Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What is the “Platonic Realm”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In an ongoing discussion with hazel and others in another thread, some agreement has been reached that conceptual elements of mathematics (and in a related relationship, geometry) are things we discover rather than invent, such as circles and their mathematical properties.

That discussion, IMO, could benefit by discussing what is meant by the term “Platonic Realm”. It seems to me that this issue turns on a very simple question; do we live in a universe that is matter-centric or consciousness-centric? What is the primary, driving force of the physical universe – mind or matter?

IMO, quantum experimentation over the past 150 or so years makes the case that consciousness/mind is at least one of the fundamental aspects of even material existence. When we peer down into the subatomic realm, we do not find indivisible bits of matter; we don’t even find motes of “energy” that have objective characteristics. What we find are potentials that seem to be directly connected to and affected by consciousness and observation.

It seems rather simple to me to understand this in terms of the Platonic Realm being, in fact, the substrate upon which the physical world is built, and that is the reason the physical world reveals logical principles and mathematical behaviors wherever we look. If our minds/consciousness exist independent of matter within and as part of that platonic substrate, we have access to all sorts of Platonic Realm information, some of which we may not even know how it is applicable to or manifests in our physical world experience yet.

I don’t know of any “matter-centric” perspectives that can model-explain these discoveries and relationships. Perhaps someone would like to try?

[Again – I have zero tolerance for mocking, insinuations, examining motivations, etc. in my threads. I don’t claim to be fair about my moderation practices, so complaints about it will be deleted. Tread lightly, be FRIENDLY, if you can’t respond without sniping then don’t, show respect. We are discussing a topic, not trying to find out what’s wrong with the participants. – WJM]


Comments
M62, please see above from WJM and in my exchange with him. KFkairosfocus
December 30, 2018
December
12
Dec
30
30
2018
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT
KF: The delusion I spoke to is the perception of a physical world that simply would not be there save as a Matrix-like narrative. Please explain.mike1962
December 29, 2018
December
12
Dec
29
29
2018
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
[removed]hazel
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
[removed]hazel
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
[removed]hazel
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
[removed]hazel
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
[removed]hazel
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
M62 & Hazel, for Q-mech we have the correspondence principle, i.e. as scale gets big enough the classical picture emerges. As it would have to to have been accepted, the classical picture is extremely reliable at relevant scale. The delusion I spoke to is the perception of a physical world that simply would not be there save as a Matrix-like narrative. The latter is very different. KF PS: I see new livery without comment numbers or an edit window. Is that the common experience or is it my browser and its settings?kairosfocus
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
[removed]hazel
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: If those perceptions etc amount to grand delusion, there is no point to trying to reason. It's not a delusion in the sense that it doesn't exist or isn't regular enough to provide a framework where stable objects and rational brains can exist, whether you think matter is "real", having an independent existence, or "virtual", dependent on something that "generates" it at every moment. The universe does exist with some kind of nature, it's only a delusion only insofar as we don't understand it's nature. That's the case regardless of the universe's nature. Was humankind deluded before we discovered that quantum particles have strange "ghostly" and non-local features- features that are impossible to actually imagine in one's mind, and only approachable using abstract equations by learned mathemeticians and physicists? (And there are still many unanswered questions about its nature.) If that's true, then the average person is operating under delusion at every second, because the average person has no idea how unlike the subatomic realm is compared to their common sense perceptions and ideas. Learning that the universe is a virtual reality would make it no more a delusion than discovering all the unimaginable weirdness about the quantum world makes it a delusion. It would simply be one more step toward understanding the universe's nature.mike1962
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
WJM, there is enough that the onlooker can see why we take different views. KFkairosfocus
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
KF: From my perspective, I've sufficiently addressed those concerns and rebutted your criticisms so far. When and if you provide a new concern or criticism, I'll respond to that. If you don't understand something about how I've addressed your concerns or rebutted your criticisms, let me know and I'll be happy to explain further.William J Murray
December 26, 2018
December
12
Dec
26
26
2018
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
WJM, no. This is comparative difficulties on a start-point of reasoning. Absent a credible mind and senses, we have no basis for responsible rational thought. We clearly and collectively experience a physical world. If those perceptions etc amount to grand delusion, there is no point to trying to reason. And if we collectively have so big a mistake, grand delusion along the lines of Plato's Cave or the modern take, the matrix, is what we are indeed looking at. There is by contrast no good reason not to start from the stance that takes our common experience seriously instead, which leaves enough credibility on the table to discuss. Where for instance we see that Mathematics is in core part present in any world, and we may use possible worlds frames to discuss. Enjoy the rest of Christmas Day, KFkairosfocus
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
KF, 1st, we both know that is argumentum ad consequentiam, which is a logical fallacy. Just because the consequences are undesirable doesn't mean my argument is faulty. Also, just because consequences are preferred doesn't mean an argument for the existence of an external material world is good. You might have a point if the consequences of a platonic existence necessarily undermined the value and validity of rational thought, but that is simply not the case. 2nd, I haven't implied any grand delusion. It is a false dichotomy to say there is either an actual physical world external to our senses, or we are having a delusion. We simply could be in error about one of the fundamental assumptions about our existence. 3rd, you say "there are no firewalls in mindedness" against self-delusion. That couldn't be any more wrong IMO; the only firewalls that exist against self-delusion are in mindedness - and they're called proper critical thought. No such firewalls are even proposed to exist in the supposed external physical world and even if they did, the only way we could experience them is in our mind. Now, I understand your concerns about self-delusion, but I think they are misplaced. I also think you may be operating under the assumption that I'm talking about an individual's mind. I am not. If platonic forms and values are real and universal, then they occupy a mental landscape within which our consciousness resides and which can access those things by turning our attention to those aspects of mind. Other people would simply be other consciousnesses residing in mind. It is inappropriate under the platonic existence paradigm to call the experience of a consistent, consensual physicality an "illusion" or a "simulation"; those terms would only apply from a external world paradigm. Please note my #3: "Assuming there can be a proper theory of mind..." A proper theory of mind would categorize various kinds of experience. One of those categories of experience would be "consistent, consensual physicality". Under this paradigm, "physicality" doesn't imply matter any more than the experience of physicality in a dream would imply matter was involved. Dreams, of course, would be a different category of experience - inconsistent, non-consensual, semi-physicality, for example. Imagination, for the most part, would be inconsistent, non-consensual, non-physical experience. Just from that simple beginning, we can see that it is not true that it would be a case of "external material world" vs "self-referential absurdity". It would simply be a different and more meaningfully defined categorization process that would include other forms of experience as well. Under a proper theory of mind, we will lose nothing but an utterly useless and most likely detrimental paradigm that is a monumental defiance of Occam's Razor.William J Murray
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
PS: Locke, too, is instructive:
[Essay on Human Understanding, Intro, Sec 5:] Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
kairosfocus
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
PS: I think Feser's lecture is also somehow relevant: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/feser-and-ross-on-the-immateriality-of-the-mind/ -- there is sufficient essential difference between the characteristics of mind and matter to take them both as distinct though interacting categories of reality. The world of the life of the mind and that of the embodied existence are both worth taking seriously. And of course, tonight, we ponder Incarnation.kairosfocus
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
WJM, Pardon a short summary. I suggest, we are not locked into a form of the Kantian ugly gulch. As F H Bradley long since noted, s/he who imagines that the world of things in themselves is utterly unknowable has already implied a major knowledge claim about that reality beyond the gulch; its alleged un-knowability. Going further, we can freely take any model of our reality that implies a grand delusion as self-stultifying as there are no fire-walls in mindedness. That's a species of implosive self-referential undermining of the senses, experiences, rational reflections etc that we must use to ponder reality credibly. It is reasonable instead to accept the testimony of our senses [including how often we are surprised or even dumbfounded] and reflections thereupon as well as the community of our fellows that we live in, perceive and are part of an actual physical world rather than a grand simulation of some sort. So, we see yet again an exercise in comparative difficulties and the wisdom in say Thomas Reid's policy of common sense realism with recognition that when we are warranted to conclude we have an error, we will acknowledge it; rather that resorting to global hyperskepticism about external experienced reality. Which is also exceedingly fine grained and comprehensive beyond the sort of pocket cosmos most plausible on some sort of Boltzmann brain delusional world. Beyond, on ethical theism, it is reasonable to see that our senses are acting in an environment they were created for by One who is Truth himself, and would not systematically reduce us to grand delusion. KFkairosfocus
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
kf said:
However, that does not compel one to the further view that experience and particularly perceptions and propositions cannot accurately relate to a physical, external world or to external persons, etc. KF
I'll accept that it is a bare possibility that by blind chance we might be making an accurate correlation to some actual external reality should it exist, but that chance is incalculable and absolutely blind and we would have absolutely no way of verifying it. So, I changed #7 to say: Given 6, restricting thought, investigation, research and examination according to the paradigm that it is **about** an external world would [almost] necessarily be an inaccurate process because the external world is necessarily, completely inaccessible to us. Can you tell me how (or if) we can verify the accuracy of any observation, test or experiment on anything other than mental experience?William J Murray
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
You opted out, hazel. Don't post in this thread.hazel
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
wjm, you write, "If you do not accept that all experience occurs in the mind, fine. Cease contributing to this part of the discussion." I think I had some reasonable points to make about your premise in my post, but if the only acceptable comments in this thread are ones that accept your premise, I'll opt out of the pool.hazel
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
WJM, the concept of self-evidence is yet another gap in our education, alongside logic of being (aka ontology). Things are self evident indeed if to one who (on experience of the world and due reflection) correctly understands what is said it is and must be true. This, on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial. One can lack the experience and due reflection it takes to recognise that a SET is so, and one may be motivated to evade its force or even to cling to absurdity. That said, that experience is a phenomenon of mind is of the order that it is impossible to be in error that one is conscious. Experience is a major process of conscious existence. However, that does not compel one to the further view that experience and particularly perceptions and propositions cannot accurately relate to a physical, external world or to external persons, etc. KFkairosfocus
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
hazel, I'll reserve commenting further until you decide if you are in or out of the pool.William J Murray
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
hazel @32: If you're not particularly in discussing the philosophy of the mind, and this thread by it's nature IS about philosophies concerning the mind (platonic realm), then don't. Please either get in the pool or get out. As far asking for someone to support a self-evident truth, that is not the nature of self-evident truths. You cannot support them. If they require support, they are not self-evident. 2nd, it is not necessary for a thing to be completely defined or known in order to make qualitative statements about that thing. If that were true, we wouldn't be able to make qualitative statements about virtually anything. One can quibble meaning and semantics endlessly. "It depends on what your definition of "is" is," to quote a famous term-quibbler. If you do not accept that all experience occurs in the mind, fine. Cease contributing to this part of the discussion.William J Murray
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Earlier JAD wrote,
However, we don’t find the same logically conclusive stepping stones in metaphysics that we do in the axioms and postulates of mathematics. I don’t think any metaphysical system can really claim that.
I replied that I agreed with that sentence. And in an earlier thread, someone (maybe me?) said that in such cases the beginning premise was likely to be just as uncertain and problematic as the conclusions that were supposedly reached. I think wjm illustrates this when he writes,
Let me propose a self-evident truth: 1. All experience occurs in the mind. Once one understands what that sentence means, it is self-evidently true. Let’s move on.
I really don't see how wjm can establish this as self-evidently true just by saying "once one understands what that sentence means", and moving on. First of all, he references "mind" in the premise, including whatever unstated qualities it has, and then concludes that the "platonic/mind-existence metaphysical model is clearly the only logically-supported and logic-based perspective." But it seems to me that he has "logically supported" his conclusion by assuming a great deal about mind and the world in his beginning premise. My interest here is primarily in the logical structure of math, and (although I haven't discussed this as much) the application of mathematical models to the physical world. But I am interested, in support of JAD's quote above, in people not misusing the mathematical notion of logical conclusions following from beginning axioms. So, to me, not only is wjm's beginning premise not self-evident, I'm not sure what it even means. By in the mind, does he mean "conscious experience?" If so, does his premise mean "all experience occurs in our conscious experience"? Does this mean "all we are conscious of is what we are conscious of"? That doesn't seem very meaningful. Or is the mind more than consciousness? Until a moment ago I was not thinking about the fact that 7 * 8 = 56, nor a bit later was I remembering Christmas mornings with my grandmother when I was little. Were those things "in my mind" but not in my consciousness before I thought them? How do I know? I'm not particularly interested in discussing the philosophy of mind: my main point in posting is that wjm's premise #1 seems far from self-evident to me, especially since he dismisses supporting it with the phrase "once one understands what that sentence means" without explaining what he means. Later he writes,
3. Assuming there can be a proper theory of mind that accounts for all kinds of mental experience (which includes all possible experiences), the framework of an external world becomes useless and without any value (other than habitual convenience).
That's a big assumption: I have no idea what a "proper theory of mind" could be that would make it useless to believe an external world exists. This seems like solipsism to me: one can't argue against it, but I see no reason to believe it.hazel
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
JAD @27:
First, I am not the cause of my own existence. (That’s logically self-refuting.)
That doesn't mean you were caused to exist, though.
Second, I am conscious of a spatial-temporal world around me that I did not create.
Well, I'll give you that you don't remember creating it, but I think a more proper phrasing would be: "I'm conscious of what appears to be a spatial temporal world around me that I do not remember creating.
Third, I am conscious that there are things that exist independently of me.
Perhaps: "I am conscious that there are things that appear to exist independently of me.
Fourth, I have the logical ability (a mind,) along with the need and desire to try to explain the world around me.
"Fourth, I have the logical ability (a mind,) along with the need and desire to try to characterize this experience in a meaningful and useful way."
Fifth, I am conscious of other conscious beings, like other humans and animals.
"Fifth, I am conscious of what appears to be other conscious beings, like other humans and animals." I don't think we have direct experience of any other consciousness.
I would argue that these are properly basic beliefs. I don’t really need to prove any of them. Does anyone really doubt any of the inferences I have made above?
I would argue that these are very useful beliefs, but "properly basic"? My answer to that would be: absolutely not. I not only doubt them; I wholeheartedly reject them. Also, the beliefs as you stated (1) cannot be proven, whether you need to or not, and (2) cannot even be logically supported. JAD @15
However, we don’t find the same logically conclusive stepping stones in metaphysics that we do in the axioms and postulates of mathematics. I don’t think any metaphysical system can really claim that.
Hmmm... sounds like a challenge. Let me propose a self-evident truth: 1. All experience occurs in the mind. Once one understands what that sentence means, it is self-evidently true. Let's move on. 2. The framework of an external world independent of mind is a conceptual model we use to separate one set of mental experiences from others. That's pretty inescapable, given #1. 3. Assuming there can be a proper theory of mind that accounts for all kinds of mental experience (which includes all possible experiences), the framework of an external world becomes useless and without any value (other than habitual convenience). 4. On comparables (to employ KF's very useful model of worldview criticism), the external model is utterly worthless, given 1-3 above and would account for all experience and experiential patterns. 5. Given 1-4, even if there was actually an external world, it would be a worthless and meaningless consideration. 6. The only thing we can possibly be researching, examining and investigating are our own mental experiences, even if they are connected to some actual, external world. 7. Given 6, restricting thought, investigation, research and examination according to the paradigm that it is **about** an external world would [almost] necessarily be an inaccurate process because the external world is necessarily, completely inaccessible to us. Given the above, it is (IMO) highly likely that, because of our improper view, we are employing a skewed methodology, limiting theoretical and explanatory potentials, and blanketing the entire system with unsupportable and useless biases. I think the platonic/mind-existence metaphysical model is clearly the only logically-supported and logic-based perspective, and is the only model that can seamlessly incorporate the existence and experience of platonic values AND the experience of a physical world AND account for the utter lack of "matter" found in that experience AND account for quantum physics research, the existence of virtually infinite information and potential present in all forms of experience, etc.William J Murray
December 25, 2018
December
12
Dec
25
25
2018
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
MG, yes, WJM is giving a C21 version, drawing out his view that the "stuff" of the cosmos is mind. From my view, there is a mind that undergirds reality and gave its laws force. Though, certain things are necessary aspects of any world -- tracing to the distinct identity for a world to be. That this world is spatial brings out a host of connected structure and quantity too. Along the way, vectors makes powerful sense of complex numbers, leading to huge, deep connexions of structure and quantity. An inherently abstract and logical discipline that is necessary for science and which traffics in real but abstract, world shaping entities is just plain spooky. Appropriate for Christmas Eve. God bless all at this season. KFkairosfocus
December 24, 2018
December
12
Dec
24
24
2018
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
I curious: what posters are you referring to?hazel
December 24, 2018
December
12
Dec
24
24
2018
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
I find it interesting that none of the usual defenders of A-mat have deigned to reply to this thread (or its predecessor). Although WJM's post (at 6 above) is embellished by modern physics, it is really just a 21st century rendition of the Allegory of the Cave.math guy
December 24, 2018
December
12
Dec
24
24
2018
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Earlier @ 15 I wrote:
Nevertheless, I think starting with the fact of one’s own conscious experience of one’s own existence is a logical place to begin ontologically.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-is-the-platonic-realm/#comment-670131 So what can I be sure of beginning with my experience of my own conscious existence? To start off I think there are at least five things:
First, I am not the cause of my own existence. (That’s logically self-refuting.) Second, I am conscious of a spatial-temporal world around me that I did not create. Third, I am conscious that there are things that exist independently of me. Fourth, I have the logical ability (a mind,) along with the need and desire to try to explain the world around me. Fifth, I am conscious of other conscious beings, like other humans and animals. (I am not claiming this is an exhaustive list.)
I would argue that these are properly basic beliefs. I don’t really need to prove any of them. Does anyone really doubt any of the inferences I have made above? Yes, I realize that there are skeptics who would challenge some or all of these assumptions but I would counter that skepticism is something that we learn, not something we start out with in life. For example, Daniel Dennett has argued that consciousness is an illusion. Does anyone really believe that? Does Dennett really believe that? I contend that he would not be able to make it through life it he really did. (Besides that it’s logically self-refuting.) A couple weeks ago I had a real life every day experience which illustrated to me how deeply we hold these beliefs. I had some dishes piled up in the sink which needed to be washed. So I decided to wash them up that afternoon… However, when I went to grab the bottle of detergent it wasn’t where I usually kept it. No problem I just probably put it in the cupboard under the sink. It wasn’t there either. I then began to look in other locations where I could have absent mindedly have placed it… I spent at least the next fifteen to twenty minutes looking for that missing bottle of dish detergent. It was nowhere. I was mystified. Bottles of dish washing detergent just don’t disappear. But, I decided that I would have to move onto other chores… Fortunately, there is a corner “dollar” store in close walking distance from where I live. I resigned myself to the fact I would have to go out later and purchase another bottle of detergent. Okay, no big deal. However, I continued to obsess over the missing bottle. Again, bottles of dish washing detergent just don’t disappear. That’s when I asked myself a logical question: had anything different happened that day? Then it hit me, ‘Yes!’ I had my hot water heater replaced that morning. Where was hot water heater located? In a closet right off my kitchen. Then I remembered they had to remove some shelving to install it. I had several household items on the shelves which the installers had removed and placed on the kitchen counter. I then slapped my palm to my forward, ‘of course.’ I went to closet and there very neatly lined up at the end on the top shelf was the missing bottle of detergent. They had accidently grabbed the bottle when they were replacing the other items. (I appreciate they put everything back so neatly.) Does anyone really need to be convinced that physical things just don’t magically disappear? PS I do, however, continue to have a problem with disappearing socks. More than once after doing my laundry I have discovered that one of my socks-- either the left or the right of a pair-- have disappeared. Does anyone else have that problem?john_a_designer
December 23, 2018
December
12
Dec
23
23
2018
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
And here I thought that "the Platonic realm" was an older term for what we now call "the friend zone."EvilSnack
December 22, 2018
December
12
Dec
22
22
2018
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply