Some of us think mathematics is the best argument for God available. Anyway, here’s Jerry Bowyer’s interview with philosopher Vern Poythress:
The standard modern culture-war revolves around God vs. the mathematical sciences. Take your choice: Faith or physics. Then there are the voices of mutual toleration, which attempt to leave room for science among the faithful and for faith among the scientific. Poythress, though, taps into a different tradition entirely, one which is seldom heard in modern debate: That God and science are neither enemies, nor partners, but rather that God is the necessary foundation for mathematics and therefore of every science which uses it.
The argument is that mathematical laws, in order to be properly relied upon, must have attributes which indicate an origin in God. They are true everywhere (omnipresent), true always (eternal), cannot be defied or defeated (omnipotent), and are rational and have language characteristics (which makes them personal). Omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, personal… Sounds like God. Math is an expression of the mind of God. Sound strange? It isn’t. Modern natural science was created by people who said that they were trying to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”
Jerry Bowyer, “God In Mathematics” at Forbes
See also: Things exist that are unknowable: A tutorial on Chaitin’s number
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Maybe there is no God, only mathematics?
We know mathematics exists, do we know God exists?
JVL states that,
So it appears that JVL is willing to believe in the “Platonic realm’ of mathematics just so long as he does not have to believe in God???
But alas for JVL’s atheistic druthers, the existence of Mathematics itself is simply devastating to any materialistic and/or naturalistic explanation of Darwinian evolution since mathematics itself exists in a immaterial, beyond space and time, realm. A eternal “Platonic Realm” that simply is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.
Hey, you don’t have to take my word for it. In 2014, a group of Darwinists, who are leading experts in this area of research, authored a paper in which they honestly admitted that they have, “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.”
You don’t have to have a PhD to understand why the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution cannot ever possibly explain man’s unique ability to ‘do mathematics’. Mathematics itself simply does not need the physical world in order for it to exist.
As Dr. Michael Egnor put it, “Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,”
That is to say that mathematics, in its foundational nature, is immaterial, i.e. transcendent of space, time, matter and energy.
This creates an insurmountable difficultly for Darwinian materialists who, via their theory, try to reduce everything to purely materialistic explanations. As M. Anthony Mills explains, “And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract (mathematical) objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
Now if a Darwinist were to try to be consistent in his arguments, (which would be a miracle in its own right), then he could try to argue that mathematics is merely a abstract invention of man that does not really have an objective existence in the ‘real’ world of material and/or physical objects.
Yet, as George Ellis pointed out, non-material entities are shown to be objectively real in that they bring about ‘real’ effects in the physical world. This simply would not be possible If mathematics, (and logic), were merely abstract inventions of man that had no ‘real’ and objective existence:
As George Ellis himself states, “Definition 2: Existence
If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter).
This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists.”
Indeed, our most stunning, almost ‘miraculous’, modern technological innovations would not even be possible were it not for the ability of ‘immaterial’ mathematics to objectively bring about ‘real’ effects in the material/physical world.
Moreover, the fact that man himself has access to, and can use, this transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial world of mathematics, to bring about ‘real’ effects’ in the material world, offers compelling evidence, in and of itself, that man in not a purely material being but that man must also possess a transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial mind and/or soul.
We simply could never discover, or use, these ‘eternal’ truths about mathematics unless we ourselves first possessed a transcendent, and ‘eternal’, component to our being,, i.e. a immaterial soul and/or mind that is not reducible to the material constituents of our material bodies, (as Darwinists presuppose).
As Charles Darwin’s contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace himself stated, “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
And again, Darwinists simply have no clue why we should have access to the immaterial realm of mathematics. As Dr. Michael Egnor pointed out, because of our unique ability to think abstractly among all creature on earth, “We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.”
Moreover, since our own immaterial minds came into being and are therefore contingent, and are not eternally existent, and yet we can discover these eternal mathematical truths with our immaterial minds, then it necessarily follows that “there must exist an eternal mind in which these eternal (mathematical) truths reside.”
And please note that this argument for our immaterial minds, and for God, from the existence of mathematics is perfectly consistent with what we now know to be true about mathematics from Godel’s incompleteness theorem. Namely, that mathematics itself has a contingent existence and does not have a necessary existence,
Thus, mathematics itself offers us compelling proof that we ourselves must possess immaterial minds and/or souls, and also offers us compelling proof that God must exist.
And despite to how badly atheists may want God, (and our eternal souls), to not exist (for whatever severely misguided reason), the fact the matter is that, since we are all destined to die here on this earth, the undeniable fact that we must have eternal minds/souls in order to even ‘do mathematics’ in the first place, minds/souls that are not reducible to the material constituents of our temporal bodies, i.e. transcendent souls that can live beyond the death of our temporal bodies, is extremely good news for us the hear personally,,, I know that I myself am personally very happy to know it to be undeniably true, and that death does not have the final say in regards to my own life, and in regards to the lives of loved ones, and that I, and my loved ones, i.e. our eternal souls and minds, will continue to live, even though our material, temporal, bodies will perish,,
Verses:
At 1, JVL said: “Maybe there is no God, only mathematics? We know mathematics exists, do we know God exists?”
BA replied,
BA’s reply doesn’t follow. Not believing in God does not necessarily mean that one believes in a materialistic explanation for math: those are not the only two possibilities.
For instance, there are Platonists who nevertheless do not believe in a personal God. They do believe a world of Platonic mathematical forms imprints themselves on the physical world without a personal divine diety being involved. I know BA has many thousands of words prepared to support his belief in God, which I am not interested in. I just think he should be aware of, and acknowledge, that his theism/materialism dichotomy doesn’t cover all the ground.
These parallel attributes are interesting but they miss the ONLY important and scientifically verifiable attribute of God.
God MADE everything.
Math doesn’t make things. Math only describes things, in a way that can sometimes inspire people to make more things. (Useful formulas = useful parables). If you’re going to ‘personalize’ math, it would be more like a prophet than a god, more like Moses or Jesus or Mohammed.
VL, as I stated, my argument follows only “if a Darwinist were to try to be consistent in his arguments, (which would be a miracle in its own right), ”
🙂
As I’ve learned over the years, logical consistency is certainly not a top priority for Darwinists in their arguments.
For instance, there is this self-refuting beauty from Coyne
Bornagain77: But alas for JVL’s atheistic druthers, the existence of Mathematics itself is simply devastating to any materialistic and/or naturalistic explanation of Darwinian evolution since mathematics itself exists in a immaterial, beyond space and time, realm. A eternal “Platonic Realm” that simply is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.
Well, where is it then? If you can’t see it or point to it or visit it how do you know it exists?
The fact that there is a structure to the universe which can be fairly well described by mathematics may just be due to the very basic building blocks of the universe. No undetectable Platonic realm, just a bunch of marginally intelligent creatures noticing and remembering patterns, learning to write them down, come up with generalised versions of them and extrapolating.
You don’t have to have a PhD to understand why the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution cannot ever possibly explain man’s unique ability to ‘do mathematics’. Mathematics itself simply does not need the physical world in order for it to exist.
No, but I proposed that man’s journey of mathematical discovery first came from observing physical phenomena.
Oh, by the way, some animals seem to be able to do some basic, crude mathematics. And I expect if there are intelligent aliens they will be able to ‘do’ mathematics as well. So maybe we’re not so unique in that sense.
Viola Lee: BA’s reply doesn’t follow. Not believing in God does not necessarily mean that one believes in a materialistic explanation for math: those are not the only two possibilities.
Maybe he’s just following one of mathematics’ basic techniques: when you come across a problem you don’t know how to solve see if you can transform it into one you do know how to solve. A kind of substitution technique. But then you have to do the reverse substitution afterwards.
Polistra: God MADE everything.
References?
JVL, it is well known that it is part of the inherent nature of God that he is source and creator of everything that has been made. The issue would be whether God is, and as God is a necessary being at least as a serious candidate, to argue that he is not, is tantamount to arguing that God is impossible of being. The notion that one needs particular reference to some authority or other on such commonplace facts of the case, speaks. KF
🙂
Kairosfocus: The notion that one needs particular reference to some authority or other on such commonplace facts of the case, speaks.
It could be I was just making a joke . . . or, it could be I was making a point. Or both.
Mathematics came from somewhere. An we only know of one source- intelligent agencies.
ET: Mathematics came from somewhere. An we only know of one source- intelligent agencies.
Why couldn’t it exist before there were intelligent agents? After all, the intelligent agents had to come from somewhere too . . . didn’t they?
JVL:
How?
You don’t know that.
ET: How?
Who knows? How could intelligent agents arise before mathematics? You don’t know.
You don’t know that.
How could intelligent agents just be around without coming from somewhere? Or does cause and effect end some time going backwards?
JVL/1
That may explain why I have become agnostic/atheist.
I recognize the power and value of mathematics but, after my traumatic experiences of being taught it in school, I came to loathe the subject.
If God is anything like the math teachers I encountered it would explain a lot about the world. 🙂
JVL asks “Why couldn’t it (mathematics) exist before there were intelligent agents?”
So I guess JVL’s argument, (in so far as you can even call it an argument), boils down to, “Never mind that I have absolutely no clue how the materialistic processes of Darwinian evolution can possibly create intelligent creatures with a unique capacity to understand and use this immaterial ‘platonic’ realm of mathematics, I still hold that mathematics itself has a necessary existence and that mathematics itself is not contingent upon anything else, especially the Mind of God, for it’s existence.
There are a couple of problems with JVL’s desperate attempt to exclude God as the necessary Being upon which all contingent reality, including mathematics, exists.
First problem, Godel’s incompleteness theorem(s)
Godel, with his incompleteness theorem(s) dropped a bomb on the foundation of mathematics and proved that mathematics could not provide a foundation for its own existence. i.e. Godel’s incompleteness proves that mathematics is contingent in its existence, not necessary!
As Ron Tagliapietra succinctly put it, “Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous.”
Just how ‘shocking’, and humbling, Godel’s incompleteness theorem actually was, and is, to atheistic mathematicians is nicely summarized in the following video and article:
Second problem for JVL, the ‘necessitarian’ view of mathematics that he champions actually prevented the rise of modern science. It was only by overcoming the necessitarian view of mathematics of the Ancient Greek philosophers, and viewing mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe this universe, as being the product of the Mind of God, that modern science was finally able to sprout, take root, and eventually blossom in medieval Christian Europe:
As Edward Fesser notes in the following article, for Christian scholastic philosophers of the medieval period “Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts,” whereas for ancient Greek philosophers, “mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the material world, but also independently of any mind,”
In the minds of the Christian founders of modern science, mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe the universe, were certainly not held to be necessary, but were instead held to be contingent upon God’s thoughts.
As Ian H. Hutchinson notes in the following article on Faraday and Maxwell, “Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver.”
Perhaps the best example that I can give for the fact that the Christian founders of modern science held mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe the universe, to be God’s thoughts is the following quote by Kepler, (which he made shortly after discovering the laws of planetary motion),,
Thus for modern day theoretical physicists. i.e. string theorists and the like, to take a necessatarian view of mathematics, instead of taking a contingent view of mathematics, in which mathematics is dependent upon the Mind of God for its existence, is for them to take a gigantic step backwards into ancient Greek philosophy. A philosophy that impeded modern science from having a viable birth in the first place. As I stated previously, the birth of modern science was only possible with the ‘outlawing’ of that ‘necessatarian’ view of mathematics that the ancient Greeks had championed.
But alas for JVL, being the dogmatic anti-Theist that he is, I guess regressing back into the stagnation that the necessitarian view of mathematics, that the ancient Greeks held, is far better for him than for him to ever honestly admit that God exists.
It is a crying shame!
Of supplemental note, the rejection of the Greeks necessitarian view of mathematics, (and the universe), besides giving birth to modern science, represented nothing less than a brand new form of ‘inductive’ reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks
Bornagain77: So I guess JVL’s argument, (in so far as you can even call it an argument), boils down to, “Never mind that I have absolutely no clue how the materialistic processes of Darwinian evolution can possibly create intelligent creatures with a unique capacity to understand and use this immaterial ‘platonic’ realm of mathematics, I still hold that mathematics itself has a necessary existence and that mathematics itself is not contingent upon anything else, especially the Mind of God, for it’s existence.
First of all, I am not making an argument, just asking a question. That question is: if mathematics is universal and invariant then why should it not have existed before any intelligent agents? AND: are all intelligent agents subject to the laws of mathematics? Why or why not?
There are many other points in your reply I’d like to address but you’ll have to wait as it’s make-dinner-time in my household. But I shall return to answer more points.
JVL gets his questioned answered and refuses to acknowledge it.
Argue with someone else JVL, I have better things to do. Like arguing with a brick wall.
Sev writes, “I recognize the power and value of mathematics but, after my traumatic experiences of being taught it in school, I came to loathe the subject. If God is anything like the math teachers I encountered it would explain a lot about the world. ?”
As a math teacher, I’m sorry to hear that! 🙁
I think I’ve made it fun, interesting, and/or satisfying for a lot of students. Sorry you had such bad experiences.
JVL:
In a mechanistic scenario “who knows?” is death.
Question begging.
Who knows?
Cause only pertains to things that had a beginning
Bornagain77: JVL gets his questioned answered and refuses to acknowledge it.
You didn’t answer my question actually. You repeated and misinterpreted a lot of statements about Godel’s incompleteness theorem but you didn’t actually say whether or not mathematics could have existed before intelligent agents. Perhaps you think you answered the question because you think Godel’s theorems imply some God-like being. But they don’t. They are merely a statement about what is logically possible given a set of axioms. There’s no God there.
Argue with someone else JVL, I have better things to do. Like arguing with a brick wall.
At least a brick wall won’t disagree with you eh? You seem to get very annoyed when anyone disagrees with you.
Godel, with his incompleteness theorem(s) dropped a bomb on the foundation of mathematics and proved that mathematics could not provide a foundation for its own existence. i.e. Godel’s incompleteness proves that mathematics is contingent in its existence, not necessary!
That is not correct. From Wikipedia:
That is not saying a system is contingent at all. You and others always misinterpret the theorems. Axioms are what you ASSUME to be true. They are not contingent on anything.
AND, not being able to ‘prove’ a foundation does not give you a God-like being. It just doesn’t. That’s your interpretation.
As Ron Tagliapietra succinctly put it, “Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous.”
No one says math is playing the role of God. Honestly, theologians should not talk about mathematics unless they are trained in it. You don’t hear . . . famous apologist, English, trained mathematician . . . can’t remember his name! Anyway, you don’t hear him make arguments like that. All I asked was: could it have been around before any intelligent beings? If it’s invariant then it’s true always and forever . . .
Just how ‘shocking’, and humbling, Godel’s incompleteness theorem actually was, and is, to atheistic mathematicians is nicely summarized in the following video and article:
Nothing about God in there because it has nothing to do with theology!
Second problem for JVL, the ‘necessitarian’ view of mathematics that he champions actually prevented the rise of modern science. It was only by overcoming the necessitarian view of mathematics of the Ancient Greek philosophers, and viewing mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe this universe, as being the product of the Mind of God, that modern science was finally able to sprout, take root, and eventually blossom in medieval Christian Europe:
Sigh. During the Dark Ages some people were still producing new mathematics. It has NOTHING to do with a view on God. It’s not based on any kind of theology whatsoever. It just takes some curiosity, good pattern recognition and the ability to think a bit abstractly. What did happen was that, for a long time, being educated was not valued or even practical. For a vast majority of Europeans it was not an option. THAT’S why science and math faltered in Europe. Not so in Baghdad or Beijing, non-Christian cultures. Remember too that Greek and Egyptians helped get the ball rolling in the first place.
Every proven mathematical theorem from 2000 years ago is still true. Math does not retreat or back away. You don’t need to start over as you do with physics and chemistry. It doesn’t work that way.
As Edward Fesser notes in the following article, for Christian scholastic philosophers of the medieval period “Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts,” whereas for ancient Greek philosophers, “mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the material world, but also independently of any mind,”
The Christian scholars put that spin on it because they were fascinated by questions like: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. C’mon! The Greeks discovered irrational numbers! They may have even been edging towards Calculus. The notion that math stopped because of the Greek view is just rubbish. The math stopped because the culture of learning stopped and there were no more classes and lectures on mathematics.
In the minds of the Christian founders of modern science, mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe the universe, were certainly not held to be necessary, but were instead held to be contingent upon God’s thoughts.
A theological veneer of rationalisation doesn’t make it so. Almost all people with a philosophical bent during the medieval period thought they saw God in everything.
Again, just because some people thought math represented God’s thoughts doesn’t make it so. AND, for centuries, the only people who could read or write or had the time to do anything other than survive and fight wars were monks and nuns. And you think their religious bias means it was only by viewing God in every equation and leaf and creature that science progressed? Really? I guess you haven’t ever even considered or looked up what other cultures have contributed to science and mathematics.
Perhaps the best example that I can give for the fact that the Christian founders of modern science held mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe the universe, to be God’s thoughts is the following quote by Kepler, (which he made shortly after discovering the laws of planetary motion),,
Again, that doesn’t make it so. Nor does it say that Kepler WOULDN’T have done what he did if he thought he wasn’t chasing God. He was trying to solve a problem, an empirical, famous problems. AND, guess what, he came to a conclusion different from what most theologians thought at the time. So, you’re saying Christian thought created modern science even though science contradicted a lot of Christian philosophy. Really?
Thus for modern day theoretical physicists. i.e. string theorists and the like, to take a necessatarian view of mathematics, instead of taking a contingent view of mathematics, in which mathematics is dependent upon the Mind of God for its existence, is for them to take a gigantic step backwards into ancient Greek philosophy.
Uh huh. What about Quantum Mechanics? What about Relativity? What about Cantor’s work? And Euler? And Gauss? And Newton himself who figured out that orbits are ellipses. Where in theology does that come from? It doesn’t.
I guess regressing back into the stagnation that the necessitarian view of mathematics, that the ancient Greeks held, is far better for him than for him to ever honestly admit that God exists.
It’s not holding back math and science at all. Because most mathematicians and scientists don’t even think about such things. They just do the work and find stuff.
You think because almost everyone who was alive in Europe during the Middle Ages (especially all those who could read or write) were Christians and claimed to be trying to find God’s thoughts in the world that that made a difference in what they chose to work on or what they found? I don’t think it made a blind bit of difference except that the Church had the money and the time to teach at least some of its followers to read and write. They gave them access to Greek and Roman texts so those scholars started out with the Greek and Roman mind-sets. Which they then laid a God-interpretation onto. But that didn’t make any difference to the work. The Fibonacci numbers were not ‘discovered’ because someone was trying to find the hand of God.
Head, meet brick wall. Good luck, JVL.
Viola Lee/20
I don’t blame you or other math teachers. I know I was just unlucky.
I’m sure you work very hard to make your lessons fun and interesting. My mother was a teacher of 5-7 year-olds and I know she also worked very hard to make the lessons fun and interesting for her students. She told me that one of her most satisfying experiences as a teacher was to suddenly see the light of understanding dawn in the eyes of a child who had struggled to grasp something for so long
ET: In a mechanistic scenario “who knows?” is death.
No, it just means we haven’t figure it out yet.
Question begging.
It’s not question begging unless you have predetermined assumptions. I’m asking: could intelligent agents have existed before mathematics? AND, are they subject to the laws of mathematics?
Who knows?
What do you think?
Cause only pertains to things that had a beginning
Does math have a beginning? If you think that math was created by some designer then your answer would be yes. The ultimate designer ’caused’ math. Is that ultimate designer constrained by the laws of mathematics? If no then the laws of mathematics are not universal and invariant. If yes, the designer is constrained by the laws of mathematics, then wouldn’t it have had to come into existence AFTER the laws of mathematics were already in existence?
Viola Lee: Good luck, JVL.
Thanks! Yeah though I walk through the valley of innumeracy, I shall fear no fallacies. My theorems and axioms comfort me.
I shall tighten my Gödel and…
Oh ****
@16
LOL
ALL but one of my math teachers were horrible!
I had one good math teacher
People thought it was bizarre that I could do advanced math in chemistry
But if you put a geometrical proof in front of me I would just die
I know how you feel like quite literally every one of my teachers was just some Murphy’s Law joke except for one
AaronS1978: ALL but one of my math teachers were horrible! I had one good math teacher
Sadly a very common experience.
People thought it was bizarre that I could do advanced math in chemistry
Higher level chemistry in particular is full of mathematics.
JVL:
It didn’t happen.
It could be possible. We would just have to figure it out one way or the other.
Could mathematics exist absent a mind?
I don’t think about that.
Again, can math exist absent a mind?
Probably not. That’s pretty much what supernatural means, JVL
Or we just don’t fully understand them- we just haven’t figured them out.
Look up the word “abstract”.
Viola Lee @ 3,
> They do believe a world of Platonic mathematical forms imprints themselves on the physical world without a personal divine diety being involved.
How? What is the method or the sequence of cause/effect relationships that goes from a mathematical form to a physical result? (A variation on the question _we_ always get from ID skeptics.)
I have no idea. First of all, I’m not a Platonist, but the idea has been around since Plato. Second, the same kind of “why” question can be asked, I think, about the nature of the interaction between the metaphysical and the physical of all sorts: positing a personal divine deity doesn’t remove the mystery.
ET: It didn’t happen.
References?
It could be possible. We would just have to figure it out one way or the other. Could mathematics exist absent a mind?
If it’s universal and invariant then yes. Why should 2 + 2 not equal 4 just because there is no one around to see it?
I don’t think about that.
Why not? Aren’t you curious?
Probably not. That’s pretty much what supernatural means, JVL
So, if the designer(s) is not constrains by mathematical laws then the laws of mathematics are not universal and invariant, i.e. they change from situation to situation. So, maybe, for some beings 2 + 2 does not equal 4?
Or we just don’t fully understand them- we just haven’t figured them out.
So, it is okay to say ‘we don’t know’.
Look up the word “abstract”.
I know what abstract means, what’s your point?
JVL:
References for something that didn’t happen? Thank you for continuing to prove that you are ignorant of science.
That depends on how 2 and 4 are defined, duh. And definitions require a mind.
It has NO meaning to my life.
That doesn’t follow.
It is clear that you don’t know what abstract means.
ET: References for something that didn’t happen? Thank you for continuing to prove that you are ignorant of science.
How do you know it didn’t happen? That math existed before any intelligent agents.
That depends on how 2 and 4 are defined, duh. And definitions require a mind.
‘2’ stands for two things of some kind, how else can you define it? If there are no other ways to define it then does it require a mind to be true?
It has NO meaning to my life.
Okay. I thought you liked asking questions and drilling down on accepted truths. My mistake.
That doesn’t follow.
IF the laws of mathematics are universal and invariant then they apply always to everyone, all life forms. IF the designer is not constrained by the laws of mathematics then the laws are not universal and invariant because it’s possible to by-pass them. It’s really simple.
It is clear that you don’t know what abstract means.
Why don’t you explain how it pertains to the conversation instead of just dancing around as fast as you can and not answering some questions?
JVL:
There isn’t any evidence for it so it can be dismissed.
It can be defined as anyone wants. Definitions are arbitrary constructs.
Can’t drill down on something we cannot study, duh. As I said, you are ignorant of science and apparently proud of it.
YOU said they would change from situation to situation. That doesn’t follow.
Abstract is something formed in the mind. As I said, get a dictionary and learn how to read and use it.
ET: YOU said they would change from situation to situation. That doesn’t follow.
I said they could change if they didn’t apply to all beings. Pay attention.
Abstract is something formed in the mind. As I said, get a dictionary and learn how to read and use it.
There are other meanings. How does it pertain to the conversation?
JVL:
That is a strawman as I never said anything about that.
And there aren’t any other meanings of the word abstract in the context of this discussion. Or do you think nature can write openings to articles?
ET: That is a strawman as I never said anything about that.
You said something which was not an accurate reflection of what I said and I clarified things. How is that a straw man? Are you even paying attention?
And there aren’t any other meanings of the word abstract in the context of this discussion. Or do you think nature can write openings to articles?
I don’t understand why you can’t specify how ‘abstract’ is pertinent to the above discussion. You’re the one who brought it up; try and state clearly and concisely how it applies.
LoL! @ JVL- I made it clear that I was talking about a supernatural designer when I said that math doesn’t apply. YOU changed that so it is a strawman.
Mathematics is an abstract concept. THAT is how it applies. I thought you understand mathematics? How did you not know this?
ET: I made it clear that I was talking about a supernatural designer when I said that math doesn’t apply. YOU changed that so it is a strawman.
Why should mathematics not apply to a supernatural designer which you don’t even know exists?
Mathematics is an abstract concept. THAT is how it applies. I thought you understand mathematics? How did you not know this?
What does math being abstract have to do with whether or not the rules apply to all beings? If being abstract means they don’t apply to some beings then why do they apply to you since you think you have a soul which exists outside of space and time?
It seems to me you do not think mathematics is universal and invariant as it seems to not apply to some hypothesised beings. If mathematics is not universal and invariant then isn’t it just a story, a metaphor, that applies sometimes but not others?
JVL vs ET: >>That math existed before any intelligent agents>>
On what grounds is anyone sure that reality’s root is not a necessary, maximally great and highly intelligent being?
Where, given that God is a serious candidate, worlds-framework necessary being, he is either impossible of being (just as a square circle cannot be instantiated in any possible world) or else he is actual.
Any takers on God is impossible of being, post the collapse of the deductive form of the problem of evil under impact of Plantinga’s free will defence?
KF
Kairosfocus: On what grounds is anyone sure that reality’s root is not a necessary, maximally great and highly intelligent being?
Because of the lack of evidence for such a being.
Where, given that God is a serious candidate, worlds-framework necessary being, he is either impossible of being (just as a square circle cannot be instantiated in any possible world) or else he is actual.
I don’t think you can argue for a necessary being based on mathematics.
Regardless, that doesn’t answer the query: is mathematics universal and invariant? If it is then all beings are subject to its rules. Which means all beings are limited to the rules of mathematics. If mathematics is NOT universal and invariant then it doesn’t apply in all situations or to all beings. Which means it can’t be used as the basis for any theological argument.
JVL, there is none so blind as s/he who refuses to see. The implicit moral government behind your arguments implies that in the root of reality there is a unity of is and ought, which points to the only being capable of fulfilling that bill. And there is much beside, but evidence and reason can always be rejected, that is the nature of freedom. The no evidence gambit is a fallacy. KF
PS: We must notice the pervasive presence of selective hyperskepticism as an embedded facet of radical secularist ideologies, and that this stance is inherently self referentially incoherent and agenda serving, a civilisation-destructive fallacy.
Kairosfocus: The implicit moral government behind your arguments implies that in the root of reality there is a unity of is and ought, which points to the only being capable of fulfilling that bill.
Mathematics has nothing to do with morals.
And there is much beside, but evidence and reason can always be rejected, that is the nature of freedom. The no evidence gambit is a fallacy.
No good hard empirical evidence. A lot of supposition and wishful thinking, yes.
PS: We must notice the pervasive presence of selective hyperskepticism as an embedded facet of radical secularist ideologies, and that this stance is inherently self referentially incoherent and agenda serving, a civilisation-destructive fallacy.
Again, nothing to do with mathematics which is NOT incoherent or an ideology. And it has nothing to say about morals or theology.
JVL:
The definition of supernatural, duh.
Oh my. You are too stupid to even follow along. Good luck with that.
Mathematics is an abstract concept.
Abstract is something formed in the mind.
Therefore mathematics could not have existed prior to intelligent agencies.
I appreciate KF’s arguments about the necessary role of mathematics in the structure of the world (even if I don’t entirely subscribe to them), but I don’t agree at all about the jump he makes to the necessary existence of a “maximally great and highly intelligent being”. I agree with JVL that math is about “is” but not about “ought”, and that there is no logical reason why is and ought are fused at the root of reality.
ET: Mathematics is an abstract concept. Abstract is something formed in the mind. Therefore mathematics could not have existed prior to intelligent agencies.
Hmm . . . So, you’re on the side that says mathematics is invented as opposed to those that think mathematics is discovered. I lean to the discovered side and I think that means that mathematics is universal and invariant which means that it exists independent of any beings which means it was true before any beings came along to discover it.
Let’s say, for the purpose of discussion, that you’re correct that mathematics is invented and you think by some supernatural being . . . are humans continuing the invention or are they discovered that which was already invented by your being who is not subject to the laws of physics and chemistry? If some being created mathematics and humans are just slowly uncovering and discovering that which was already laid down would not the supernatural originator be able to answer mathematical questions which we can’t? Like the Goldbach Conjecture? Or the Continuum Hypothesis?
Viola Lee: I appreciate KF’s arguments about the necessary role of mathematics in the structure of the world (even if I don’t entirely subscribe to them), but I don’t agree at all about the jump he makes to the necessary existence of a “maximally great and highly intelligent being”.
I think Kairosfocus sees ‘the hand of God’ in all of reality so, for him, the wondrous and beautiful mathematics we all enjoy has a source, a creator. It’s like the Rainbow and Eclipse arguments for the existence of God. They’re all fine-tuning arguments. One of Kairosfocus‘s favourite mathematical results is Euler’s equation which I admit is pretty cool. But for him it’s like the system has been fine tuned to create that kind of beauty. Clearly he’s never taken a higher-level statistics course; that stuff is so messy and bleh.
Small point: e^(i*pi) = -1 is an identity, not an equation. It is a fact about numbers, like 2 + 2 = 4, but it has no variable in it and is not an equation. e^(ix) = cos (x) + i sin (x) is the equation, and Euler’s identity is the expression of the equation for x = pi.
Viola Lee: Small point: e^(i*pi) = -1 is an identity, not an equation.
Viola Lee: Two points.
Interestingly: Wikipedia says . . . oh, wait, never mind. I was being dumb. It happens.
Viola Lee said:
True. One of the problems in debates here is that materialists (or semi-materialists) and Christians are very comfortable arguing with each other. Not so much with anyone representing other perspectives.
As BA and KF point out, mathematics represents a mental reality we all share. 2+2=4 is an undeniable truth that lies in the mind of any sentient being in any universe. Nobody can even imagine it not being true. This means we are all accessing the same something that actually exists in a nonmaterial state, something that is directly accessed and not subject even to personal interpretation. When you or I look at a physical object, or experience some event, we can come away with widely varied interpretations. Not so when we access 2+2=4.
There are other thoughts that have the same quality, such as “I exist.” Now try to imagine “not existing.” It’s literally impossible. IMO, this represents another mental, universal fact as profound and as essential as “I exist.” There’s no such thing as “not existing.”
As far as “did mathematics come into being with the advent of intelligent agents,” this is IMO a bad question. Nothing “comes into existence.” That would imply that at some point it “did not exist.” Everything that exists is eternal and can’t “not exist” or “be created” or “end.” Such things, IMO, are rooted in a materialist perspective that experiences sequences of things coming into and out of their view, so to speak, like walking along a road thinking that the landscape that changes around them as they walk coming into existence and the going out of existence as they amble along.
I see that Wikipedia does say e^(i*pi) = -1 can also be called Euler’s equation, which as I explained I think is wrong. It also calls e^(ix) = cos (x) + i sin (x) Euler’s formula, which is maybe better than calling it Euler’s equation because it is used to find the value for a particular x as opposed to solving for x. It also points out that it can be written as e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0. I like the expression I offered best because it is what follows from the formula, but some like the other way because of the way it includes both 1 and 0. Obviously they say the same thing.
More philosophically, Wikipedia also says “And Benjamin Peirce, a 19th-century American philosopher, mathematician, and professor at Harvard University, after proving Euler’s identity during a lecture, stated that the identity “is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don’t know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth”
I disagree with the first part of that. There is nothing paradoxical about it, we do understand it and know what it means in the sense that we know how it relates to various other mathematical understandings, including all the concepts upon which it is built.
KF said:
That argument applies to anything that is possible. If it is possible, it exists.
Viola Lee: I like the expression I offered best because it is what follows from the formula, but some like the other way because of the way it includes both 1 and 0.
I like your way best.
I disagree with the first part of that. There is nothing paradoxical about it, we do understand it and know what it means in the sense that we know how it relates to various other mathematical understandings, including all the concepts upon which it is built.
Yes, perhaps Mr Peirce was trying to take the side of someone who had less knowledge of the underlying structures and wanted to sympathise that it all looks a bit fantastical. Or maybe, being a philosopher, he didn’t understand it either.
I think the real puzzle is how e^(ix) = cosx + isinx . . . unless you know power series. 🙂
WJM: That argument applies to anything that is possible. If it is possible, it exists.
Do you mean to equate the latter with the “Platonic realm?” It seems to my intuition that anything possible has at least the same “Platonic” reality as anything that can be expressed with mathematics. And that consciousness “explores” that “space.” (For humans, while living, that is, while “incarnated”, consciousness is limited to, and informed by, brain states, but not so before incarnation (attachment to brain) and after death/detachment.) Is this what you were trying to express on the other threads?
Yes, but then you have to know where the power series comes from. I like building them from polynomials using the idea of having the derivatives of the polynomials match the derivatives of the function in question, but then of course you have to know why the derivatives of sine, cosine, and e are what they are! What is neat is how it all flows backwards to more fundamental ideas.
This is relevant to the thread where there is a video of five guys discussing whether math is discovered or invented. One of them (or perhaps it is Wigner) points out that the development of math depends on us creating new and fruitful concepts so we can build past what has come before.
Mike1962,
There are rules in the Platonic realm. Perhaps they are all ways of expressing the same thing. Mathematics, geometry, logic, language. Those rules govern “what can be imagined, or located, in the platonic realm, such as forms and relationships (meaning, the relationship of one thing to another.) It is like a unified algorithm that cascades into the potential for every possible thing.
In my other threads I argue that this is where we actually exist; in the Platonic realm, or mental reality. Our “physical world” existence is a manifest, internal experience, the translation of Platonic values and forms into what we call “reality.” We all still have access to every possible thing, but unfortunately, via external-world theory and conditioning, our access to that essential nature of our existence, and so our capacity to interact fully with it, has been marginalized.
JVL:
No, I am not saying that. Clearly you have an inability to think.
VL & JVL, mathematics, insofar as it is a study, is a rational practice. Rationality, through and through, inescapably, is governed by first duties of reason as even your objections manifest. That is, rationality — including mathematical rationality — is morally governed. Insofar as we address the substance of logic, structure and quantity tied to being and to possible worlds, a core of mathematics is framework to any world that is possible of existence. That core is about necessary (and so, eternal) being. Further to the moral government of mathematical reason and other foci for reason through first duties, those are moral premises, oughts. Hume long ago showed that is and ought only can find unification in the root of reality, and so we face the is-ought gap as an issue of world coherence. The only serious candidates to fill such a bill must be utterly wise and inherently good, on pain of euthyphro type incoherence. I note too, that computational substrates are inherently about mechanical necessity or chance, they are incapable of grounding responsible rational freedom; a requisite of mathematics and other domains of reason. We can sketch the outline, necessary, eternal being capable of being source-sustainer of worlds, inherently good and utterly wise. A familiar figure looms. KF
KF, I have repeatedly acknowledged our duties to reason. As I have said, though, I don’t accept your jump from there is “utterly wise” and especially an “inherently good” being. You say further to our duties to reason there are moral premises, but I don’t see that as necessarily true.
I can tell you that it is not necessary for you to respond, as I have read thousands of (mostly repetitive) words from you on this subject. I just want to register a dissent from your worldview.
ET: No, I am not saying that. Clearly you have an inability to think.
Why don’t you state clearly, succinctly and unambiguously what your position is then?
Kairosfocus: That is, rationality — including mathematical rationality — is morally governed.
That is not correct. Mathematics has nothing to do with morality.
Insofar as we address the substance of logic, structure and quantity tied to being and to possible worlds, a core of mathematics is framework to any world that is possible of existence.
Mathematics is not an indication of possible worlds. Mathematics tells you, based on the models you pick, how possible worlds might interact or behave but it doesn’t give you them.
That core is about necessary (and so, eternal) being. Further to the moral government of mathematical reason and other foci for reason through first duties, those are moral premises, oughts. Hume long ago showed that is and ought only can find unification in the root of reality, and so we face the is-ought gap as an issue of world coherence. The only serious candidates to fill such a bill must be utterly wise and inherently good, on pain of euthyphro type incoherence.
Math has nothing to do with morality and your doubling and tripling down on the idea that it does just makes you look like someone exhibiting motivated reasoning. Math has nothing to do with theology.
I note too, that computational substrates are inherently about mechanical necessity or chance, they are incapable of grounding responsible rational freedom; a requisite of mathematics and other domains of reason.
That’s all just rubbish. Math has nothing to do with freedom or any human considerations. You need to stop trying to twist everything to your world view.
We can sketch the outline, necessary, eternal being capable of being source-sustainer of worlds, inherently good and utterly wise. A familiar figure looms.
Nothing to do with mathematics. No thing.
JVL:
I have. That you cannot understand it is on you.
How does JVL know that mathematics doesn’t have nothing to do with morality?
VL, it is not a jump, the reference to Hume’s so-called guillotine argument on reasoning is-is then suddenly OUGHT . . . shows the issue of coherence and the only locus of that bridge. Only if is and ought are fused at root is there coherence. Where, the issue is that freedom, a requisite of reason [as opposed to blind computation] inevitably leads to the gap between is and ought. Once that is on the table, it implies mathematics as a rational activity is morally governed. The worldview level options for a reality root capable of sustaining morally governed rationality then point to characterising the root: an IS that is necessary (so, eternal), capable of being source-sustainer of worlds [root], inherently good in itself which also entails utterly wise as a major component of effective goodness — no demiurges doing a half-baked job need apply. Such goodness is also inherently rational and in key parts intelligible to us. More can be said but I do not want to try writing a thesis bit by bit. KF
We’ve been over all that, and I bet I’ve read more or less the same a couple dozen times. However, you gaveled discussing an example (divorce is what was suggested) of this theory put to use as off-topic in the thread.
But your philosophical thesis doesn’t address the central question: can two people fully committed to the duties of right reason reach different conclusions on a moral issue (for instance, whether it is OK for two people to get divorced because they don’t want to be married to each other any more) without one position being right and all the other positions wrong?
What say you to that general question? Do all moral issues, taking a full implementation of the duties of right reason into account, have a right position, and all others wrong?
JVL,
Let’s pick up:
I highlighted the way in which your objections themselves show how the first duties of reason are inescapable. Observe my comment: mathematics, insofar as it is a study, is a rational practice. Rationality, through and through, inescapably, is governed by first duties of reason as even your objections manifest. That is, rationality — including mathematical rationality — is morally governed.
Disregard for such would reduce any rational endeavour to chaos, deception, manipulation. Mathematics, not excepted. The case of lying with statistics and that of creative accounting should at least help us to see how.
As to a core of mathematics being part of the framework of any possible world, I explored that here, which you have been referred to previously. It turns out to be key to the universality, general applicability and analytical power of mathematics.
Further to this, despite your sharp dismissiveness rationality requires freedom, e.g. the power to freely choose to accept a logical chain and to judge when a conclusion is or is not warranted. Otherwise, we are locked into some deep level of programming, organisation of computational substrates and/or chance. This would utterly undermine credibility of reasoning claims and knowledge claims. Perhaps, you may recall Haldane:
That is not trying to twist things to fit my particular worldview — yet another rather sharpish accusation without good warrant — it is pointing out that to be free to be rational, including on mathematics, we must be free by nature. Such freedom of course brings with it the issue of morally freighted choice so too duty. Especially, first duties of reason.
Which, as was just pointed out, even in objecting, you were unable to escape.
And more, but I think this is enough for a reasonable evaluation on merits in a blog context.
KF
ET: I have. That you cannot understand it is on you.
If you’re happy that your position is ambiguous I guess I can live with that.
How does JVL know that mathematics doesn’t have nothing to do with morality?
“doesn’t have nothing” . . . Well, why don’t you show me how math and morality affect each other then?
VL,
The topic then on the table had enough polarised loading all to itself.
Unfortunately, as I said in 1976 as a 15 year old 5th former, I smell a Reichstag burning.
Again.
45+ years later that homeland has not recovered, I am an exile for cause and many are still in denial. Younger generations seem to be hardly aware of what a popular PM did in Parliament that June, and where it led, both over the next four years and ever since. I hope you appreciate some of why I am concerned when I see much the same dynamics playing out in the leading maritime power that stabilises the world.
As for divorce, it is far afield from Mathematics, but I suppose News will allow me to indulge a bit of natural law reasoning, through a Dominical example. Where, natural law is about core matters coeval with our humanity and as such will have universal jurisdiction. You can set up things under colour of law contrary to such, but they will only lead to needless chaos:
More can be raised but the basic outline is clear enough. Neighbour love, fairness and justice informed by the nature of marriage lead to a policy that has to reckon with where society is, so ameliorative regulation of evils looking to their minimisation is there. But an evil is an evil.
Coming back to Mathematics and its connexion to logic of being and possible worlds, let me clip from my OP on first duties, bearing in mind the paper I linked to in my response to JVL:
I believe that should make the basic point on math clear enough.
Other things stem from pondering, what sort of source can adequately explain a world in which there are creatures with enough rational freedom to do mathematics. Given where freedom points: the power of choice and the resulting is-ought gap.
KF
JVL, morality governs mathematics because mathematics is a rational activity. The first duties of reason govern rational behaviour. Duties to truth, right reason and to prudence expressed in sound warrant are particularly manifest. The academic crime of plagiarism is about stealing. And much more. KF
Kairosfocus: Observe my comment: mathematics, insofar as it is a study, is a rational practice. Rationality, through and through, inescapably, is governed by first duties of reason as even your objections manifest. That is, rationality — including mathematical rationality — is morally governed.
Mathematics is a rational activity, of course. But it does not ground morals which are not universal or invariant. They change, mathematics does not.
Disregard for such would reduce any rational endeavour to chaos, deception, manipulation. Mathematics, not excepted. The case of lying with statistics and that of creative accounting should at least help us to see how.
Only people who are unaware of the subtleties of statistic get taken in by half-truths and shading. Statistics, in and of themselves, don’t lie if they are mathematically correct. People lie, math does not.
That is not trying to twist things to fit my particular worldview — yet another rather sharpish accusation without good warrant — it is pointing out that to be free to be rational, including on mathematics, we must be free by nature. Such freedom of course brings with it the issue of morally freighted choice so too duty. Especially, first duties of reason.
Mathematics isn’t true or false depending on your morality or cause or warrant or any such thing. You are trying too hard to bend everything to your world view and it’s not working.
And there is a bigger issue, most easily seen with mathematics: truth is truth. You can’t bend it to your stance. Gravity works no matter what your creed or view. The Laws of Thermodynamics are true regardless of how you vote or your moral standard. Quantum Mechanics works and is not dependent on your theology. None of those things care about your interpretation or your agendas.
If you want to believe in an ultimate supreme loving being that’s fine with me. But trying to bend scientific and mathematical truths to be in support of your desires is not valid. It denigrates the science and your faith. Why can’t you just accept that you believe because it’s part of your personal experience and leave science and mathematics out of the discussion? God does not exist because e^(I*pi) = -1. And I find it hard to believe that God designed mathematics so that that particular identity would come up so some people would then say: wow, clearly someone designed that. You cherry pick one particularly lovely mathematical truth and claim the whole system was designed. What about Zorn’s lemma? What about the Prime Number Theorem? What about the Mean Value Theorem? What about Zeno’s Paradox? Or the Goldbach Conjecture? Or Fermat’s Last Theorem? Or The Four Colour Problem? Or the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic? Do they all point to some benevolent and loving God who somehow managed to design a system of mathematics which most people don’t understand and many dread learning to prove he exists? Really?
Rainbows are lovely. Eclipses are sublime. Euler’s identity is beautiful. But most of the world and science and math is dirty, messy, complicated and hard to understand. Just like you would expect if there was no direction and no purpose. Most scientists and mathematicians do what they do because they try really, really hard to find that unifying principle, that underlying structure, that simple summation which explains some seemingly chaotic situation. And those are hard to find because the systems are NOT designed to be discernible. They are what they are. They don’t care about us. If we disappeared they would continue to be true.
Other things stem from pondering, what sort of source can adequately explain a world in which there are creatures with enough rational freedom to do mathematics. Given where freedom points: the power of choice and the resulting is-ought gap.
How about an environment where being able to do basic calculations and mathematical estimates gives a survival advantage?
morality governs mathematics because mathematics is a rational activity.
Nope. Maths is not related to morality at all. Get over it. The most hated and dangerous dictator can be morally bankrupt but if they have a valid mathematical proof then it stands.
Re 72: what a non-answer. Why oh why do I try to have such conversations! 🙁
Viola Lee: Re 72: what a non-answer. Why oh why do I try to have such conversations!
The funny thing is: no one here who supports his views understands his answers either! They just agree because they should. It’s all just magic and hand-waving. But it must be true because someone who also believes in God says it’s so.
JVL,
I pick up for now:
>>Mathematics is a rational activity, of course.>>
Therefore, inescapably, it is governed by first duties of reason. As already explained.
>>But it does not ground morals>>
Strawman.
>> which are not universal or invariant.>>
First duties of reason are self-evident, inescapable and antecedent to argument. They are universal and invariant.
>> They change, mathematics does not.>>
Again, false. And the reason Mathematical core realities do not change is that they are framework to all possible worlds.
Once reasoning creatures exist, the first duties of reason obtain.
KF
I’m confused. Is Pi evil? Is the square root of three morally acceptable? Should calculus repent of its sins? And what about the perverse abomination of algebra? I am beginning to think that mathematics is a moral quagmire. 🙂
SA2, as you full well know, the thinking and reasoning that studies the logic of structure and quantity — mathematics — is an exercise in rationality. Rationality inevitably, inescapably involves first duties. Duties to truth, to right reason and to prudence (so, to warrant) are particularly relevant in this case. Do not omit due weights and measures as directly connected. There is a saying of notorious relevance in statistics and accounting, that figures don’t lie but liars can figure. KF
Kairosfocus: Strawman.
No, it’s not. You have not shown how the practice of mathematics is a moral endeavour except to assert it because of rationality and ‘right reason’. You can’t come up with any other argument than that and you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again.
We all agree that ‘doing’ mathematics takes thought and a rational, logical frame of mind. But that does not lead to any kind of moral stance or statement because mathematics has nothing to do with that.
As you said: figures don’t lie but liars can figure which just point out that the moral issues have nothing to do with the mathematics.
Anyway, since you clearly think you HAVE to be correct and everyone else is wrong I’ll stop talking about it. But I would like to point out that this is another case of you being elitist in your opinion, i.e. you won’t even consider someone else’s point of view because you’re right and they’re wrong according to you by definition.
JVL,
refusal to acknowledge on your part that all rational activities (so, mathematical ones too) inescapably fall under and appeal to first duties of reason does not constitute want of warrant on my part.
Nor, does it shift the already shown balance on merits.
Let me clip your opening remarks, to again illustrate the point that you are trying to dismiss. This illustrates how even the act of attempted objection cannot escape the appeal/acknowledgement:
See the point?
Your objections are utterly unable to set the first duties of reason aside and having set such aside, achieve traction as arguments. You yet again illustrate that arguments and reasoning are inescapably governed by first duties of reason. Thus, instead, you need to acknowledge the inescapability and what that brings out.
I have pointed out that even in attempting to object, dismiss, deny or sidestep, the objector is forced to appeal to the first duties of reason. That sort of inescapability is precisely the mark of a self-evident first truth.
If you insist on repeating a false claim of want of warrant — which appeals to duties to truth, to right reason and to prudence in the form of warrant — then I cannot but point out the same reason why these fail. And from step one it has been pointed out that the issue is inescapability so inescapable first truth which is self evident.
Refusal to acknowledge simply shows that you are unwilling to accept what you cannot escape. As I just showed again.
On self-evidence, the immediate absurdity of unavoidably appealing to what you would deny should be clear.
Mathematics is a rational activity. All — all — rational activities inescapably appeal to first duties of reason. So, mathematical activities appeal to first duties of reason.
Especially, to truth, to right reason [core logic] and to prudence [to warrant]. The fact that liars can figure shows the moral choice involved in mathematically grounded acts and the duty of just weights and measures surely is a manifestation of duty to fairnes and justice, applicable to core structures and quantities themselves.
I remind of a classic sub-case, Epictetus on logic:
KF
PS: No, I do not have to be correct, but on this I happen to be so. I have pointed out what should be an uncontroversial readily confirmed observation, which does turn out to have powerful import. Ponder textbooks on logic or on mathematics proof techniques and foundations of math. Such are inert, they have no power to compel attention or motivate diligence. And yet, responsible thinkers and practitioners of the study of the logic of structure and quantity do exert diligence and do feel it important to get things right, logically and factually, with reliable means of verifying that such is so. This is in the end because we find ourselves inescapably under the power of the first duties of reason. When we appeal to one another, this is the implicit premise in our discussion. Even as your attempted objections show again and again.
SA2,
As a further exercise in showing the implicit appeals to first duties of reason — to truth, to right reason [core logic etc], to prudence [so, warrant etc], to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice, etc:
KF
JVL:
It makes me happy that you think my position is ambiguous. It proves that you don’t have a clue and are incapable of follow along.
JVL:
YOU made a claim. It is up to YOU to support it. Duh.
ET: YOU made a claim. It is up to YOU to support it. Duh.
Really? What claim was that? Kairosfocus is the one who thinks mathematics and morality are linked and I was asking him to elucidate that.
JVL, no, you made several claims, and indeed the norm you just appealed to is another appeal to first duties, that claims should be warranted. Again, truth, right reason, prudence. A further example of the inescapability of the first duties of reason. KF
Kairosfocus: no, you made several claims, and indeed the norm you just appealed to is another appeal to first duties, that claims should be warranted. Again, truth, right reason, prudence. A further example of the inescapability of the first duties of reason.
Sigh. If I claim to have a proof for a mathematical conjecture (thereby turning it into a theorem) I have to exhibit correcting reasoning to establish the truth. Nothing to do with morals at all. Why you keep insisting it does is bizarre and clearly unfounded based on a multitude of examples, i.e. any theorem you can think of. Not a single theorem has anything to say about morals, is not dependent on morals to be true, does not affect or influence moral behaviour, etc.
You’ll just repeat the same thing you’ve been saying for weeks and weeks. You can’t actually address the question of how EXACTLY mathematics and morals are connected. ‘Right’ reasoning is not the answer because you are already lacing that statement with a moral stance. You have to go back to the beginnings of mathematics and show that learning how to add 2 + 2 was a moral exercise. No ‘first duties’, no prudence, no claims; just draw the link between arithmetic and morals.
JVL,
I will again highlight how, yet again, your intended objection — as is true of any reasoning — inescapably depends for its force on first duties to reason:
The point is, yet again, shown.
A self-evident truth is not proved but recognised.
First, based on sufficient experience and maturity, we understand it, and see that it is so, is necessarily so and is such on pain of immediate patent absurdity on attempted denial.
Not, that we go through a chain of warrant to conclude but that the absurdity is instant.
That is why such are start points.
We saw that with Epictetus in Discourses, when someone challenged the validity of logic. That is a subset. Further to all of this on reflection we will see how we do feel an inner witness drawing us to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant and much more], all reflecting duty to sound conscience. Of course, such could be delusional, after all that error exists is patent fact and is in fact self evident. We find the urge to avoid error, to accurately describe reality and to show good grounds that we are so doing, the duties are calling out to us in the song of the heart. But moreso, were we to deny these, we would be in absurdity.
This is the context of the observation that the objector finds her-/him-self inextricably entangled in these duties. Why object, why not you do your thing, I do mine it does not matter. Because, the said duties are at work in the very fabric of the objection. It is not a mere trick of language and if one were clever enough one could phrase an objection to the truth claim that does not appeal to duties to truth, right reason etc.
That is, we see inescapable duties, inescapable truths, self-evident truths.
Not, proved from axioms but prior to even axioms. We construct axioms and we state principles of reason using a fabric pervaded with these duties. To try to prove them, we must use them. To try to deny them, again, we cannot escape using them. They are primitives of rationality antecedent to warranting exercises.
This points to the underlying issue, it seems bizarre because it is on the other side of a paradigm shift.
The link is not directly Arithmetic to morals, though just arithmetic and a just system of quantities is part of just weights and measures. No, it is that arithmetical reasoning is a sub-species of reasoning. It is reasoning, in general, in toto, that is governed by first duties of reason.
Which has been the argument of invitation to recognise what we so easily overlook, from the beginning.
Strange, yes, seemingly bizarre yes, absurd no. It is the attempted denial that will inevitably show the absurdity.
KF
Hi JVL. KF seems incapable of understanding that no one is questioning the use of right reason. He is very much a Don Quixote, tilting at imaginary enemies and not seeing the reality of the issues that he is not addressing.
VL, sorry, I am not suggesting that someone here questions use of right reason. I am pointing out that we find ourselves duty-bound to right reason and linked duties. So much so, that the attempt to deny that duty boundedness is itself an implicit appeal to said duties. Thus, the duties are inescapable, inescapably true and self-evident. KF
KF, we accept that! You don’t need to repeat it again.
What you don’t address is how human beings ares to use those to reach various judgments about real-world situations, and how people who are equally committed to those duties can reach different conclusions, and how we are to live well in a world where people do reach conclusions.
VL, that we can and do use canons of logic and warrant routinely is not at issue [see Copi’s textbook for a good first reference), what this is about is where they take force from, and recognition of the nature of such first duties; they are oughts, they are self-evident, they are pervasive, they call us to training and development of sound judgement etc. Insofar as on another focus, they shape the core of lawful government, they are guidestars for much needed reform of current praxis of law and government to restore sounder approaches that for example will check the Jacobins. KF
PS: Judging by some of the above, not everyone recognises that first duties apply to all rational action, including how we compose and respond to mathematical arguments.
Forget it, I say to myself.
Kairosfocus: why a proof, a particular type of warrant? Ans, because we are prone to error so we seek reliable confirmation of accuracy and derivation from axiomatic start points taken as true.
That is not correct. Theorems are true because they have been proven to be true and unless you can find fault with the proof then they stay true forever and always. It’s not a matter of warrant or point of view. I don’t think you really understand how mathematicians think.
the root claim is not on mathematics but on reasoning, which then embraces mathematics as a form of reasoning.
No, the root claim is on mathematics. For example: a common method of proof in mathematics is proof by contradiction. I doubt there are many real-world situations where that method is even applicable. I can’t think of one time in my life I reasoned my way through a situation based on that process. The style of reasoning is partly based on the subject at hand, mathematics.
ask yourself, why should anyone pay slightest heed to a supposed proof? Ans, because of said duties.
You really don’t understand how mathematics works. I took several courses taught by a modified Moore method: the professor would give us a series of statements which we had to either prove or find a contradiction for. The propositions were cumulative over a year meaning that something we proved in September was still true, still applicable and still useable in May. The whole point of the course was to consider possible proofs, figure out if they were true or not and then establish our decisions. No morals, no dictated behaviour, any and all approaches and methods were allowed and anything we did that did not pass muster could be shot down by other members of the course or our instructor. No where, never, did anything outside of the pure mathematics matter at all. The only time I can remember anyone saying anything about morals or behaviour was when we were told we had to have a kind of killer instinct for things; go for the kill, take your best shot.
Do you see, have to language? That’s a clue. why is it important for conjectures to be confirmed? Ans, the same duties.
No, no, no! That’s how mathematics works! You throw out an idea, you try and show it true, other people look at your work, see if there are any obvious faults or flaws, etc. No morals, no social issues, just the math.
do you notice the duties poking through here: “establish the truth” “correcting reasoning”
In a Mathematical sense! Not in a moral or societal or any other sense.
and BTW, that is the point of my observation and recognition all along: even attempts to deny, object, dismiss etc end up inescapably appealing to said first duties of reason.
No, either your math is correct or it isn’t. That’s the only criteria. You clearly have never actually taken higher level math courses, had to take a shot at proving an unknown conjecture in a room full of peers, lived with the times when you got it wrong, enjoyed getting it right. No morals, no philosophy, no societal standards or mores, none of that. That’s the beauty of mathematics. It’s free from all of that.
why does something need to be founded, but that per duties of prudence in a world of error we find ourselves duty-bound to warrant claims as reliable via appeal to duty to right reason and to truth?
Again, clearly you haven’t taken a ‘proof’ class where you learn to speak mathematics.
A self-evident truth is not proved but recognised.
There are no self-evident truths in mathematics. Only axioms, conjectures, lemmas, corollaries and theorems.
First, based on sufficient experience and maturity, we understand it, and see that it is so, is necessarily so and is such on pain of immediate patent absurdity on attempted denial.
This is the crux of the matter: nothing in mathematics is given or accepted without scrutiny. That’s the part I think you don’t understand and why mathematics is different. And besides, some of your necessary truths are not universally accepted and we’ve been trying to get you to address that issue for weeks but you refuse to consider that your most deeply held beliefs are just that, beliefs. That other intelligent and rational and reasonable people can and do disagree with you.
The link is not directly Arithmetic to morals, though just arithmetic and a just system of quantities is part of just weights and measures. No, it is that arithmetical reasoning is a sub-species of reasoning. It is reasoning, in general, in toto, that is governed by first duties of reason.
That’s just you trying to shoe-horn math into your moral world view. It doesn’t work that way, it never has. Euclid’s work stands above his social and moral and historical situation. It’s independent of those things. They have no hold on the math.
Strange, yes, seemingly bizarre yes, absurd no. It is the attempted denial that will inevitably show the absurdity.
Your continued attempts to harness mathematics for your own ends is absurd.
I do not understand why some folks who are clearly much less experienced in a very specialise field try to insist their interpretation of the work in that field serves some purpose that they are interested in promoting. You cannot, you must not, impose your view on something which you have much less experience of than others who are telling you that you are mistaken. What kind of hubris, what kind of elitism drives someone to do that? The utter and complete conviction that they are right? In which case they stop listening to what others have to say and just keep insisting that they are correct and those with years of academic and other experience don’t understand.
Why don’t you start listening for once instead of dictating and dismissing? Because you cannot possibly accept that you might be incorrect?
You are not going to change. You are not going to give an inch. You’ve already decided and the theatre of a conversation or discussion or debate is just theatre, a comedy, maybe a tragedy. But nothing you will ever take seriously. And you wonder why people find it hard to take you seriously about some of your beliefs? You don’t take them seriously, you dismiss them over and over and over again because, in your mind, you know you are right so they must be wrong. Must be.
Viola Lee: Forget it, I say to myself.
If you keep repeating it you might believe it one day!
Thanks for the encouragement.
JVL,
Let’s see, just your first sentence:
The inescapability shines through in the objection itself.
KF
Viola Lee: Thanks for the encouragement.
Love you really!!
It’s an odd thing . . . I consider myself a skeptic in that I think all ideas should be scrutinised strongly, especially if they run counter to well understood and well established knowledge. And I do try and spend time listening to those whose views differ from mine. I’m interested in trying to find some common ground, some central place where conflicting views can be discussed and examined and compared. And I think that when it comes to making social and ethical decisions some compromise is essential; no one will get everything they want but if we try a bit we all might get enough to form a cohesive and strong centre.
When I first came to Uncommon Descent I thought it would be good for me to try and understand what people who I disagreed with were saying and thinking so that we could work towards a workable consensus, an agreement to work on the problems we all recognise in a way that we could all support. I know I’m probably sounding a lot like President Biden in his confirmation speech but, like him, I guess I’m a child of the 60s: let’s talk things out, let’s be honest and straight, let’s work together.
Sadly, after quite a long time trying to get to that point it seems that, for some, it’s just not going to happen. Some people are so sure they are right, are so convinced they know ‘the truth’ that there’s no discussion or debate possible. I didn’t want to believe that because it’s such an irrational call IF one is really interested in working together to solve problems. This forum is not the place for compromise or giving ground.
I should forget it as well. I don’t know why I continue to try and gain even minor concessions. It never happens. No one in charge here wants it to happen. They know they are right and the rest of us can pound sand.
Thank you for being a dissenting voice whose posts have been insightful, intelligent, smart and ones I very much look forward to. You done good. Very good. I’m sorry it didn’t make any difference. Except to me.
Kairosfocus:
I have nothing more to say to you about mathematics and morals. Clearly you have not experienced higher level mathematical education because if you had you would not say the things you do. The fact that you still want to tell those of us who have had that experience what we should and should not think speaks volumes about your preconceived notions and biases.
Math is not a spectator sport. Sitting on the sidelines or watching the game on the telly is not really understanding what is going on. Until you can put on the cletes and the pads and take your place on the field you are just a pretender, a spectator. And spectators never get to determine the score. Players do. When you’re ready and able to get on the field and play the game then you get to influence the outcome. Until then . . .
If you want to test your mettle then tell us what steps you would take when approaching something like the Goldbach Conjecture. What is step one when dealing with that topic?
Thank, JVL. I think letting these folks talk among themselves as much as possible is probably for the best. I get addicted, so it’s my own problem if I can’t quit. We’ll see – sometimes math topics come up that are interesting to me, but I they haven’t really led to good discussions, either.
JVL (& attn VL), you are now projecting and personalising distractively. The difference is not in the Math, it is in what mathematical reasoning as a case of reasoning is governed by. An obvious thing is that we should believe things as true for good reason, i.e. on warrant, especially as we are prone to error. But, should already points to duties, here to truth, then to warrant so to both right reason and prudence. Right reason, of course, is a longstanding term for the body of knowledge and best practice on reasoning, involving logic, sound judgement, and pointing to discernment, judicious temperament etc. Where, these duties of reason are not shifting matters of preferences or emotions or social consensus, apparently a key part of a common, flawed conception of morality — such reductionism has long been shown to be incoherent (and yes, I am pointing to key duties of reason to dismiss a particular flawed theory on morals). We are here drawing out duties of reason coeval with there being rational creatures. Those duties are permanent, inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident. They pervade any rational context,. specifically including the practice of Mathematics. KF
PS: A reminder — I have pointed this out before in your presence — on certain failed theories of morality:
PPS: It is probably worth noting a classification by Clarke & Rakestraw, which will help us to clarify ethics and morality, two strongly overlapping terms, the second introduced in Latin by Cicero to render the first, a Greek term, but which now have subtle distinctions:
Such of course leads into the IS-OUGHT gap, which as Hume highlighted can only be bridged at root of worlds. I take a further plunge:
This distantly reflects, Cicero on core of law:
These are broad, drawing out a richer understanding of morality and helping us to see how first duties can rise above one’s subjectivity or shifting sands of a place and time, as we here see root level principles coeval with our human nature as rational, responsible creatures. In which context, despite obvious discomfort, first duties of reason clearly extend to reason applied to [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity. A definition of Mathematics that clearly emphasises right reason as core to the subject. That underlies say an exploration of Wigner’s amazement on the pervasive utility of Mathematics and much more, including explorations on axiomatisations and limits of axiomatisation post Godel. Recognising due limits is of course part of the judicious use of reason.
Recall, the pivot of my point is about self-evident first duties of reason, which apply to Mathematics, as a province of reason in action. Reason, is duty-bound, inherently, it is an aspect of the government of freedom, freedom implies choice and choice ought to be towards the good. But it cannot be forced, or it is no longer choice.
What that points to at root of reality is an onward matter, it is not primary.
JVL & VL,
I have an analogy that I think may give you a better understanding of what KF has been saying and arguing in this and prior threads (like the one about civilization, moral duties, right reason. I think it will also be enlightening in terms of how what KF is saying relates to specific social and moral cases.
Let’s say you’re an engineering firm contracted to design a skyscraper. The building must be designed using sound engineering principles translated into a design incorporating the proper materials that can withstand all of the physical stresses and tensions, such as gravity, wind, bearing the load of people. The engineering firm works with building management in order to provide the infrastructure necessary to sustain the community.
Both teams – the engineers and the founding community planners – must work together to create not only a building that can stand the test of time, but also the infrastructure that can provide for a successful, thriving community. The engineers rely on their knowledge of math, materials, and physics to make sure the building can stand the test of time; but the community planners must rely on something as fundamental as the engineers knowledge to build a strong, successful community that endures the stresses, challenges and issues that are certain to arise.
The engineers rely on physics/math. The community planners rely on morality and ethics. What lies behind all of that is: right reason. If either team doesn’t have the principle of right reason governing their design and planning, the project will most assuredly fail. The building and/or the community will fail.
After the project is finished, people move in and the community begins. Let’s say that the people on the 3rd floor want to make structural changes to the building. The don’t like the high grade steel of the support beams; they want to cut them out and replace them with wood. Let’s say some other people, a group on the 15th floor, doesn’t like the community rules about marriage, gender, family and sex, and want to live by their own rules and preferences.
Would you feel comfortable with allowing non-engineers and non-mathematicians negotiate for changes in the design, materials and structure of the building? Probably not. You might think that the physical building and the community housing it are two entirely different things, but they are not. Remember the building and infrastructure was designed to serve the needs of a particular kind of community, not any and every community.
In #100 above you said you’re interested in negotiating compromises with people in terms of the rules and expectations and future of the community. A successful community requires moral, ethical and behavioral expectations and rules, a fundamental common goal, a social contract, laws, etc. What KF is arguing is that unless people begin with right reason, they cannot hope to find successful moral and ethical principles that can create and maintain a successful community.
You wouldn’t begin to argue with mathematicians and engineers about what it takes to support the building, yet you somehow think you’re qualified to argue about what can be put into or taken away from the rules of the community successfully. Why is that? Are you educated in moral philosophy, history, ethics, human behavior, logic and psychology? What are the foundational moral and ethical principles that guide your negotiations?
Let’s take this to specific instances: marriage, family and steel support beams. Would you be okay with a group of people in a certain location in the building cutting out their section of a steel support beam and replacing it with wood? Of course not; you get enough people doing that and the building will collapse. It cannot be allowed. Let’s look at marriage and family. These concepts are rooted in something as real as engineering: biology. Can a change be allowed, here and there in the community of the building, that ignores biology? KF’s argument, I think, would be that you’re letting people do the social/community equivalent of cutting out sections of support beams here and there and replacing the biologically-required (engineering-required) material with something else.
What makes you or anyone think that will work in terms of the sustainability of the community? What is that idea based on, rooted in? What principle of morality, social psychology or ethics does it logically flow from? Is there a historical precedent? What are the potential ramifications from this fundamental change? Have you thought that through?
I’m not saying I share anyone else’s perspective on these subjects, I’m just pointing out that if you can’t do the (i)moral math on this,(/i) you’re just saying stuff that isn’t rooted in anything meaningful or significant. You two are like laymen challenging an engineer to explain why wood wouldn’t be acceptable as a replacement for the steel beam running through your apartment and rolling your eyes when the engineer starts talking about the physics of load-bearing materials, stress factors, the principles involved.
Would you accept it if he said: wood isn’t strong enough to support the building? No, you’d ask … why not? Then KF goes into an explanation about engineering principles as it relates to load bearing materials and structures, and you roll your eyes and say he’s not talking about the specifics. What would his attention to the specifics about wood vs steel mean unless you understand what he’s saying and why he’s saying it?
I apologize if I didn’t represent well, KF.
WJM, that is in fact highly relevant — and worrying. My context on ethics actually comes through sustainability, and things that raise questions of what is enduring or chaotically destructive. I have been led to recognise just how important it is to align what we say with reality, and to see that the principle of distinct identity is truly central, a thing is what it is, i/l/o its distinct characteristics, i.e. there is such a thing as what it is to be a given thing; to have a nature. Which, we have a duty to recognise and respect, playing ill-advisedly with I beams in a building framework is analogous. In that context, I came to recognise that in our debates, decisions, reflections we implicitly pivot on certain first duties that give our thought traction, duties that we simply cannot evade and which, thus — as stated — are statements of truth and are also self-evident. They literally come before debates or arguments or logical demonstrations etc as when we do these things we implicitly pivot on them. Duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence and to that inner witness, sound conscience are relevant to more academic and technical reasoning. The duty to neighbour who is as self bridges to community, law and government, as it brings up fairness and justice etc. What I find interesting is the lack of traction in pointing to how even the objector cannot evade, which puts him/her in an immediately absurd position, showing self-evidence. I am inclined to think there is a paradigm shift involved, requiring recognising that morality rises above subjectivity, emotion and shifting balances of community opinion, on grounds of the utter incoherence of such views. Paradigms, notoriously, are incommensurate and until one recognises that there can be enduring, universal moral principles, one will not see the point coeval with our rational ensouled freedom and linked responsibility. KF
In another thread I said we don’t have the right to life. I also don’t think we have their “right” to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Let me explain.
I consider the term “right,” in this context, to be entirely misleading. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not external things we have rights to; these are innate, essential qualities of our being. We are fundamentally, essentially living, free and in pursuit of our happiness. These aspects of us are not confined to physical bodies, worldly laws or social constructs. I live, am free, and pursue my happiness regardless. Killing me or imprisoning me does not change these aspects of what I am. The physical world cannot extinguish my life, only my presence in this world. Chains can only imprison my body; they cannot imprison my mind. My mind is free, and it is free to pursue happiness even while the body is in chains. I am not my body; this world is not my home.
The Constitution does not grant these things, it recognizes them as inherent truths about all humans. The term “unalienable Right” is not the same kind of thing as a mere “right,” because it’s referring to a truth about all humans. When people say they have a “right” to healthcare, housing, not being offended or equal outcomes/pay, and think it is “the same as” an unalienable Right, they have no idea what they are talking about.
The DoI was recognizing innate truths about our existence, and declaring these truths to be the necessary foundation for a proper society. A society not built on those truths will be corrupt and fail because it would ignore the true reality of what a person is. The Constitution is a “best attempt” at an essential codification of basic structure of law based on the recognition of these fundamental truths. IOW, “these are truths about our nature, this document recognizes those truths and calls them Rights.” But, we don’t have a “right” to them (small “r”,) we are those qualities.
F/N: Webster’s 1828 is helpful on freedom:
Note the natural freedom of the human person, as an agent, and that judicious balance in sound civil society.
KF
I’m not sure how a discussion on God and mathematics got twisted. But I guess there are an infinite number of permutation of each so what is there to be expected. (Here infinite is used as an hyperbole because as we all know infinity does not exist in our universe.)
A couple things
The Great Courses has several courses on math. One that may be appropriate for this discussion is
My point has been is that math is a subset of logic and indicates certainties that are true given the premises and will thus show everywhere where there is a relationship.
Second, from William Briggs today
Could just as well be applied to math and the statement should read
Interesting that the interview that inspired OP is four years old.
Kairosfocus/103
… which is largely my position. Where reason is applied to morality it is usually in the form of post hoc rationalization of emotional postures.
William J Murray/105
Any evaluation of an analogy should take account of both the similarities and the differences. The observed regularities in the behavior of the material/physical Universe, which we call laws, appear to be invariant across time and space. They are the same for the Inuit as they are for the Zulu now and they were the same for Homo habilis 2 million years ago as they are for Homo sapiens today.
The same cannot be said for so-called moral laws. They have evolved over a matter of centuries and differ to some degree from culture to culture. Most people would clearly like moral laws to be as invariant and certain as physical laws. The problem is that each person tends to believe that his or her morality is the right one while others believe that theirs is the true one. So is there a right one and, if so, how do we decide?
In the example of occupants of the building being foolish enough to replace steel support beams with wooden beams, they would eventually discover the error of their ways when the building collapsed on top of them.
But supposing the occupants began replacing steel beams with lighter and stronger titanium, for example. The building would presumably become stronger and more durable than before.
Are the different community rules adopted by the inhabitants on the 15th floor analogous to replacing steel beams with wood or titanium?
How does appealing to “right reason” – or science or mathematics – help in deciding moral questions at all?
I regard rights and freedoms as privileges extended by a society to its members, the key consideration here being “society”.
An individual human being living alone has the freedom to anything he or she chooses within the constraints imposed by the material world. The cannot fly unaided, for example, and they will be killed by the fall if they jump off a tall cliff.
John Stuart Mill held that, in a free society, individuals should be able to do whatever they choose up to the point at which their actions could harm to other members of society. As the old saying goes, “your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose”.
Moral prescriptions are created by people not gods for the benefit of the societies in which they live.
I don’t need a god or anyone else to tell me that I don’t want my nose flattened by your fist.
But suppose someone else enjoyed that your nose was flattened. You may not like it but hundreds of others may enjoy it. So we may have 100 people enjoying it and one person not. So do you want to deprive others of enjoyment for your personal benefit?
These can get pretty absurd. So maybe there is some ultimate determination of what is desirable and what is not. Should finding this ultimate determination be a necessity for each person?
Suppose there was a God that created us and that God had an objective for our creation. Is frustrating that objective undesirable or of any consequence?
Seversky,
I was attempting to, via analogy, illuminate for VL and JVL the general structure of KF’s position so that it might be easier to understand why he kept going back to the fundamentals.
Although I wasn’t arguing my perspective, I think I can make a couple of points from that perspective. First, you do not compare “strengths and weaknesses” of an analogy because analogies are not examples. They are used to illuminate a point, not to be taken as ways of arguing the point or the thing in question. An analogy is not an argument.
Second, KF’s perspective may be that physics and morality are means of describing the territory of two different realms. It doesn’t matter if people in various cultures before, because of a lack of understanding of physics, could not build that which we can build now; the physics were still there, but the comprehension of them was (or is) inadequate.
I believe KF would make the same argument, that the Bible (or, the DoI or COTUS based on Judeo-Christian morality stemming from the Bible) are analogous to a breakthrough in the understanding of physics, which allowed the building of a civilization/nation unlike any the world has seen before.
I am going to disagree somewhat. While I believe Judeo/Christian principles improve civilization, there were definitely civilizations before each. Greece and Rome depended on neither. So in what way have they led to anything different from that preceding?
Also the modern world did not start till the 1800’s. What happened in that time era to lead to the incredible advances in material prosperity that also led to large increases in health (age expectancy) and education? The answer is freedom for the common person, first to a limited degree in England and then to the English colonies in North America, especially the United States where there were no such restrictions for immigrants.
The reason the United States took off and eventually left Britain far behind is that there was no class restriction in the United States while in England there was a large expansion of rights for individuals but a class system that made it much harder for the common man.
Aside: We are a far way from God and mathematics.
WJM writes, “I was attempting to, via analogy, illuminate for VL and JVL the general structure of KF’s position so that it might be easier to understand why he kept going back to the fundamentals.”
I understand the general structure of KF’s position: that is not a problem. He keeps “going back to fundamentals” because he can’t, in fact, explain the leap from math to morals as it applies to real people in the real world.
Viola Lee:
Do you find the following statement to be absolutely morally true in all possible imagined worlds worlds?
“It is wrong to be cruel to others for your own pleasure.”
Instead of arguing about what I don’t accept about what others think, I’ll offer some thoughts about what I do think. As I have said several times, I am not an adherent of any particular religion: I think all are, to varying degrees “different paths up the mountain” towards some common human intuitions about our nature. However, I have a number of Hindu friends, and other friends interested in these matters from a Hindu and Buddhist perspective, and I like the following key idea from those traditions.
Metaphorically, our deepest nature is a balance between the head (rationality) and the heart (compassion). Compassion is the key moral principle. Rationality and compassion are the compasses that help guide us through life.
However (and this is not a Hindu idea): I believe that that we have existential freedom, and it is our responsibility – a responsibility that we cannot avoid – to make moral choices based on rational compassion. The duties to exercise our mind and our compassion are part of our ultimate nature, but it is up to us to decide how to apply them to the complexities of human life. The world presents us with moral questions, and it is our fate, for better or for worse, to have to answer them as we best see fit, guided by our commitment to head and heart, rationality and compassion.
As to your question, WJM, the qualifiers to the question carry way too many metaphysical assumptions. We are not absolute creatures, and we only live in this one world, so I have no knowledge about whether something is “absolutely morally true in all possible imagined worlds worlds”, and nor does anyone else.
With that said, you ask, ““It is wrong to be cruel to others for your own pleasure.”
Well, first, I think it is wrong to be cruel to others, period. Finding pleasure in doing so would be doubly wrong.
But this is not because there is some rule out there someplace that tells us this is wrong, but rather that to do so would be a severe act of lack of compassion, and would be a violation of what I consider key aspects of human beings’ spiritual nature.
Creationists are sitting on the truth, without comprehending it.
Terms like “good”, “beauty”, “truth”, “justice”, etc. are exlusively creationist terms.
It is very obvious that the two fundamental categories of creator and creation, correspond perfectly with the categories of all what is subjective, and all what is objective.
The logic of subjectivity, is that an opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. All subjective statements have that same underlying logic.
For example, to say a painting is beautiful, the opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus chosen, and the opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks.
“Choice” is also the mechanism of creation, it is how a creation originates. So it means, a subjective opinion expresses what the identity of a creator is.
The love for the way the painting looks expresses the identity of that person as being a decisionmaking agency, a creator.
So the concept of subjective opinion is validated in the creator category of creationism, and the concept of fact is validated in the creation category.
1. Creator
2. Creates by making choices
3. The substance of which is called spiritual
4. Is identified with a chosen opinion
1. Creation
2. Was created by choice
3. The substance of which is called material
4. Is identified with a fact forced by evidence.
Materialism does validate the concept of fact, but materialism does not validate subjective terms at all. Terms like “good”, “beauty”, “justice”, “God”, these terms are just random noise in materialism.
Here are some ideas I like from Hinduism. First there are three “gods”, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, which represents the three forces of creation, preservation, and destruction that pervade reality. The three are different faces of the unmanifested One, brahman, that underlies reality. (As you might guess, Hinduism is full of doctrinal differences about these things much like the Judeo-Christian tradition is, but I am not interested in those, as I think all such metaphysical embellishments are just part of our story-telling about the big ideas.)
What I like (and this is related to post 119), is that human beings partake of all three principles, including that of the creator who chooses to bring reality into the form it takes. Our moral choices help make the world what it is. We choose from the creative freedom within us, and are thus responsible for the world to the extent that our choices contribute to it.
VL,
At this point I am disappointed in your continued mischaracterisation despite repeated correction:
1: My position is that rationality, which includes reasoning on the logic of structure and quantity AKA Mathematics, faces some inescapable first duties. These include: to truth, to right reason [core logic and linked themes], to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and to justice, etc. By inspection of how we think and argue it will rapidly be seen that such is an observation that should be unexceptional. Further to such, it will be noted that an attempt to disregard or dismiss or object, will inevitably appeal to the same principles. E.g. your objection makes certain fact . . . truth . . . claims, expecting to be acknowledged. The claims happen to be false.
2: Thus, there is no inexplicable leap from Mathematics to morals. The rather simple structure is, Math exemplifies rationality. That rationality, in general, is governed by first duties as outlined. The inescapability reveals inescapable truth and the absurdity of implicitly relying on what one would overthrow shows self-evidence.
3: This is a universal and utterly pervasive principle of rationality.
4: It should not be heavy weather, that it seems so for some points to lock in of a failed paradigm in current dominant patterns of secularist thought. Likely, subjectivism, emotivism and relativism, which tend to reject objectivity on truth, and particularly on the issue of duties, i.e. morality. Actually, the claim “there are no objective moral truths,” is a self-referential truth claim regarding morality and it is thus self-refuting and incoherent. It is necessarily false.
6: From a related angle, rationality requires freedom thus responsible choice, thence the duty to choose soundly and aright, but due to said freedom, necessarily the ability to ill-advisedly choose what is unsound and/or wrongful. The seven duties are an elaboration at first level of the duty to soundness and the right.
7: Where, it is patent that the disciplines of the academy and professions pivot on duty to be truthful, logical and well warranted, with implications for sound society and for justice. A very simple example is the auditor’s statement that a set of financial statements do or do not give a true and fair view of the financial affairs of an entity. Obviously, in founding and developing a discipline or profession or art, using logic, experience, prudence [including warrant] etc, reliable bodies of knowledge and best practices are built up, obviously influenced by these duties.
8: This particularly extends to law and government, though of course the trickiness of too much of politics shows that many hope to succeed by deceit: misleading people to believe they are acting aright and soundly when they are not. In fact, say, an inspection of the bUS founding and framing will show these patterns in action, for good and for bad.
9: In previous threads there were repeated attempts to drag off track into yet another wading in the tainted waters of various currently fashionable pathologies and the like. These have been previously discussed at UD and there is no need to go back into such, much less to allow every thread to be distracted by the obviously obsessed.
10: Above, you repeated claims regarding divorce, e.g. at 69 above, as a less tainted test case that I allegedly have been unable to specifically address. I took time in 70 following to again — done before and in your presence — speak to it using a well known piece of Dominical reasoning that happens to be a natural law argument that shows that there are social evils that given hardness of our hearts have to be regulated and ameliorated but which are against our original manifest order as humans coming in two complementary sexes. There is a call to higher living as a counter-culture. This, you seem to have overlooked. Where, of course, a pattern of rights, duties and freedoms pivoting on and coeval with our humanity — our built in nature — is manifestly of universal jurisdiction. And even were there other creatures that are rational and non-reproducing or reproduce by budding, it would still obtain for human rational creatures.
11: This actually is pregnant with import for civil order, and speaks to a lot of history. Not to mention after the fact perfectionism used as a key fallacy of cancel culture red guard tactics.
12: On the case of mathematics, the point about how disciplines and professions are built up should be enough. A famous and widely relevant case on the power of logic to show a stunning truth that then led the Mathematical profession to change its path is the incompleteness proofs of Godel. A similar case, less well known, is the Robinson taming of the infinitesimal. And many more.
In short, your objection fails and is in fact strawmannish. The relevance of first duties to this case is obvious, I trust it will be heeded going forward.
KF
VL, FYI I have just responded to a claim you made, through a step by step corrective argument. KF
WJM & Jerry, my argument has been that movable type printing was revolutionary, working with vernacular rendering of the Bible and with the associated rise of widespread literacy, bills, newspapers, tracts, coffee houses etc to open the door to a broad based comparatively informed public. The ferment of the Protestant Reformation set a context in which many fundamental issues were widely discussed and the double covenant theology of nationhood and government under God gained traction. Through this we see an era from about 1650 to 1787-9 in which for the first time, we could have representational, constitutional, small-d democratic self government. The glorious revolution and bill of rights 1688 – 9 and the US Revolution 1775 – 89 marked the breakthroughs. It is no accident that these two polities pioneered modern liberty and the industrial revolution. Protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights were also important. And yes this opened up unprecedented positive developments for our civilisation, for all its troubles and sins. It is from these loci that industrialisation and linked agricultural revolutions then eventually democratisation in a rule of law driven constitutional frame spread globally. The latter, only going globbal within living memory. However both are now threatening to fade and a return of lawless oligarchy seems to be being enabled by the cancel culture surveillance state. KF
F/N: The C18 agricultural revolution https://www.britannica.com/topic/agricultural-revolution KF
VL,
First, I want to applaud you for taking a leap and expressing your views. There is nothing I respect more than people willing to open their views up to examination and criticism.
Second, a couple of questions from your comments. You said:
1. What do you mean by “spiritual”?
2. Apparently you don’t believe there are any necessary or unavoidable ramifications to that behavior – IOW, no metaphysical “rule” is being interacted with by wrong behavior (sin, karma, etc.) that carries with it necessary corrective or punitive ramifications. If I am not compassionate, or behave cruelly, so what? What difference does it make to me, as long as I enjoy my life?
3. Really just a note. You said:
You’re making an assumption there. There are tens of thousands of people, perhaps millions who live in more worlds than just this one, some of which I personally know, of which I am one. I don’t mean that symbolically, or metaphorically, or in any strained sense of those words. I mean it literally, with “world” having the meaning of “realm” or “dimension.”
BTW, just to be open here, I don’t personally believe in “First duties to right reason” or “objective, absolute morality.” I’ve made arguments and contributed on the behalf of those perspectives, and extending from those perspectives, because I’ve enjoyed doing so, but I never actually said I believe in those things. My “first duty” is to my own enjoyment.
KF might argue that my pursuit of enjoyment is still based on “right reason” in how I go about acquiring the most enjoyable existence I can, and that is to some degree true, but I use reason like a tool in the service of building my enjoyable life. My “duty” isn’t to the tool; it’s to the building of my enjoyment. I’m perfectly fine believing and doing unreasonable things in service to my enjoyment. Enjoyment guides my thoughts and behavior. If I can build a rational argument for what I believe, it’s fun to make that case. If not, so what?
Also, just to throw this out there and skip all the in-between stuff, all arguments about morality, either subjective or objective, logically and inexorably lead to the same equation: “might(in whatever form) = right.” It is the inescapable conclusion to all logically pursued arguments about morality.
The modern world arose in England to some of the reasons Kf described but the origin of the printing press was probably a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. Other countries whether Protestant or Catholic did not advance in the same way as England. It was because of religious wars that England granted freedom to a substantial minority and writers. Then to its colonies in North America where the major changes took place and led to the modern world.
Few in England and its colonies dreamed of any country that wasn’t governed by Judeo Christian principles. So it was the combination of that and freedom that led to the modern world. Jonah Goldberg said it only happened once and there’s no reason it cannot disappear. It’s a choice.
We are seeing both an assault on freedom and Judeo Christian morality. There’s no asuridity modern civilization can exist without either.
Jerry, the movable type printing revolution was the gateway. The ferment over the Reformation opened up the new thinking and new interest that created a reasonably informed public. These drove democratising forces in contexts where people were willing to take the gamble of trying. That led to breakthrough. But constitutional democracy without key cultural buttresses will fail. Recognising and respecting first duties of reason, as just that, is a part of looking at what has broken down on said buttresses. KF
WJM:
Pardon a markup on opening sentence, illustrating inescapability of said first duties:
>> just to be open here,>>
– appeal to duty to truth, where persuasive effect is an appeal to others being aware of said duties.
>> I don’t personally believe in “First duties to right reason”>>
– appeal to duty to truth, implicit challenge to show warrant on right reason
– our feelings or perceptions or beliefs as stated are not capable of creating an escape hatch
– inescapability shows antecedence to particular acts of reason, so inescapable and self-evident truth.
>> or “objective, absolute morality.”>>
– objectivity of course pivots on warrant, an objective truth claim is sufficiently warranted independent of a particular error-prone individual’s consciousness that it is an in common well supported view; though such warrant is in principle open to amendment.
– objective moral truths are truths claimed about morality that is oughtness, with warrant. Negatively, there are no objective moral truths is self-referential and self-defeating. Such undermines subjectivism, emotivism and relativism as incoherent and self-falsifying.
– yes, there is diversity of views with disagreement; that simply means that we have differences and need to look to warrant.
– Positively, the first duties as listed are inescapable, inescapably true and self-evident.
– absolute truths are sufficiently complete, without admixture of error and so are 100% complete and 100% pure on a given matter. We can only assert incorrigible knowledge of absolute truths on particularly narrow points, perhaps 2 + 3 = 5.
>> I’ve made arguments and contributed on the behalf of those perspectives, and extending from those perspectives, because I’ve enjoyed doing so,>>
– gratitude is due
>>but I never actually said I believe in those things. My “first duty” is to my own enjoyment.>>
– sounds somewhat hedonistic or epicurean, not particularly viable as systems. However, enjoyment is a significant and — tempered by other due considerations of rights, freedoms and duties — valid motive. (Some may enjoy kidnapping, torturing, sexually assaulting and murdering young children on the way home from school. Regrettably, this is a real world case.)
KF
to WJM at 125:
You wrote, “1. What do you mean by “spiritual”?
I didn’t (and don’t) intend to write an essay on the full extent of my thoughts on the nature of humankind. I offered the idea that the key moral component of our nature in relationship to others is compassion. (Other religions say it is love.) Issues that relate back to that part of us are spiritual. That is how I used the term.
You wrote, “2. Apparently you don’t believe there are any necessary or unavoidable ramifications to that behavior”.
I didn’t address that issue at all, which is much different than not believing something about it.
3. You wrote, “There are tens of thousands of people, perhaps millions who live in more worlds than just this one, some of which I personally know, of which I am one.”
I have read your theories on this, and don’t believe they are correct.
KF,
I understand that’s how all that looks from your perspective, but like your “delusion” challenge against mental reality theory, it’s only valid from the conceptual framework you are in. Your inability to understand a different perspective isn’t my problem.
BTW, the only way to properly, logically pursue this disagreement from your perspective is if you ask questions about, and at least try to understand my perspective, not repeating rote declarations of logic stemming from your perspective. All you are doing when you do that is telling other people how your perspective is interpreting what they say.
But, I think that’s exactly what you’ll do now, and what you will continue doing. Good lord I’ve been watching you do it for months now. It’s no longer enjoyable.
So, I thought I’d change it up this morning. We’ll see. I have other things I can do that I find enjoyable.
Viola Lee,
Well, that’s one of the great things about being me. Others are free to believe whatever they want, and have no obligations whatsoever, certainly not to me.
I just enjoy interesting conversation and take it where I can get it.
Viola Lee,
BTW, perhaps you missed it. My views on other worlds and MRT are not just theoretical, they are first-hand empirical, experiential.
But, you probably don’t believe that. That’s okay, I understand. It’s a bit much for most people.
re 132: I agree.
Only in England. And a little in Holland. Where there was a monarchy in place, Protestant or Catholic, and the great chain of being philosophy, freedom did not take hold. So it was not the Reformation per se that led to the modern world but the fighting between different Protestant religions that diluted the authority of the monarch and led to the rapid increase in power of Parliament.
The divine right of kings originated in Ur and flowed right into the 20th century in many places. We have a form of the great chain of being developing in the US at this moment as the elites believe they are the ones to rule here and everywhere and the now constant disparaging of the Trump voter as inferior.
Plato’s Republic was an advocation of the great chain of being. The elites are adopting it.
Jerry, it was actually quite broad, and it was more than mere conflicts, there was considerable theologically based reflection and general thinking. A key chain ran France to Holland to Scotland and England, then of course the American colonies. But, again, we are far afield from topic. You are showing how if a summary is given, expect pointing to details thought to be left out, if details are given, expect to suffer dismissal as too long. KF
VL, kindly cf 121. KF
It happened only in England and then their North American colonies. The best example is Pennsylvania.
Freedom was an outcome of the conflicts and the stalemate that ensued. Either one of the opposing sides would have gladly established their orthodoxy as absolute if they won and it would not have included freedom.
There are some things that are self-evidently aspects of existence, such as A=A, 2+2=4, free will, life, etc. That is not the same as saying that we have a “right” to life and liberty, or a “duty” to right reasoning. That’s an attempt to moralize or externally instantiate conditions that reflect existential properties.
I’ve explained my position on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that those, in my views, are not rights; they are inviolable, existential properties. I can shoot you and end your life here; where the heck is your so-called “right” to life? The idea of “rights” is meaningless under the ERT (external reality theory). You only have the rights that which is more powerful than you allow.
Now, reason. What exactly is my “duty” to “right reason?” Under ERT, I can win any argument with a gun. I don’t have to explain anything. I don’t have to even convince you of anything. I don’t have to justify anything.
People are irrational. Sorry if that’s news to you. They don’t make rational choices, virtually ever. I mean, how boring would that be. Are wanting to be more like Vulcans or machines? Oh, many believe they are being rational, many think their choices and arguments are perfectly rational. They might even make perfect, rational sense under the assumptions of their paradigm/worldview. Good lord, they might even be internally consistent and actually compatible with their behavior.
But that’s the problem with logic, isn’t it? It’s only as good as your assumptions, and only matter to the degree that the rest of the world cooperates (under ERT) with your rational decision-making. What does making all the well-reasoned choices and arguments gain you when a drunk hits your child and kills him or her, or when people can make a completely irrational choice and enjoy an immense number of benefits, liking buying a winning lottery ticket?
Now, go ahead, KF, break down what I said and interpret it from your perspective where I’m exhibiting a “duty” to right reason even as I argue that I do not. I understand your perspective, KF. You don’t understand mine.
Jerry, Duplessis-Mornay, 1579, France. Dutch Declaration of Independence, 1581. Rutherford, author of Lex Rex, was Scottish. The Glorious Revolution brought a Dutch prince to the UK, married to Mary. The 1688-9 Bill of Rights was in that context. The Dutch DoI seems also to have directly influenced the US one. The Wesphpalia settlement also had influences. KF
PS: Wikipedia on Grotius:
By the time of the Glorious Revolution, the die was cast. James was the second Stuart King deposed in 40 years.
Pennsylvania was already established and freedom was progressing in the colonies. People were breaking away from Plymouth Bay and its authoritarian rule. All the Glorious Revolution did was eliminate Catholics as a factor in England for a second time.
What brought freedom to England was the diminution of the monarchy and the rise of parliament that allowed a religious conflict. It was not some document/treatise or the power of a new thinking.
WJM,
Logic, mere facts and the like have no traction absent a more or less intuitive acknowledgement of the first duties of reason. A computer will blindly process, it does not choose to acknowledge force of logical sufficiency, or sense a need to be truthful. Where, precisely, the attempt to object inevitably appeals to the relevant duties. As happens with your clip.
It is agents with power of choice who do such.
Further, it is agents who find their integrity violated when subjected to arbitrary force, precisely as it treats them as less than agents.
KF
Jerry, freedom in the relevant sense was in doubt at the time of that revolution in Britain (the imperial centre) much less its much weaker colonies. KF
In a sense yes because it was not understood that was what was happening. But it was inevitable because of the rise of parliament and the religious conflict.
It was not planned. It happened. No uprising engendered it in England.
PS: 1688/89 Bill of Rights, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
This is considerably more than just a settlement of Catholic issues, and this Bill is in fact still in key parts active. For that matter so are parts of Magna Carta.
Jerry, the Revolution was just that, see https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/glorious-revolution That it was bloodless in the end was a contingent outcome, as many supporters defected from James II. KF
In discussing about free will, some evolutionist defines the verb choose as to select, and defines select as to choose. So then I complain that it is an error of circular logic, where you don’t get to the meaning of choice.
Then all 3 of the evolutionists involved say, words don’t have to be defined in a logical way. They just don’t care if the definition is logical or not.
So in the end, you have to still subjectively appreciate logic. And be disgusted by illogic, and reject it. In the end the subjective spirit rules.
MNY, the voice of conscience is subjectively perceived but testifies to an objective duty. KF
It was mainly bloodless. Many of James family defected. James was an oaf and scared a lot of people with his ideas. What triggered the invitation to William and Mary was the birth of a son.
But the process that led to freedom was a happenstance and had been progressing since the death of Henry VIII. There was no philosophical movement, no documents nor any inevitable set of circumstances. There wasn’t anything like “Common Sense” which really did precipitate the US revolution.
It was a once in a history happenstance that took place in England over a period of 200 years. As I said it wasn’t inevitable but it did change the world like nothing else before it except maybe religion.
An aside. Few ever think where the modern world came from and why. I was one of those people who had heard of the industrial revolution but never under why it happened. Then I read Jonah Goldberg’s book, the Suicide of the West. He said the modern world was due to a once in a history event that happened mainly in England. Then I watched a Great Courses lecture series on the Tudors and Stuart’s. This documented the rise of Parliament and decline of the monarchy in England and the concurrent religious conflicts leading to more freedom to most. This freedom led to the industrial revolution. It happened no where else except in the English colonies.
@Kairosfocus
Duty may be to the love in marriage, happiness, so subjective things.
1. The proper way to investigate these kinds of philosophical arguments, is solely to critically evaluate the definition of words. See that there are no logic errors, like errors of contradiction.
2. Your definitions of subjective and objective are wrong, my definitions are right. Essentially you use a materialist idea of subjectivity, in complaining about it.
3. It is important, on a par with basic reading and writing, basic math, to know the difference between fact and opinion. To make an error about it, leads to errors in all what is built on it, which is much.
Definitions:
choice : to make one of alternative futures the present
spiritual : the substance of what makes a choice
material : the substance of what is chosen
creator : what makes a creation come to be, by choosing it
creation : what is chosen to be, by a creator
opinion : a statement that is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice
fact : statement that is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind
subjective : statements of opinion
objective : statements of fact
Which establishes the creationist conceptual scheme:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / fact
So choice is the mechanism of creation, how a creation originates.
Demonstrating the logic of opinion.
To say a painting is beautiful. The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus chosen, and the opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks. So it identifies a love for the way the painting looks as what made the choice to say the painting is beautiful.
To say someone is a loving person. One feels what emotions are in the heart of that person, and then expresses the feelings by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thereby choosing an opinion on it. In this case the opinion “loving” is chosen.
Evidence may be used for subjective issues, but only in the form of supporting opinions. Not in the form of evidence forcing to a conclusion.
I saw him help a stranger, that was very nice. The opinion it is nice to help the stranger, is in support of the opinion he is a loving person. But one could also have chosen the opinion that it was inappropriate to help the stranger. So it is not evidence forcing to a conclusion, but just freely choosen opinions in support of other freely chosen opinions.
Demonstrating the logic of fact:
To measue the circumference of the moon, it’s mass, what it consists of, the craters on it’s surface, all these facts together provide a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the moon, in the mind.
Jerry, the glorious revolution was triggered by the birth of a son for a king posing a threat. The incident was a case study in the clash between freedom and order, where the issue of rights turned out to be a pivot. Hence, Bill of Rights. Notice how careful the drafters were to highlight them as ancient, there for a long time. Without saying so explicitly, innate. Further to this, lurked the concept of the two covenants, nationhood under God and government under God with consent of the governed. Here, the succession was decided against adherents of the school of theology most — as opposed to solely — associated with absolutism and supremacy of a foreign power [the pope], Catholicism. Ideologies and policy agendas were intertwined with schools of thought within an overarching worldview and ideologies could not be settled by simple discussion, so power balances were in play. All of this led to the recognition (again) that justice must balance duties, freedoms and rights. Where as noted, it was on the table that individuals had built-in rights rooted in what they are as persons. The duty to justice lurks. As to, oh, it’s all an accident vs it’s an inevitable chain of iron forces in action, both are wrong: we are agents with choices, we face opportunities and trends, deep principles lurk and will guide the prudent. Over all, the 2,000 years long comment by Paul at Mars Hill lurks: God uses the hinges of history to stir our hearts and minds to grope for him and his voice of truth and right. In our exchange, the governing duties to truth, to right reason, to warrant [a key aspect of prudence given our error-prone limitations as cognitive agents], and to neighbour lurk just beneath the surface. Indeed, these duties are what give the cold words and principles of logic etc real-world traction; often through the voice or sense of leading of conscience. Which needs to be sound. KF
MNY,
On subjectivity, I am aware that we are all subjects [so, agents with in-built freedom to choose], with bounded, error-prone rationality. This is further limited by our tendency to irrationality in various ways. The challenge of objectivity then arises, to clarify what may be perceived or believed as so (or even what may have been overlooked or doubted or previously rejected) that has good reason to be taken as credibly so.
That challenge is an active one, it is not passively decided.
The property of error or delusion is that it is conditioned by the inner and outer circumstances of a given subject. It is in the end perceived or believed but without due warrant. I here contrast ignorance of what may be yet discovered that would force us to revise the state of our knowledge base or pattern of reasoning. I am using knowledge in the weak sense, warranted, credible [so, so-far reliable] belief. Taken as credibly true enough to be responsibly acted on, but open to clarification, amendment or correction. To err is human, even in what we generally take as knowledge.
Where, to withhold consent from what is well warranted is itself a choice and likely an error. Well warranted, here, can be one person against the world.
That is how powerful it can be, the many can be wrong and the one right, hence part of why freedom of opinion and discussion are key. Compounding, the most persuasive argument, appeal to emotion, is particularly error-prone. 99% of arguments of more serious nature appeal to authority but such are no better than their facts, logic [and so, underlying assumptions and axioms]. So, to the merits of fact and logic we must ever go.
In context, yes opinions are key [and are often perceptual and emotion-laced]. They may or may not guide aright, hence duties of prudence and fairness, so too the duty to neighbour. We must be aware of the potential gaps between emotion, opinion, warrant and truth. On love, romantic sense, we contrast true deep love with superficial infatuation. The latter is usually taken as triggered by immaturity and reaction to surface attractiveness. It is proverbial that women hold that generally, men can see a lot better than they can think. Seduction, triggers emotions and in-built reactions out of control. Infatuation can deepen, but is not a sound guide.
The world of advertising and marketing pivots on extensions of such themes, well aware of how superficial and information overloaded we are in today’s world; hence, how to break through the filters. Agit prop takes this further.
Dangerously further.
Hence, my call to core first duties of reason that are inescapable. Inspect your thoughts and arguments and those of others. Why should we give them credit, or what moves us to be responsive, beyond emotion and blind loyalty to our favoured authorities? The answer comes back, first duties of reason.
Duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness and justice etc.
These breathe fire into cold words and equations. These drive us to examine and assess, or even just to listen or read (especially those we are disinclined to hear out). They drive us to ponder, and maybe even to change our inclinations. They give traction in the real world in ways that manipulation or sheer imposition of power cannot.
Further to this, they are inescapable, the very act of trying to object or sideline is inevitably riddled with lurking appeals to these duties. Attempts to prove them, likewise. Since Epictetus, we have been familiar with this, it is the signature of a first truth, a self-evident first truth. And indeed, Epictetus was speaking to item two on the list:
We are here at root level, hence, first duties. Duties that are therefore law, coeval with our rationality. Duties, that are moral, that morally govern the very act of reasoned thought, much less voiced or written argument. Reason is inextricably intertwined with moral government, something that gradually burned its way into my consciousness as I pondered Cicero in De Legibus on root law, especially as he cited and responded to received authority:
Those words resonated in my mind, forcing me to ponder and with some augmentation and amendment, I was led to see the power of recognising first duties.
KF
Kf,
You keep on missing the point. What happened in England was not inevitable, was not planned, was not part of a movement and definitely was not the result of some ideology written and discussed over time using a set of basic principles. Whatever basic principles appeared evolved not drove what happened. It was not the result of a particular religion, but the result of accommodating conflicting religions. Why you keep on fighting the obvious when it supports your overall thesis is beyond me.
It happened. It was unique in human history . It led to some amazing things. Somehow humanity found a better system by happenstance. And now we want to throw that system away and return to a potential chaotic future.
The class system in England lasted a long time and still persists to some extent. But the breakdown of the strictness of it led to the Industrial Revolution. In the colonies the class system never took hold and innovation accelerated even more.
@Kairosfocus
You are arguing higher level understanding, of how people should live, I am just arguing fundamental understanding of what the logic of fact is, and what the logic of opinion is.
Socialism is caused by people not understanding what emotion / choice / opinion is. It is clear enough when you look at socialist writings, that these are fact obsessed people clueless about emotions, choice, and opinion.
Therefore to get rid of socialism, it is not the point to teach people higher level understanding that they should not murder and oppress, the point is to teach the difference between fact and opinion.
The oppression and murder is a natural consequence of fact obsessed people throwing out emotions.
If the rule is to throw out everything for which there is no objective evidence, and materialists actually say to live by this rule, then by this rule all subjective things are thrown out.
And I notice that you did not actually do the job of systematically defining terms in a logical way, like I did. If you would play by the rules, critically evaluate definitions of terms, then creationism wins.
Because there is no doubt about it that the fundamental categories of creator and creation, perfectly correpond with the categories of all what is subjective, and all what is objective.
Then creationism would be taught in school, because teaching the diference between fact and opinion is already an accepted education goal, and solely creationism explains the difference.
Then creationism wins everything. Academics in it’s entirety, both science and humanities, would be founded on creationism. They would be founded on the concepts of fact and opinion, validated in the creationist conceptual scheme. Total victory for creationism.
Jerry,
I think there is a difference that needs clarification. I had hoped to return to a focus on the Mathematics and worldviews issues but I clearly need to document for record.
I clip from your opening words and comment:
>>What happened in England [c. 1688-9]was not inevitable, >>
– I never have said it was. Agency is the opposite of inevitability, and contingent circumstances at kairos force choices.
– I have pointed out that the rise of printing opened a gateway that fed into the ferment triggered by the Reformation, which was theologically rooted but engaged the full spectrum of cultural agenda across what say the seven mountains model as adapted maps.
– through that ferment, we had rising literacy, circulation of scripture, texts, books, pamphlets, tracts and bills then eventually newspapers and the rise of coffee shops etc as centres for discussion. Such allowed the emergence of a reasonably informed public, which is the mainspring of democratisation.
– that is why I pointed to the window from 1650 to 1787 – 9 (building on 1775 – 6] as the period in which modern constitutional democracy could and did emerge in the anglophone Atlantic world.
>>was not planned,>>
– no one has pointed to a human planner, save emergently and contingently.
>>was not part of a movement>>
– actually, there was a broad movement which has not been given sufficient credit, tied in the first instance to the theology of a double covenant of nationhood and government under God, drawing on scriptural historical patterns and direct statements in esp Ac 17 and Rom 13. Duplessis-Mornay’s widely banned — and widely read — Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos 1579, was pivotal. I excerpt a key summary:
Let me cite Bamberg on the significance:
Within three years, this bore fruit in the first modern Declaration of Independence on charge of tyranny, the Dutch DoI under William the Silent of Orange, 1581 — a document and context admitted as studied and directly ancestral to the US DoI and indeed to the 1688 Bill of Rights under the second noteworthy William of Orange, husband of Mary daughter of James II:
– so, no, there was a theological and ideological framework coming from the Calvinist and Arminian world of theological analysis, answering to Absolutism and framing how transparency, rights, mutual duties and justice frame sound, lawful liberty.
>>and definitely was not the result of some ideology written and discussed over time using a set of basic principles.>>
– I have sketched out a slice of relevant ideology, considered here as worldviews rooted, cultural and policy agenda framed expression of a theology. A theology rooted in sacred history.
– the basic principles are the double covenant view of nationhood and government under God further set in context of duties of justice and sound law, with the underlying theme that though fallen, we are all made of one blood in God’s image, with accountable agency.
>>Whatever basic principles appeared evolved>>
– basic principles coeval with our humanity are recognised, they do not evolve. Recognition is obviously partial and subject to further development in our understanding.
– in the case of the first duties of reason, I point to recognition in Cicero, with significant partial endorsement in Paul in Rom 2 and 13. Cicero points to a summary of received thought already ancient in his day, as I just excerpted to MNY:
– Paul writes:
– Neighbour love is the pivot of justice. That’s how we come to Locke in his reflections on/justification of the principles drawn out in the Glorious Revolution, in a key cite from Hooker, which I extend:
– such principles are longstanding but were then in a position to enable motion beyond oligarchy with ever immediate danger of lawless tyranny.
– ties to the first duties are obvious.
>>not drove what happened. >>
– principles are inert, it is agents sensing duties who breathe fire into them.
>>It was not the result of a particular religion, but the result of accommodating conflicting religions.>>
– Both Catholicism and Protestantism are legitimate expressions of the Christian Faith, as is Orthodoxy. They have their warts and all, and the history of Christendom is a mixed blessing, but this is a debate in the main across competing theological perspectives with broader principles associated.
– The clash of diverse views leading to some sort of settlement is a common theme of history. Often the hardness of hearts means the settlement is far from ideal.
I trust, my concerns and citations noted for record will be enough to show why I think they need to be reckoned with.
KF
Folks, Mathematics is pivotal as an example of a realm beyond the mundane that also pervades our experiences. In my reflections, I was led to infer that we start by recognising that as a discipline, Mathematics studies the logic of structure and quantity, which in turn is rooted in certain features of distinct being that show a core that is framework to any possible world. That starts with the natural numbers and extends across N,Z,Q,R,C,R* and onward into relationships and structures. We also see traffic the other way, day to day experiences or explorations suggest mathematical facts or structures that we can tease out. Latterly, computers allow powerful extensions of that. Beyond, axiomatic systems spin out logic model worlds that can be useful analogues to our world in certain aspects. However, they also can point to framework entities necessary to existence of any possible world which are universal across actuality and possibility. These two factors point to the power of math in our world. KF
Jerry, are you around? I trust things are well with you. KF
Kf,
I’m fine. Posted yesterday on C19 thread. On Monday my wife and I were driving all over northern New Hampshire. The White Mountains are very white this time of year and while not the Rockies or Sierras are splendid. I have my own small business so have the freedom to roam when I want.
Relative to this thread you can read for free on Amazon the introduction to Dalrymple and Francis’s book on existence. It’s relevant to your thesis. The book is a series of essays that are often obtuse. But the short introductions are very clear.
The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd
https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Existence-Ecclesiastes-Theatre-Absurd-ebook/dp/B07JRGHCB3/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Dalrymple+Francis+existence&qid=1611750670&sr=8-1
Denyse had recommended it on some thread recently.
Here is the UD page for the book by Dalrymple and Francis.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theodore-dalrymple-and-ken-francis-on-the-terror-of-a-naturalists-existence/#google_vignette
Generated little response 15 months ago.
Jerry,
I found a key clip from the opening sample, from Mr Dalrymple’s Introduction:
Of course, we by now readily discern the first duties in play, at both the author’s level and that of those he remarks on. Indeed, we hear the echo of hyperskeptical professors and behind them the philosophers who spun up this drunk web like spiders, out of their own substance.
The demand for absolute justification on pain of nihilism is a twisted form of duty to truth and right reason, with a perverted demand for warrant. The key diagnosis is failure of prudence, due to poor epistemology and lack of understanding of worldviews. The intent is of course selective, to undermine the received Judaeo-Christian legacy. One hardly ever sees the latest popular speculations on Science or on policies promulgated while wearing the lab coat challenged like that.
The selectivity is at once fatal, as scientific explanations and policy rationales face the iron force of the pessimistic induction and can never amount to moral certainty. At best, the advocates of the latter struggle to build a critical mass of support and to often resort to agit prop and lawfare. As for science, the very existence of multiple revolutions, especially in Physics, speaks. Decisively. Scientific models in tested domains may make adequate predictions, but that just gets us to empirical reliability. And in too many worldview, culture agenda and policy shaping contexts, even that is not achieved.
Back to Epictetus, who taught our civilisation a sharp lesson in a short exchange:
Here we find something that is both inescapable and by how that inescapability arises, antecedent to inferential argument, “proof” or warrant. If such is regarded as dubious, nothing further has any basis. So, we see inescapably, certainly true, worthy of trust, indeed self evident. The silence of the man who raised the matter is proof enough of the recognised, patent absurdity of his view. Apparently, he hoped to champion it, for he resorted to silence not gratitude.
This is precisely what we see today, sadly.
However, we see here a paradigm of warrant: inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident.
Now, refocus the “Ciceronian” seven first duties of reason: to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant and recognition of our limits!], to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice, etc.
Inescapable, even in the speech or writing of objectors. The attempt to justify and that to object, alike, are inevitably inextricably entangled with these appeals to duty. That is, we literally cannot prove or disprove as such attempts already turn on them; a sure sign of a first truth. So too, “Epictetusian” self-evident. That’s easy enough, indeed right reason is the case Epictetus highlighted and it is a microcosm of the wider whole, a facet flashing from the contributions of the others and in turn contributing to them.
That’s not hard to see, save to those determined on epistemic and axiological nihilism.
Are they hopelessly abstract, too remote to be practically relevant?
If that were so, why do we so readily detect them in concrete cases, even in objections? No, they are directly practical and highly instructive. Indeed, they help us reconstruct sound bodies of knowledge and best practice. Which seems to be the real problem, one man’s reformation is the next man’s threat or rebuke so he will resort to any culturally acceptable clubs, to strike back or ward off the threat.
Let us now re-open our thinking and let us move to sound reformation.
KF
PS: On the pessimistic induction, PI: http://philsci-archive.pitt.ed.....lacies.pdf
Wiki gives a bit of an overview:
The point is, we have a track record that grand scientific explanations have been successively replaced and run into sharp limits. The fate of classical modern physics 100 years past haunts us, after it overthrew the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic view.
What is far more certain is observed empirical accuracy, though of course there is the issue of gamut shown by the rise of quantum and relativity. So, what we have is models that at best are reliable in a tested gamut. That, we can be morally certain of, without going beyond the modesty of a model to the far stronger claim of truth, near truth or fact. Models are useful fictions. That is good enough for government work and courts of law.
For real certainty we must look to self evidence, core logic and the power of necessary being, as has been on the table about core math. Which, let us note, inveterate objectors have typically adroitly side-stepped.
Aha, a sign of an Epicctetusian moment of truth, by way of a Wilson, Art of Rhetorique side-step. (Since c 180 ad, they learned how to move on beyond embarrassed silence.)
A telling sign.
TEST, getting inconsistencies. KF
This is what we see here constantly. Anti ID people lose their arguments based on logic and evidence constantly. What do the do? They slink off to divert, distract and nitpick somewhere else. Best argument for ID I know of.
Aside: Kf, I will say this about your writing style which is unique. It is succinct and verbose at the same time. You talk in code interspersed in hundreds sometimes thousands of words. It is difficult to understand just what you are saying. Either it is so condensed or full of repetitious arguments.
I have to read it several times to understand what you are trying to say so that I more often than not don’t read most of what you say. Case in point is your last two posts which are actually relatively short for you.
The essence of the Dalrymple and Francis book is that if their is no God who created us for a reason, then the world is an absurd one.
For this Christmas I ordered a hard cover of a book for my son that was recommended as one of the best books ever written and the author is alive and relatively young. A pdf version exists so I started to read parts of it to see why it was so highly recommended. In it this author said life was meaningless. He had a good philosophy of treatment of others but essentially was vapid on why. I never gave the book and actually got my money back from Amazon.
Example of dense statement
Such a statement should be a discussion all in itself. But in less coded compactness.
I maintain that the circumstances that lead to the sentiments in your comment are by design. If it was clear just what everyone was to do, it would be a meaningless world. We would be automatons all doing the same thing. But we are not certain nor can we be certain so we explore one option after the other.
So the best reasoned arguments will have little effect on what you call the hyper skeptics. They are not hear to learn or understand. The hyper skeptics are driven by something else. One time a couple years ago I brought this up and your response was an extremely long reply trying to show why a God was logically correct. My reply was it was wasted on me because I already believe in such a God but it would have zero effect on any of the skeptics here.
I’m a believer in Leibniz’s best of all possible worlds. So one has to understand why a world that appears hopelessly imperfect is perfect. Voltaire couldn’t fathom it so we got Candide to mock Leibniz. I like to call it the “perfect imperfect.” Maybe it should be called the “the perfect apparently imperfect.”
Given that this is true, what are the implications for our world?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds
Jerry,
I don’t really want to get into a secondary exchange but must note that seriously technical issues are on the table that cannot be skimmed in bits and pieces. Those issues, unfortunately are at the heart of how our civilisation is going wrong.
Let me expand a little on your clipped, which in turn takes up a theme in the clip from Dalrymple:
Now, yes, such is compressed, pointing from Mr Dalrymple’s summary to a world of related themes and consequences. Those themes raise technicalities that also speak to dynamics that can wreck our civilisation. The issue is pretty much as the situation of the navigator in Plato’s ship of state parable. (I have posted it here several times, but to do so would invite oh that’s too long, please use Google.)
And no, explanation would run afoul of the demand to be short. Catch 22.
KF
F/N, o/t, back on the HCQ front. Not for a side track. Note also significance of fresh air vs re-infusion of viri here https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext Then there is a facebook appeal linked https://oversightboard.com/news/325131635492891-oversight-board-overturns-facebook-decision-case-2020-006-fb-fbr/ KF
Kf,
You are pointing out that the anti ID people who come here are at best disingenuous and probably a lot worse psychologically. They cannot accept any reasonable argument. So why debate them?
The only reason to comment here if one is honest intellectually is to learn something from others. I found this is a good place to actually learn and understand science and technology. I have recently been commenting here after years of just an occasional sporadic comment because I was interested in learning about the virus. I learned essentially everything I needed to know about ID years ago.
So I ask questions of which few are answered by any anti ID person. Their failure to provide an honest answer is telling whether it is about ID or the basics of human nature.
But also to clarify my own thoughts and keep a record of them. So I sometimes go on just to provide a record for myself. That is what I am doing on the current virus site and to a little less on this and other sites you set up about politics.
You have some very good ideas but they are hard to assimilate because trying to understand just what you are saying is difficult.
By the way Dalrymple has written a treatise on how disingenuous Biden and the Democrats are about racial equality. I don’t have the link handy but will try and find it.
Dalrymple article
https://www.theepochtimes.com/racial-equity-equality-and-the-bureaucrats-charter_3671037.html?utm_source=partner
An Australian laments his country would last about 48 hours in a Biden world if it were attacked. They don’t know how to grow food any more.
https://www.bookwormroom.com/2021/01/27/every-nation-should-learn-australias-lessons/
Will Trump’s new slogan resonate with Americans
Jerry/170
Anyone who actually believes that Australia doesn’t know how to grow food any more just Google “Australia agriculture” and see if you think that is in any way an accurate statement.
Anything Trump says that panders to the prejudices of his predominantly white nationalist base will resonate. Fortunately, in spite of what they might fantasize, they are not the whole of America, they are not even half of it.
We just did. We got rid of Trump.
Jerry,
I see: why debate them?
Nazism, Marxism and Communism were very bad ideas, but energised ideologies that came to dominate countries and set almost ruinous challenges to the world. We were lucky to get out of C20 with only two cities burned by nukes.
There is need to address, expose and correct, per warrant, so that bad ideas and worse tactics will stand exposed. Once that has been done, we can then point to the corrective and duly note the irrationality of those who continue to attack attack attack.
Unfortunately, Marxism is rearing its head again, and has very persuasive but ultimately ruinous counsels.
KF
PS: I note, my comment on Ac 27 as a key case study and lesson, where someone needed to stand, lose an election, and wait to be the good man in a storm (but by then, needless, ruinous damage was inevitable . . . due to insistence on voyage of folly):
I’m not arguing against stating one’s position. I am arguing that one only respond to valid and sincere comments.
I am arguing against responding to inane/disingenuous comments. That is who shouldn’t be addressed.
Jerry, at some level such have to be reasonably shown invalid or they become a platform for building a perceived case for dismissing the original OP etc as somehow refuted. I add, we are in a day where apology is treated as confession of indelible guilt to be used as a perpetual club, and where retreat into dignified silence is treated as implicit concession of defeat to be swarmed down on then by drumbeat repetition twisted into perceived fact. That is agit prop not civil discourse but even that needs to be pointed out. We saw where attempts were made to drag a thread on something immediately shown inescapable so self evident, into toxic debates. When those were declined as side tracked there were attempts to treat the side tracks as rhetorical disproofs. We had to point out such were already addressed. Then when the least toxic was taken up cross thread, it was necessary to show a natural law argument. The way in which that was ducked then twisted into a strawman caricature then provided the basis for showing the objections to be without serious weight on merits and to be a gateway into ever more toxic side tracks. Recall, along the way the objectors tried the Wilson Art of Rhetorique stunt of side stepping and ignoring demonstrations of how their own objections could not but pivot on the first duties of reason. That having been shown on record, it can now be used to document the problem onward. It is almost amusing to see an objector string out accusations of creating echo chambers and using selective censorship . . . on a case of an update related bug several people struggled with . . . but then it is sad. KF
Some rather accurate quips by Senator Kennedy of Louisiana
Dead thread but Jordan Peterson is commenting on debacle on teaching math and racism
https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1363641727479812096
New book out soon. Will he address math education?
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Order-More-Rules-Life/dp/0593084640/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=12+rules+for+life&qid=1613669904&sprefix=12+Rules+&sr=8-4