L&FP, 56: Can we invent or define a nine-sided hexagon?

_{kairosfocus

June 11, 2022

Control vs Anarchy, Logic and Reason, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

One of the many fundamental errors of nominalism is to confuse labels with logic of being substance.

To clarify the matter, let us ponder:

As was noted in the ongoing defending thread:

KF, 839: As a start point for rethinking, please, show us a nine sided hexagon.
(What, you can’t, isn’t the term hexagon just a word we can apply as we please, rewriting the dictionary at will, there is no such thing as a nature so there is no difference. So, on such radical nominalism, there is no difference between truth and error, truthfulness and willful deceit, justice and injustice, male and female, knowledge and myth, indoctrination and education, acquitting the innocent and knowingly condemning such, sound policing and the gestapo. See the nihilistic pattern?)

Believe it or not, there are many otherwise vexed issues that resolve themselves once we recognise this issue. END

Comments

No, actually I'd lump religious fantasy, political fantasy, and philosophical fantasy and others together with social fantasy. That's not at all to say that all science, all religion, all politics, all philosophy, and all judicial thinking is fantasy. It's also not to limit fantasy only to those areas. There are many other fantasies that involve sex, wealth, fame, significance, racial and ethnic superiority, etc. However, our current narrative strongly nurtures a wide range of fantasies and attempts to keep the consequences separate from the fantasies that cause them. And when fantasy collides with reality, we observe mental breakdowns, addictions, suicides, riots, violent behaviors, and other pathological behaviors that ultimately destroy the people who entertain them. Consider this report: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/27/1021373104/more-children-are-dying-by-suicide-recently-study-shows -QQuerius_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic/124
Dr Kevin Vost was an atheist for 25 years and then he became a Christian. He reflects here on how universals are evidence of the existence of a soul in human life
I note that, according to one reference, Dr Vost was raised a Catholic, became atheist in his teens and returned to Catholicism in his forties. In other words, this was a not so much a conversion as a reversion.Seversky_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

I think Querius missed out the religious fantasy, the belief that this vast Universe was created ultimately to house us and we are creatures of its Designer who has nothing but our best interests at heart. We are the Chosen Ones. We also have evidence from history of where that kind of thinking can lead.Seversky_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Dr Kevin Vost was an atheist for 25 years and then he became a Christian. He reflects here on how universals are evidence of the existence of a soul in human life: Proof We Have a Soul! (Aquinas) w/ Dr. Kevin Vost https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwJpRkXns8ASilver Asiatic_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Thanks Querius. Yes, I think those fantasies you mention are the basis for utopian-thinking with misplaced trust in these various things, especially science.Silver Asiatic_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

I concur with Silver Asiatic on Kairosfocus' great observations in @116! We're suffering from science fantasy, social fantasy, and judicial fantasy travelling on a road paved with good intentions in the "Quest for Cosmic Justice" as Thomas Sowell famously noted. And we once all knew where that road leads. -QQuerius_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

SA, oddly, scientism is self referentially incoherent for if science is the only credible source of knowledge, that is an epistemological claim. Emotive manipulation and blind appeal to authority also fail. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Jerry, the example is very real and establishes the point on what is undeniable. One counter example shatters a claimed general truth. KF PS, reduction to absurdity, last I checked, is still a perfectly valid argument form. After this, nominalism in general is broken. We have to take logic of being, core characteristics, distinctives and distinctions seriously. So that despite difficulties, justice is not injustice. And the concrete case on the table is the judicial murder of Milada Horakova.kairosfocus_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

why the harsh reaction?
You? You provide an absurd example. Maybe providing one that is real would make your point better.
we then went on to see a massive side track
One way to handle this is to create an OP titled Sidetracks which you can do since both would be your threads. Then take all sidetracks and answers to the side tracks and transfer then to the Sidetrack OP. That way all of Murray's nonsense which he does not believe and answers to what he does not believe would be buried someplace that is irrelevant. Problem solved. My guess we would be up to Sidetracks_990 by now.jerry_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

KF excellent summary @116.
a statement may accurately describe what is real. That is truth is now an issue
In the science-only worldview there is no room for truth. Conclusions are reached only as approximations subject to rethinking and overthrow. This is where intolerance and fascism arise, since none of the "values" which are upheld for society or the individual can be called "truths", they can only be imposed by force. There's an attempt to win an emotional appeal, and that's why we'll see ridicule instead of argument - an appeal to popularity ("nobody believes ID") or authority ("you disagree with the experts we've credentialed so you have no authority").Silver Asiatic_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

PS, if you want biology ponder three, nine and fifteen spined sticklebacks.kairosfocus_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

GENERAL COMMENT It is interesting to observe the course of the thread, in reaction to then distraction from a foundational point for restoring civilisation to sanity. The very first words of comment were a statement of utter, unmerited contempt, revealing a world of underlying hostility: " this is the stupidest OP I have ever seen." But in fact, on being answered point by point, there was a take up the ball and go home, as though mere disagreement was good enough reason to dismiss with contempt, laced with blatant hostility. So, what is it that so stirred ire? Daring to point out that one cannot simply play agit prop and culture war and lawfare games to shift words at will, as nominalism is at root a failure to recognise logic of being thus distinct nature/ essence/ core characteristics of things. Yes, an extremely simple, graphic, crystal clear example was selected. Precisely, to establish by yardstick example that there is such a thing as a distinct identity or nature of certain things rooted in core characteristics. A six sided polygon is by characteristics utterly distinct from a nine sided one. Where yes polygon is already an inherent abstraction and universal, demonstrating for an intelligent 12 year old that both sides of nominalism are fundamentally in error. So, why the harsh reaction? Because, much of the radical, fundamentally misanthropic, anti civilisational agenda of our day pivots on just such nominalism: there are no abstracta and/or there are no universals, just labels we more or less group by accident or by imposition of discredited dead white men starting with the likes of Plato et al. But we see here polygon as a natural category, and we see that there are naturally distinct characteristics that separate two species, six and nine sided. If you doubt, show us the museum display with polygon exhibited, next to { }, the unique null set. Such has massive worldview and rationality consequences. For example, if natures exist, if distinct characteristics exist, if universals and abstracta are real, then why that inherently abstract state of affairs is possible where a statement may accurately describe what is real. That is truth is now an issue. Further to which, logical and factual circumstances can create an onward state of affairs, warrant, whereby truth becomes know-ABLE, perhaps even known. So, inconvenient truths may call us to acknowledge them, exemplifying a particularly unwelcome state of affairs, duty to the true, right, good, moral truth and duty bound to our evident nature. HERESY, BURN THE HERETIC! Of course, we then went on to see a massive side track pivoting on resurrecting promotion of a worldview that implies that we radically cannot trust our senses and rationality that tyell us we share a common world. The answer to this remains, that any species of grand delusion is utterly self refuting and irretrievably incoherent. Instead, we have good reason for qualified trust in our rationality and in that context we see that errors can be detected and fixed. But what about how hard it is to tell between "truth and error, truthfulness and willful deceit, justice and injustice, male and female, knowledge and myth, indoctrination and education, acquitting the innocent and knowingly condemning such, sound policing and the gestapo"? Mere objection or odd cases or the like do not change the fundamentals. The danger of refusing to acknowledge a knowable distinction between justice and injustice becomes particularly manifest. Duty to justice must challenge our practice or we are doomed. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

WJM:
For future reference, when you’re in a one-on-one discussion with someone, and they say, “Look, nobody is saying that,” they usually mean him or herself, and/or they are talking about some group they are specifically including in the conversation.
There is nothing wrong with the informal use of the language, but there is also a time when precision is essential. You will notice that I said that "many" quantum theorists attack the first principles of classical logic in the name of scientific experimentation. This is a true statement and it represents a serious problem. I can back up that claim day long. My two examples should suffice to make the point. You responded by saying, in effect, that "nobody" does that. If you meant to say that it is an "exception" to the rule, or that only a "few" of them do it, you could have said so. While that claim would have also understated the problem, it would have at least been a meaningful concession and a logical counterpoise to my claim about the "many." Meanwhile, you appear to be holding me accountable for your lack of precision. I don't mind it if you use informal language, I do that too, but I do object to your attempt at avoiding the substance of my claim, which you didn't even address.StephenB_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

SA at 112, So - again - science is the driver. Some people love science but not for the purpose of arriving at facts. Science exists to justify some worldview. Wrong thinking. Quantum mechanics is the latest plaything. A new mystery that underpins the chaos view. Nope. Wrong thinking. IBM has built a commercial quantum computer. Forget about unpredictable and non-deterministic. They have a computer that contains quantum chips and it works. https://newsroom.ibm.com/2021-11-16-IBM-Unveils-Breakthrough-127-Qubit-Quantum-Processor By the way, the computer you have and that cup of coffee only exists in your mind ??? Wrong thinking.relatd_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

StephenB @95, A well-researched and cogent response! Thanks for the quote from Lawrence Krauss, I was surprised at his position. Similarly, while I don't share Lee Smolin's views on the necessity of a creator, I deeply respect his philosophical honesty and lack of ideological prejudice in his books. He's up front about his presuppositions rather than creating circular arguments to justify his position. Silver Asiatic @112, Also nicely stated. I appreciate it when quantum physicists can let go of their cherished materialism to consider the evidence available dispassionately. While Sabine Hossenfelder can't let go of her deterministic materialism and tries to rationalize it, I appreciate her point that more experimental evidence rather than mathematical beauty shows and speculations are what's needed now to advance quantum mechanics. She also points out the challenge that Chaos Theory presents to QM. -QQuerius_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

relatd
So, what’s the point of all this? I have a bunch of boxes. One is marked idealist. One is marked realist. And so on. Again – WHAT is the point?
The point takes us back to Abelard and then to Descartes. Instead of the belief that there is a "real world" that we access with our mind (through the senses), those philosophers believed that the only thing we know and experience is our own mind. From there, the Anglican Bishop Berkeley said that only the mind exists. Thus idealism. Quantum theory came along and then we have the idea that at the subatomic level, particles are unpredictable and non-deterministic, and also that consciousness plays a role. The positive aspect is that materialism (as in reality is comprised of little clumps of stuff called matter) has been eliminated. This is a big problem for materialism (note BA77's many posts on that theme). So, that's the point for many people - that quantum-idealism refutes materialism. But as pointed out, it brings additional problems. As Robert Koons indicates in the video I posted, the refutation of materialism does not refute realism. It only causes a big problem for people who previously believed in scientism-via-materialism.Silver Asiatic_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

SA at 110, So, what's the point of all this? I have a bunch of boxes. One is marked idealist. One is marked realist. And so on. Again - WHAT is the point? Science is apparently god to some people. Or - if science tells us this then that - and ONLY that - matters. Or some similar position. That's not a guide to anyone about real reality.relatd_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

relatd I said earlier that it doesn't really make a difference if a person accepts an idealist view since it will have the same science but just believes that there's no external reality and everything we perceive is mental-only. I think it would make a big difference, however on second thought, if an idealist said something like "I have observed results of a scientific theory in my dream - therefore the theory has been validated". If asked to demonstrate the theory in "the real world" the idealist could just say that the results only occur under conditions in the dream world. So, we'd end up with a lot of chaos and disorder under that worldview, and that's a strike against it as I see it. Yes, that's arguing from the consequences but it says that not only does the realist view correlate with our lived-experience, but the idealist view could destroy all rational thought.Silver Asiatic_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

SA at 106, If this discussion is about the nature of reality then theology should not be excluded as if it is surrounded by an impenetrable fence. In some Eastern belief systems, this reality is an illusion. A person's worldview is given to them. Sometimes, it is examined in other contexts. Perhaps in a search for some grounding or further confirmation. People live by their worldviews, whether they are aware of it or not. That is very relevant.relatd_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Dr. Robert Koons on Idealism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvkz5ftwhk4 5 minutes on his opposition to idealism. He takes a Thomistic-realist perspective.Silver Asiatic_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

WJM at 93, Don't give me that. Look up quantum mechanics and superposition. IBM has built a quantum computer. Try to deal with facts.relatd_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

WJM
If ideas of things must come from an external physical reality, where did God get those ideas from? How was God able to form images of things in His mind that did not yet have existence?
You've introduced the topic of God, as it seems appropriate given the topic is about the nature of reality. But before explaining anything about the existence of God (and how you accepted it) or your relationship to God or the nature of God - you've gone directly to the question of "how did God do it"? Clearly, your understanding of God's nature is essential before trying to figure out how God does things. This is the problem that occurs when trying to discuss God with atheists, for example. If the person doesn't believe God exists, then there's no sense in explaining the operations of God. A more fundamental truth has to be reached first - that God does exist and therefore has a certain nature and certain attributes. Additionally, we have some relationship with God. If God created human beings and the human rational mind and gave people the gift of life - then there's a sacred and reverential quality to the topic. In that case, God would be more than just a "supra-materialistic force" out there somewhere that does various things that we can study like a super-nova or newly discovered physical process somewhere - but rather a being that has a relationship with us. So, when a person arrives at that kind of knowledge, appropriate expectations of what human beings could or should be able to understand about the mind of God will arise. Eventually, theological and religious teachings will have value in that kind of discussion. But to just start out with "how did God do it" without affirming God's nature or powers or relationship with human minds - is premature and kind of useless for a discussion-point. Then again, do we really want to get into theological discussions here? I think for the purposes of ID - idealism works well enough. The fact that it makes no difference to science (it seems) whether idealism is true or not, then ID doesn't have a problem with it. In an idealist view nothing actually changes. All of the external world that every human being perceives is just said to be an illusion. If the illusion is real (and not illusory) or not is mostly irrelevant.Silver Asiatic_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Successful thread - over a 100 comments and nothing new. Just one absurdity after the other and people responding to the absurdities as if they are serious.jerry_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

I have, your brusque dismissiveness notwithstanding.kairosfocus_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Not usually a fan of videos, William, but I managed to watch it through. Was struck by one point made: You cannot have a universe that is: Objective Deterministic Independent Which is fine as I reject determinism anyway, so problem solved. Also, the whole idea of cause and effect misses the point of interactions where causes and effects are combined. The very process of observation necessarily interacts with what is being measured and interacts with the observer.Fred Hickson_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Of course you have addressed those things, KF. You have done so countless times. The problem is, addressing a subject matter doesn't mean you have said anything of merit on the subject. I can address the subject of how the internet works all day long; but nothing I say will have any merit because I have no idea how the internet works. I can talk about the internet in terms of graphic design (or some other subject which I do know about) as if what I'm saying has merit in terms of how the internet works, but again, such "addressing" has no substantive merit. You are addressing something you have no idea about other than in terms of something else. You cannot address idealism from the framework of external realism as if external realism has anything of merit to say about idealism. I'll grant you, "grand delusion" or "solipsism" is how idealism appears to work, or what it appears to be, when assessed from the perspective of external realism, which is what you have been doing for years here now. I've pointed this out many times before, giving you multiple opportunities to ask questions about how various idealistic theories work and what they mean, but you have always been resolutely uninterested in pursuing such understanding. What you do, KF, is simply lecture about your particular ideology of external realism and its epistemology. As I've said many times, that model is very functionable and internally consistent. It's good model. The problem is that science has proved it false. You can argue all day long that this necessarily means "grand delusion," but that argument doesn't make the science go away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE <--- The science. I will leave you to your thread now. I appreciate your indulgence.William J Murray_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

WJM, of course, as thread owner, I could simply gavel side tracks [as you have done sometimes], but that would only feed the rhetoric of evading as one has no answer. I have taken time to respond for record. Are you for example now willing to acknowledge that for over a decade I have addressed the issue of mind and mind-body interaction, also the incoherence of monisms, via the principle of the one and the many and via the Smith model cybernetic loop with a two tier controller? Materialism, as Haldane understood, undermines freedom to reason. Mentalism leads by degrees to grand delusion, reducing our in common world as experienced to a delusion undermining credibility of mind. Quantum level influence is the right sort of context. Oracle machines surpass limits of computation on a substrate. Freedom with moral government is necessary to rationality. And what we do not know must not undermine what we can or do know. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT}

StephenB Glad to (metaphorically) see you again. Vividvividbleau_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

Nobody can explain how a world of quantities produces the personal experience of qualities.
Classic example! ;)Fred Hickson_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

“After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'” (Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson, quoted from Wikipedia.) Ask a philosopher. The ensuing imagined conversation between Berkeley and Johnson seems pertinent to Murray's position on idealism. PS It's quite amusing how the "map is not territory" accusation approaches epidemic levels here. Even more amusing to note they all seem to be valid.Fred Hickson_{June 16, 2022
June
06
Jun
16
16
2022
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply