platonism, a singular term argument and Quine's appeal to their indispensability in science. With respect to the second argument, Hartry Field made a really interesting book where he reformulated Newtonian physics without using mathematics, so it is not entirely clear if numbers really are entirely indispensable, or (following fictionalism), their success means that they exist.

The first argument takes the fact that we say things like "2 is the only even prime" or "The left and right cosets of an abelian group are the same" as being literally true. So, there must be abtract objects to make these statements true. So any statement "a is an F" is taken to be true virtue a correspondence to reality. This strategy could have problems, if you take a deflationary view of truth. As Mark Balaguer set out in his book, I am convinced that the only viable form of Platonism is really full-blooded platonism, where any collection of properties constitute an exemplifiable, be it possible or not.

My doubts about Platonism come from a variety of reasons. The first is that, I think the view runs into issues when trying to make sense of a variety of conundrums in mathematics and logic. For instance, in mathematics, Godel showed that no sufficiently strong system can be both consistent and complete and Tarski showed you cannot even completely define truth on such systems. This leads to issues when thinking of things like the Parallel Postulate or the continuum hypothesis. With respect to the latter, Cohen showed that modern axiomatic set theory is in fact consistent with EITHER the continuum hypothesis being true or not. So, in what sense can we say that the continuum hypothesis is "true?" since we can construct set theories for which it is true, and set theories for which it is false.

Another problem comes from a variety of Third Man style arguments against platonism. I agree with Balaguer that the only reasonable realist view is really full-blooded platonism.* Generally, it is not entirely uncontroversial for abstract objects to exemplify other abstract objects. For instance, <being red> exemplifies <being a color>. But then, how are you to make any sense at all by <being abstract>? Wouldn't that have to exemplify itself? There are two problems with this: first, the exemplification relation is plausible irreflexive, so it would be a serious problem if this happened. Second, a Liar-type diagonal argument could be constructed to show how this renders platonism either incoherent or meaningless.

Neither am I entirely convinced that the ubiquity of mathematics in science is necessarily due to the fact that mathematical objects "exist" per se. Oh well, these issues are pretty difficult to work through.

*He actually only endorses FBP, where only consistent exemplifiables exist, but I think RFBP makes more sense, since impossible exemplifiables should exist, but fail to exemplify either as mathematical object or as a representation of a concrete relation. For instance, "Euclidean round square" would certainly exist in a Platonic framework, but no consistent mathematical existential statements could be made of them.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:45:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:33:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm a conceptualist.

I'm a Capricorn.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:49:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 1:25:53 PM, Clash wrote:
Numbers don't exist in the real world since numbers are just something which we humans created. It exist just in our mind. I remember I heard this by a philosophy dude at YouTube who learned epistemology or something like that.

I take issue with this. Human didn't create numbers, we discovered them. Numbers are necessary entities, which exist in all possible worlds. The number "two" would exist independently of if anyone actually knew what "two" is.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 2:52:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:45:59 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:33:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm a conceptualist.

I'm a Capricorn.

I'm a Gemini. >.>
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:37:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 2:52:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:45:59 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/24/2012 2:33:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm a conceptualist.

I'm a Capricorn.

I'm a Gemini. >.>

Ooooh, my horoscope says that a gemini will say something weird and non-descript about numbers in a forum today.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:57:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I dunno. I know nothing about philosophy of math, to be honest, but here's what my ill-informed intuition is about numbers: I don't think the debate makes very much sense. There isn't much clarity about what qualifies as "existence", and, insofar as we attribute "existence" to anything that we can detect/measure/observe, I don't think numbers qualify.

The obvious retort would be to make a case about the natural numbers--we obviously observe whole quantities, so numbers have to exist in some form.

My counterpoint is that, in this case, I think it's a category error. Suppose I tour every building on a university campus, then ask, "But where is the university?" It would be a nonsense question. Similarly, "numbers" are being attributed to the category "observable objects"--in reality, though, we aren't observing numbers--we're observing objects while using numbers. They're a faculty, or a kind of observational methodology, that interpret our perceptions in a meaningful way. One could say "Well, they still exist as an abstract method" or something, I'm sure, but that's beside the point--you just take a Kantian line and throw numbers in with the other categories of understanding. There's no "two" out there that really exists--it's a constraint we impose on sense data to make perceptions comprehensible.

So, when you look at two apples, you're not seeing "a two" and "apples", since there isn't a "two" that you can extract, separate, and isolate. Numbers are just a category that follow in function from our brain parsing out data and isolating independent objects (e.g., an apple)--they have to be ordered, too. That, I think, is why numbers don't really have practical value until you put units or something on them--there's never really just "two"--there is always "two of" something, even if you have equations that are only abstract formulas. You still don't get anything out of them until they can be understood as applying to specific things.

tl;dr No, numbers don't "exist", because they're in a meta-level category that organizes our ontology and makes it coherent (but aren't part of it). I'm not too good with the terminology, because I don't think about it too often, but it might be useful to say that numbers are a way of representing experience contained mentally. Hence, even people like the Buddhists, who do away with parsing and dividing the world, are forced to use numbers to represent a single, unified unit that constitutes everything.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:02:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Now that I reread my post, it's probably unclear. I've got a particular way of thinking about the relation between numbers and existence--specifically as concerns what goes on when you perceive a number of things, the inseparability of two from its object, that sort of stuff--but it's difficult to articulate accurately. Give me some more time to think about it, and I'll see if I can come up with something better.
DanteAlighieri
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:15:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Cody_Franklin,

Your point about two and two with apples is good. Really, when we say we are "adding" two apples to make 4 and hence show that 2 + 2 = 4, we are not actually "adding" anything. We're just bringing some apples close together. What the apples are used for is to facilitate the abstract representation corresponding to the set union of two two-membered sets to make the canonical set {0,1,2,3} of cardinality 4 or, using the peano arithmetic, to state that S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0)))). There is no math that is actually "done" except as an abstract. This is part of the reason why I find immanent realism to be untenable.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:24:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems most reasonable to me to think that universals which include numbers are fundamentally real and are necessary concepts. But necessary concepts imply a necessary Mind. This doesn't seem well welcomed so I'm interested in hearing defeaters for it.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:27:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:36:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 4:15:12 PM, DanteAlighieri wrote:
@Cody_Franklin,

Your point about two and two with apples is good. Really, when we say we are "adding" two apples to make 4 and hence show that 2 + 2 = 4, we are not actually "adding" anything. We're just bringing some apples close together.

Yeah, we can't really pull out a couple 2s and put them together to get a 4--it's really just a way of describing a change in what needs to be represented, or how something needs to be represented. Hence why, if you have a table with 5 apples on it, you can place one to the side, then say, "I have 4 apples"--by being able to represent, count, and structure relations, numbers also have an interesting function of determining what's included or excluded. 5 - 1 = 4. Partition them, and then you have two distinct groups--4 in one group, 1 in the other. Refuse to mention the 5th apple, or give it to someone else, and you have only have [1 group of] 4 apples. Similar to how it's a category error to look at all the apples, then ask, "Where's the group?", so too is it a category error to pick up all the apples, then ask, "Where is the four?"

What the apples are used for is to facilitate the abstract representation corresponding to the set union of two two-membered sets to make the canonical set {0,1,2,3} of cardinality 4 or, using the peano arithmetic, to state that S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0)))). There is no math that is actually "done" except as an abstract. This is part of the reason why I find immanent realism to be untenable.

Well, I'd say that numbers exist to facilitate the representation of the apple, because the apple is what's in need of representation in the mind. I said that numbers are one such category of representation.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:23:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 4:36:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2012 4:15:12 PM, DanteAlighieri wrote:
@Cody_Franklin,

Your point about two and two with apples is good. Really, when we say we are "adding" two apples to make 4 and hence show that 2 + 2 = 4, we are not actually "adding" anything. We're just bringing some apples close together.

Yeah, we can't really pull out a couple 2s and put them together to get a 4--it's really just a way of describing a change in what needs to be represented, or how something needs to be represented. Hence why, if you have a table with 5 apples on it, you can place one to the side, then say, "I have 4 apples"--by being able to represent, count, and structure relations, numbers also have an interesting function of determining what's included or excluded. 5 - 1 = 4. Partition them, and then you have two distinct groups--4 in one group, 1 in the other. Refuse to mention the 5th apple, or give it to someone else, and you have only have [1 group of] 4 apples. Similar to how it's a category error to look at all the apples, then ask, "Where's the group?", so too is it a category error to pick up all the apples, then ask, "Where is the four?"

What the apples are used for is to facilitate the abstract representation corresponding to the set union of two two-membered sets to make the canonical set {0,1,2,3} of cardinality 4 or, using the peano arithmetic, to state that S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0)))). There is no math that is actually "done" except as an abstract. This is part of the reason why I find immanent realism to be untenable.

Well, I'd say that numbers exist to facilitate the representation of the apple, because the apple is what's in need of representation in the mind. I said that numbers are one such category of representation.

The Fool: while the fool would say you are a Clown bear.

If you can talk about numbers and know what you mean it follows by necessity that they exist. Or we could not distinquish bewteen the difference. This is cause by the positive philosophy, movement that said your mind doesn't exist. If you are dumb enought to believe that you actually don't exit then I understand why you would believe such garbage. For we are more sure and certian that 1+1=2 then we know if we are awake or dreaming.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:28:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We can never begin to hold coherent discourse with each other about the existence or form of existence of anything until we have a mutual understanding of what existence is which also requires a personal understanding.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 5:50:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The conceptualist approach and Wittgensteinian approach both hold sway for me. I can see it both ways. The usage surrounding "existence" is unclear in our language game, and this can give rise to confusions. By thinking of something we grant it some kind of ontological status, and then we compound this with skeptical doubts ("who says there is isn't a unicorn at the center of the Earth?") and then on top of that there's the natural tendency to grasp the metaphysical essence of "existence" as a pure concept and you've got yourself one hell of a philosophical problem in sorting your various ideas into their correct ontological states.

Conceptualism also sways me just since I have some idealist tendencies and the idea has always fascinated me. Reality is ultimately known through the mind, and I can understand the claim that numbers exist in some a priori sense due to mental structures and functions. Either way, it doesn't make sense to me to say that there is an external "form of two-ness" that exists outside the mind somewhere. The reason I'm tending to favor this approach over the Wittgensteinian one is that I'm partial to the claims of Chomsky or Pinker over a kind of universal meta-linguistic structure which would essentially subordinate language to a reflection of universal mental processes.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 6:35:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 5:23:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: while the fool would say you are a Clown bear.

If you can talk about numbers and know what you mean it follows by necessity that they exist.

No it doesn't. I can stipulate a definition of God--I can say, "God exists; by God, I mean XYZ." That would fulfill both the criteria--that I can talk about Him, and that I know what I mean by God. But it doesn't follow from having a coherent concept of something that the something has to exist. :P

Or we could not distinquish bewteen the difference. This is cause by the positive philosophy, movement that said your mind doesn't exist.

"your mind doesn't exist"

If you're not a dualist, you don't really believe in minds. If you're a pure reductivist, or eliminative physicalist, then you also basically say "consciousness isn't actually a thing, cuz it's just particles bouncing around trolololololol". So, there are schools of thought that have interesting things to say about hat.

If you are dumb enought to believe

I get it--trying to sneak in the implication that anyone who disagrees is a moron... You sly dog.

that you actually don't exist then I understand why you would believe such garbage. For we are more sure and certian that 1+1=2 then we know if we are awake or dreaming.

Not really. Can't have certainty of anything, dawg. Just a condition of epistemology.

Plus, this thread is about whether numbers exist--that has nothing to do with whether 1 + 1 = 2. The argument isn't that this statement isn't true, but that "1" and "2" don't exist independent of the object(s) they represent.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 2:57:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 6:35:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2012 5:23:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: while the fool would say you are a Clown bear.

If you can talk about numbers and know what you mean it follows by necessity that they exist.

No it doesn't. I can stipulate a definition of God--I can say, "God exists; by God, I mean XYZ." That would fulfill both the criteria--that I can talk about Him, and that I know what I mean by God. But it doesn't follow from having a coherent concept of something that the something has to exist. :P

Or we could not distinquish bewteen the difference. This is cause by the positive philosophy, movement that said your mind doesn't exist.

"your mind doesn't exist"

If you're not a dualist, you don't really believe in minds. If you're a pure reductivist, or eliminative physicalist, then you also basically say "consciousness isn't actually a thing, cuz it's just particles bouncing around trolololololol". So, there are schools of thought that have interesting things to say about hat.

If you are dumb enought to believe

I get it--trying to sneak in the implication that anyone who disagrees is a moron... You sly dog.

that you actually don't exist then I understand why you would believe such garbage. For we are more sure and certian that 1+1=2 then we know if we are awake or dreaming.

Not really. Can't have certainty of anything, dawg. Just a condition of epistemology.

The Fool: your understanding of epistemology which you base on some appeal to authority. But keep that to your subjective self. You dont' have claims of my knowledge.

Consciousness is the first principle, Let, I, be that which is conscious. Consciousness is pre-linguetical for I must be conscoius first to learn any language.
I exist. via Cogito, And that is pre-linguestical, pre-my recognition of you, and it is absolutly God Proof certian. There is no way possible in so far as I am concious that I am not existing for conciousness and I are synonymous. And everything in my immidiate consciousness it 100% certain. It is you clown bear, that dubted our yourself. Good luck with that.

Plus, this thread is about whether numbers exist--that has nothing to do with whether 1 + 1 = 2. The argument isn't that this statement isn't true, but that "1" and "2" don't exist independent of the object(s) they represent.

The Fool: Statements what are you talking about statements. It is a priori, true. For me. For these are not empirical objects. Thus there is only one place and one place only . <(XD) Clown bear, free yourself from that mental slavery. Its okay to use your own reason.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 3:03:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Clown Bear: Not really. Can't have certainty of anything, dawg. Just a condition of epistemology.

The Fool: does this make sense clown bear? Think carefully about this sentence PLEASE!!!

Can't have certainty of anything, dawg.
(Just a condition of epistemology.(<--certanty)) <(XD)

The Fool: For what is IS, clown bear, and what is not, does not exist to talk about. But you do speak of numbers. right???
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:25:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 2:57:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/24/2012 6:35:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2012 5:23:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: while the fool would say you are a Clown bear.

If you can talk about numbers and know what you mean it follows by necessity that they exist.

No it doesn't. I can stipulate a definition of God--I can say, "God exists; by God, I mean XYZ." That would fulfill both the criteria--that I can talk about Him, and that I know what I mean by God. But it doesn't follow from having a coherent concept of something that the something has to exist. :P

Or we could not distinquish bewteen the difference. This is cause by the positive philosophy, movement that said your mind doesn't exist.

"your mind doesn't exist"

If you're not a dualist, you don't really believe in minds. If you're a pure reductivist, or eliminative physicalist, then you also basically say "consciousness isn't actually a thing, cuz it's just particles bouncing around trolololololol". So, there are schools of thought that have interesting things to say about hat.

If you are dumb enought to believe

I get it--trying to sneak in the implication that anyone who disagrees is a moron... You sly dog.

that you actually don't exist then I understand why you would believe such garbage. For we are more sure and certian that 1+1=2 then we know if we are awake or dreaming.

Not really. Can't have certainty of anything, dawg. Just a condition of epistemology.

The Fool: your understanding of epistemology which you base on some appeal to authority. But keep that to your subjective self. You dont' have claims of my knowledge.

1. What appeal to authority?

2. It's not just subjective--for any argument you give, the constraints of nihilism, e.g., epistemic regression, apply. Really, it holds for anything reliant on justificationalism.

Consciousness is the first principle, Let, I, be that which is conscious.

1. No isn't--you're just assuming that it's a first principle. That's the axiomist route, and doesn't get by infinite regress.

2. "Let I be" <-- Plenty of philosophy of mind/philosophy of identity people would punch you in the face for assuming that "I" is a specific thing. Moreover, this isn't what I is. "I" is something that exists purely in discourse--it is constituted through a desubjectification--in the abolition of the conscious subject--and a simultaneous subjectification--through the constitution in a shifter referring to the speaker--to take its role as a subject in language. :P

Consciousness is pre-linguetical for I must be conscoius first to learn any language.

I exist. via Cogito, And that is pre-linguestical, pre-my recognition of you, and it is absolutly God Proof certian.

1. There is no certainty.

2. "God proof certain" means nothing, because you can neither know anything about God's properties, nor whether he(?) exists.

3. Who's appealing to authority now? The cogito said it, so it must be true.

There is no way possible in so far as I am concious that I am not existing for conciousness and I are synonymous.

So, you're defining yourself into existence? Cool story, bro. But that isn't an argument.

And everything in my immidiate consciousness it 100% certain.

No it isn't. You have no idea about the extent to which the physical world conforms or not to your manner of perceiving it. You cannot account for the objectivity of specific colors, sizes, shapes, textures, sounds, smells, tastes... I mean, hell--the fact that perceptual experience is suspected to be heterogeneous, as in the case of the colorblind person, the schizophrenic, the deaf, etc. Don't pretend that you have certainty about what the external world is like--you never have, never do, never will, and never can.

It is you clown bear, that dubted our yourself. Good luck with that.

Plus, this thread is about whether numbers exist--that has nothing to do with whether 1 + 1 = 2. The argument isn't that this statement isn't true, but that "1" and "2" don't exist independent of the object(s) they represent.

The Fool: Statements what are you talking about statements. It is a priori, true.

It's also irrelevant.

For me. For these are not empirical objects. Thus there is only one place and one place only . <(XD) Clown bear, free yourself from that mental slavery. Its okay to use your own reason.

You haven't commented once--explicitly--on whether numbers exist.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:30:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 3:03:54 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Clown Bear: Not really. Can't have certainty of anything, dawg. Just a condition of epistemology.

The Fool: does this make sense clown bear? Think carefully about this sentence PLEASE!!!

Can't have certainty of anything, dawg.
(Just a condition of epistemology.(<--certanty)) <(XD)

I've already explained this elsewhere, but you refuse to hear out my explanation. Nihilism isn't a claim to certainty--it just is. It's not "I know that I know nothing"--if you get the fracture between what's true and what's provable, then it makes plenty of sense to say "this isn't an argument, it neither claims nor proves anything, but just is."

The Fool: For what is IS, clown bear, and what is not, does not exist to talk about. But you do speak of numbers. right???

We can talk about God regardless of whether he exists. Same for pink mountains, invisible unicorns, flying teapots, etc. We can conceive of, and talk about, plenty of things that don't, to our knowledge, exist. Just 'cause we can conceive of them.

Similarly, you could always say "numbers are real because they're a method of organizing" or whatever. You could demonstrate that they work in the world, and are accurate predictors. But the counterargument is just gonna be that it's playing with the definition of things existing--maybe numbers get a special ontology of their own or something, but, in terms of the ontology containing physical, measurable objects, numbers aren't in it--they're what permit that ontology to be interpreted in an intelligible way.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 1:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 10:25:02 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/25/2012 2:57:23 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/24/2012 6:35:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2012 5:23:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: while the fool would say you are a Clown bear.

If you can talk about numbers and know what you mean it follows by necessity that they exist.

CLown Bear : No it doesn't. I can stipulate a definition of God--I can say, "God exists; by God, I mean XYZ."

The Fool: Right that is every word presupposed and idea. For we all can have an idea of God. you are confusing Correcspondence, as in does our idea of god refer to anything which exist out side my conscoiusness.

E.g I have and idea of a unicorn, a horse with wings and on horn. I can picture it in my mind right now. I don't believe in unicorn as in I dont' expect my idea to correlate with any sense information.

CLown Bear: That would fulfill both the criteria--that I can talk about Him, and that I know what I mean by God. But it doesn't follow from having a coherent concept of something that the something has to exist. :P

The Fool; oh clown bear. everything must be confusing for you. Everything exist clown bear what does not exist is not there.
Can you refute this?? I asked this first clown bear?

CLown Bear : Or we could not distinquish bewteen the difference. This is cause by the positive philosophy, movement that said your mind doesn't exist.

CLown Bear: "your mind doesn't exist"

The Fool: Every single experience with within consciousness/mind.
Even any physical experience exist within our consciousness/mind

CLown Bear : If you're not a dualist, you don't really believe in minds.

The Fool: common clown bear, does that make sense.???

CLown Bear: If you're a pure reductivist, or eliminative physicalist, then you also basically say "consciousness isn't actually a thing, cuz it's just particles bouncing around trolololololol".

The Fool: I am starting to think you are pure troll. Eh. Thats a pretty niave, understanding of philosopher there care bear.

CLown Bear: So, there are schools of thought that have interesting things to say about hat.

The Fool: who cares! there are many circus's too. Clown bear.


CLown Bear : I get it--trying to sneak in the implication that anyone who disagrees is a moron... You sly dog.

The Fool: : that you actually don't exist then I understand why you would believe such garbage. For we are more sure and certian that 1+1=2 then we know if we are awake or dreaming.

CLown Bear: Not really. Can't have certainty of anything, dawg. Just a condition of epistemology.

The Fool: your understanding of epistemology which you base on some appeal to authority. But keep that to your subjective self. You dont' have claims of my knowledge.

CLown Bear: 1. What appeal to authority?

The Fool: you are appeal to very limited understanding of philosphies. aka I am not a duelist there for the mind doest exist. And it still follow By necessity that you dont have claims over my direct access. That that is 100. For I am my experiences.

CLown Bear:: 2. It's not just subjective--for any argument you give, the constraints of nihilism, e.g., epistemic regression, apply. Really, it holds for anything reliant on justificationalism.

The Fool: But nilhilism is nothing so it has zero, authority, the only thing it means, is that you believe you know what you don;t know at the same time. Which equal 0 a condrictory symbol for it symbolized NOTHING. <(XD) But you don't exist, so you can't even claim that. Where I am absolutly certian that I exist. I think you got confused on the Pre-linguistical Part. And thats okay. Not everybody will get it.

Consciousness is the first principle, Let, I, be that which is conscious.

CLown Bear: 1. No isn't--you're just assuming that it's a first principle. That's the axiomist route, and doesn't get by infinite regress.

The Fool: Pre-linguistal, I am just applying symbols to sensations. Language only makes sense in order to communicate. Its not necessary that I communicate with you. Maybe you are not understanding any of my words. Thats okay. Good luck with that CLown Bear.

CLown Bear:: 2. "Let I be" <-- Plenty of philosophy of mind/philosophy of identity people would punch you in the face for assuming that "I" is a specific thing.

The Fool: again pre-linguisticial, words are 'physical Symbols' only they have zero barring on reality. I could define a special unicorn as one being in my vision now. Low and behold nothing happens. That is, langauge an only describe never ever define anything in to existence. It can fail to describe but that which is IS itself.

CLown Bear:Moreover, this isn't what I is. "I" is something that exists purely in discourse--it is constituted through a desubjectification--in the abolition of the conscious subject--and a simultaneous subjectification--through the constitution in a shifter referring to the speaker--to take its role as a subject in language. :P

The Fool: hahaha . <(XD) Now try and give me example of what doesn't exist, in anysense. its will always be and idea or a physical sound. Try your hardess. Come on its simple. For everything exist, it is not an inference. There ONLY IS! <(8O)
For you are in illusion clown Bear how does it Feel in there? confusing.?,I know your CLOWNING Clown bear. I made a character out of you for my debates. http://www.debate.org...
You may not exist but your famous now.

Consciousness is pre-linguetical for I must be conscoius first to learn any language.

I exist. via Cogito, And that is pre-linguestical, pre-my recognition of you, and it is absolutly God Proof certian.

CLown Bear::: 1. There is no certainty.

The Fool: Everything is Certain clown bear.

CLown Bear: 2. "God proof certain" means nothing, because you can neither know anything about God's properties, nor whether he(?) exists.

The Fool: I intuit them, I recognize them. Maybe you dont' but good luck with that.

CLown Bear: 3. Who's appealing to authority now? The cogito said it, so it must be true.

The Fool: Nice try but I dont' think you realize how out classed you are on this one. I can tell you know a bit of philosophy, But you have met you match this time. I know you clowning. So funny, you are so witty Clown Bear. You have fooled me out of foolishness clown bear.

So, you're defining yourself into existence? Cool story, bro. But that isn't an argument.

The Fool: who?? <(89) what are you refering too? And everything in my immidiate consciousness it 100% certain.

CLown Bear: No it isn't. You have no idea about the extent to which the physical world conforms or not to your manner of perceiving it.

The Fool: Physical world is just words. You can define something into existence.
For maybe you need to caliberate the words. have fun clown bear.

CLown Bear:You cannot account for the objectivity of specific colors, sizes, shapes, textures, sounds, smells, tastes...

The Fool: those are 'words' you are stuck in irrational definition land. have fun. Its long ride. I use different symbols when I switch from french to english but my ideas remain the same clown bear. you should try it when you learn more langauges, clown bear. Ce la vie!. <(XD)

You have confused reallity of 'physical symbol' with which they symbolize Clown bear. That IS THE CIRCUS. <(XD) have fun!.

Plus, this thread is about whether numbers exist--that has nothing to do with whether 1 + 1 = 2. The argument isn't that this statement isn't true, but that "1" and "2" don't exist independent of the object(s) they represent.

The Fool: Statements what are you talking about statements. It is a priori, true. THey are ideas clown bear!

I hope you find your way out someday clown bear. You are
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 2:04:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Physical world is just words. You can't define something into existence.
For maybe you need to caliberate the words. have fun clown bear.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 3:51:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 1:03:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/25/2012 10:25:02 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

CLown Bear : No it doesn't. I can stipulate a definition of God--I can say, "God exists; by God, I mean XYZ."

The Fool: Right that is every word presupposed and idea. For we all can have an idea of God. you are confusing Correcspondence, as in does our idea of god refer to anything which exist out side my conscoiusness.

The point is, not everything that we can conceive of is an actual physical object out there in the world. Like I said, I would take a quasi-Kantian line and include numbers in our categories of understanding. They're not objects per se, but they're useful in facilitating the division, individuation, and processing of the world. Like, when we see two apples, we don't really see "two". There's not an object that we can pick out and name "two". We see apples in a representative relation to each other.

E.g I have and idea of a unicorn, a horse with wings and on horn. I can picture it in my mind right now. I don't believe in unicorn as in I dont' expect my idea to correlate with any sense information.

CLown Bear: That would fulfill both the criteria--that I can talk about Him, and that I know what I mean by God. But it doesn't follow from having a coherent concept of something that the something has to exist. :P

The Fool; oh clown bear. everything must be confusing for you. Everything exist clown bear what does not exist is not there.

That isn't an argument, or even a coherent sentence.

Can you refute this?? I asked this first clown bear?

It isn't an argument; also, stop calling me that.

CLown Bear : Or we could not distinquish bewteen the difference. This is cause by the positive philosophy, movement that said your mind doesn't exist.

1. "distinguish between the difference" <-- Clarify, because your English is bad.

2. "positive philosophy" <-- Clarify.

CLown Bear: "your mind doesn't exist"

The Fool: Every single experience with within consciousness/mind.
Even any physical experience exist within our consciousness/mind

That's just presupposing that something like an independent mind exists. You can't suppose your conclusion before it's demonstrated.

CLown Bear : If you're not a dualist, you don't really believe in minds.

The Fool: common clown bear, does that make sense.???

Yes. Because only dualists hold "the mind" to be something separate and independent from "the body". Some others think that we have something like consciousness, like the emergentists and some non-reductive physicalists, but that's not really the same, because "the mind" signifies something external to the physical domain.

CLown Bear: If you're a pure reductivist, or eliminative physicalist, then you also basically say "consciousness isn't actually a thing, cuz it's just particles bouncing around trolololololol".

The Fool: I am starting to think you are pure troll. Eh. Thats a pretty niave, understanding of philosopher there care bear.

1. I'm not a pure troll. Depending on my mood, and the person with whom I'm discoursing, I slide on a scale from troll to serious philosopher.

2. My understanding of reductive physicalism and eliminativism aren't naive--they both tend to make claims that consciousness/mental activity is an illusion which can be discarded by acknowledging that everything reduces to bouncing point particles. I'm neither of these things, I don't think. I obviously have no certainty about the whole mess, but I tend toward thinking that emergent macro-phenomena are a thing.


CLown Bear: 1. What appeal to authority?

The Fool: you are appeal to very limited understanding of philosphies. aka I am not a duelist there for the mind doest exist.

1. That isn't an appeal to authority on my part.

2. Definitionally, the dualists are the only ones that believe "mind" can be distinguished from "body". So, if you aren't a dualist, it doesn't even make sense to talk about "minds".

And it still follow By necessity that you dont have claims over my direct access. That that is 100. For I am my experiences.

That's not really an argument. That sounds more like you reassuring yourself.

CLown Bear:: 2. It's not just subjective--for any argument you give, the constraints of nihilism, e.g., epistemic regression, apply. Really, it holds for anything reliant on justificationalism.

The Fool: But nilhilism is nothing so it has zero, authority, the only thing it means, is that you believe you know what you don;t know at the same time.

Actually, if you read closely, I note several times that nihilism isn't a proposition. It doesn't make claims, it doesn't attempt to derive anything. Most importantly, it never takes the form of a knowledge claim. It just is true (while being ipso facto unprovable). It's not like you can argue against it, because the very thing you're arguing against is what undermines your capacity to make arguments. :P

Which equal 0 a condrictory symbol for it symbolized NOTHING. <(XD) But you don't exist, so you can't even claim that.

I don't actually think this is an argument.

Where I am absolutly certian that I exist.

No, you just take it as self-evident. There is a difference.

I think you got confused on the Pre-linguistical Part. And thats okay. Not everybody will get it.

Given that "pre-linguistical" isn't even a word, I guess it's not surprising that I didn't get it.

Consciousness is the first principle, Let, I, be that which is conscious.

CLown Bear: 1. No isn't--you're just assuming that it's a first principle. That's the axiomist route, and doesn't get by infinite regress.

The Fool: Pre-linguistal, I am just applying symbols to sensations. Language only makes sense in order to communicate.

Or to represent things to oneself. :P Language is useful to a person stranded on an island.

Its not necessary that I communicate with you. Maybe you are not understanding any of my words. Thats okay. Good luck with that CLown Bear.

CLown Bear:: 2. "Let I be" <-- Plenty of philosophy of mind/philosophy of identity people would punch you in the face for assuming that "I" is a specific thing.

The Fool: again pre-linguisticial, words are 'physical Symbols' only they have zero barring on reality. I could define a special unicorn as one being in my vision now. Low and behold nothing happens.

"physical Symbols" <-- Clarify. This makes no sense.

That is, langauge an only describe never ever define anything in to existence.

Tell that to the modal ontological argument. :P

It can fail to describe but that which is IS itself.

CLown Bear:Moreover, this isn't what I is. "I" is something that exists purely in discourse--it is constituted through a desubjectification--in the abolition of the conscious subject--and a simultaneous subjectification--through the constitution in a shifter referring to the speaker--to take its role as a subject in language. :P

The Fool: hahaha . <(XD) Now try and give me example of what doesn't exist, in anysense.

Square circles? But seriously--you didn't actually respond to my argument about the ontology of I, soooooooooo......

its will always be and idea or a physical sound. Try your hardess. Come on its simple. For everything exist, it is not an inference. There ONLY IS! <(8O)
For you are in illusion clown Bear how does it Feel in there? confusing.?,I know your CLOWNING Clown bear. I made a character out of you for my debates. http://www.debate.org...
You may not exist but your famous now.

Kk.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 4:00:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 1:03:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Consciousness is pre-linguetical for I must be conscoius first to learn any language.

I exist. via Cogito, And that is pre-linguestical, pre-my recognition of you, and it is absolutly God Proof certian.

CLown Bear::: 1. There is no certainty.

The Fool: Everything is Certain clown bear.

That isn't an argument. That's just you saying stuff, dawg.

CLown Bear: 2. "God proof certain" means nothing, because you can neither know anything about God's properties, nor whether he(?) exists.

The Fool: I intuit them, I recognize them. Maybe you dont' but good luck with that.

That isn't an argument. That's just you saying "Of course I know, it's intuition! Trust me!" Guess what? I intuit and recognize that you're completely wrong. u mad?

CLown Bear: 3. Who's appealing to authority now? The cogito said it, so it must be true.

The Fool: Nice try but I dont' think you realize how out classed you are on this one. I can tell you know a bit of philosophy, But you have met you match this time.

This is tooting my own horn, probably, but I've met way better philosophers than you. I learn a lot from them; conversely, I feel dumber after talking to you for too long. You're incoherent half the time, your English is barely better than my French (which is Fluency Level -1), and most of your comments devolve into you insulting me, assuming stuff, or talking about how great you are.

I know you clowning. So funny, you are so witty Clown Bear. You have fooled me out of foolishness clown bear.

So, you're defining yourself into existence? Cool story, bro. But that isn't an argument.

The Fool: who?? <(89) what are you refering too? And everything in my immidiate consciousness it 100% certain.

Except, you have literally no way of knowing that. If you want, you're free to prove it in an argument. Problem is, once I put nihilism on the table, your argument probably won't be able to prove jack with any certainty.

CLown Bear: No it isn't. You have no idea about the extent to which the physical world conforms or not to your manner of perceiving it.

The Fool: Physical world is just words. You can define something into existence.
For maybe you need to caliberate the words. have fun clown bear.

That isn't an argument. My claim is that you cannot demonstrate that there is a physical world, that it is anything like what you perceive, that your memories are accurate (much less whether they can all be recalled), that your perceptions are consistently accurate, etc.

CLown Bear:You cannot account for the objectivity of specific colors, sizes, shapes, textures, sounds, smells, tastes...

The Fool: those are 'words' you are stuck in irrational definition land.

I don't think so. If you think that you can be "certain" about what you perceive without justifying the objectivity of your sense perceptions, you have a serious problem.

have fun. Its long ride. I use different symbols when I switch from french to english but my ideas remain the same clown bear. you should try it when you learn more langauges, clown bear. Ce la vie!. <(XD)

I do German, not French.

You have confused reallity of 'physical symbol' with which they symbolize Clown bear. That IS THE CIRCUS. <(XD) have fun!.

No I haven't. You're just asserting that that's true.

Plus, this thread is about whether numbers exist--that has nothing to do with whether 1 + 1 = 2. The argument isn't that this statement isn't true, but that "1" and "2" don't exist independent of the object(s) they represent.

The Fool: Statements what are you talking about statements. It is a priori, true. THey are ideas clown bear!

That isn't an argument.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 5:28:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: if you can't read that too bad. apply principle of charity clown bear.
Its not complecated and you dont' know the philosophy so stop trying to generalize it to others. If that is hard well have fun in the circus.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL