Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Philosophy thread? Philosophy thread.

RULES

Go by whatever system of morality you legitimately and sincerely hold. Also don't break any of the forum rules.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I've been thinking about mathematics. It's not entirely tied to reality, yet it is somewhat bound to it.

There's a part of math that is not dependent on reality. No matter where I go, 1+1 will equal 2, 1 will be =/= to -1, and the square root of 4 will be 2. Right?

But when I see how Euclidean geometry came about because that's how people understand the world, I think that mathematics can only be created by material beings existing within a reality if there is some similarity between that which is being discussed and that which can be observed.

[BFEL]

Spoiler: Philosophy (click to show/hide)

9:12 PM - bfel001: CONTINUITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
9:12 PM - bfel001: I think thats it
9:12 PM - Karnewarrior: ^
9:12 PM - bfel001: But yeah
9:13 PM - bfel001: Karne there's a question about how Continuous you think your conscious mind is
9:13 PM - bfel001: Do you "die" if you end up in a coma?
9:13 PM - Karnewarrior: I don't need to be concious, per se
9:13 PM - bfel001: You could go so far as to think you die every time you go to sleep
9:14 PM - Karnewarrior: exactly
9:14 PM - Karnewarrior: sleep, you see, has the brain active
9:14 PM - Karnewarrior: once the brain is not active, you're dead
9:14 PM - Karnewarrior: now if you're brought out of a coma, you're still you
9:14 PM - Karnewarrior: but you were dead
9:14 PM - Karnewarrior: on the other hand, if I brain upoad, there's nothing saying I have to die to do so
9:14 PM - bfel001: So you die when you sleep but are resurrected when you awake?
9:15 PM - Karnewarrior: ergo that computer is not me. Bcause I can still be active and it can be active and separate simultaneously
9:15 PM - Karnewarrior: we cannot be the same person
9:15 PM - Karnewarrior: No, like I said
9:15 PM - bfel001: And how do you know that its YOU waking up when you wake up from sleep?
9:15 PM - Karnewarrior: you're not dead when you're asleep. You're not even unconcious
9:15 PM - bfel001: You could just die
9:15 PM - bfel001: Every
9:15 PM - bfel001: Single
9:15 PM - Karnewarrior: ever hear of lucid dreaming
9:15 PM - bfel001: Day
9:15 PM - bfel001: Ever hear of this point I'm trying to make?
9:16 PM - Karnewarrior: Your brain is continuously active 24/7
9:16 PM - bfel001: Your brain is continously DIFFERENT 24/7
9:16 PM - Karnewarrior: Your /forebrain/ is significantly /less/ active during sleep, but you're not inactive
9:16 PM - Karnewarrior: I've heard of it, I'm just blowing holes in your 1800's philosophy
9:16 PM - Karnewarrior: take that Nizhezheahoeuhjis
9:17 PM - bfel001: Every single second you die and someone just a little different then you replaces you
9:17 PM - Karnewarrior: Your brain is different from the third dimensional cross-section we observe
9:17 PM - Karnewarrior: in the fourth dimension it's the same brain
9:17 PM - Karnewarrior: on the other hand, a brain upload is not fourth-dimensionally connected to your brain
9:17 PM - Sprin: oh god my brain hurts o_o
9:17 PM - bfel001: No its really not
9:18 PM - Karnewarrior: you can exist simultaneously with that seprate conciousness
9:18 PM - bfel001: Because the fourth dimension is TIME
9:18 PM - Karnewarrior: ergo it cannot be you
9:18 PM - bfel001: Are you the same person you were 10 years ago Karne?
9:18 PM - Karnewarrior: however I can not exist simultaneously with my own conciouness without starting a stable time loop
9:18 PM - Sprin: I wonder what 10 year old me was like
9:18 PM - Sprin: prolly a cringy asshole
9:18 PM - Karnewarrior: I am the same person I was ten years ago if you go ten years back.
9:19 PM - bfel001: But you can't
9:19 PM - Karnewarrior: you forget
9:19 PM - bfel001: Also that makes no sense
9:19 PM - Karnewarrior: the 4th dimension behaves like space on a quantum level
9:19 PM - Karnewarrior: it IS a space you can rotate through
9:20 PM - Karnewarrior: I am the same me as I was ten years ago and the same me as I will be ten years from now
9:20 PM - bfel001: No, your brain is fundamentally different
9:20 PM - Karnewarrior: Because we're all cross sections of the fourth-dimesnional entity known as Karnewarrior on the internet
9:20 PM - Sprin: Will you still be the same you after you die o_o
9:20 PM - Karnewarrior: the brain doesn't fucking matter bro
9:20 PM - Karnewarrior: an AI has exactly the same problem
9:20 PM - Karnewarrior: a copy of an AI is not that AI
9:20 PM - Karnewarrior: just a copy
9:20 PM - bfel001: The brain doesn't matter in the subject of CONSCIOUSNESS?
9:20 PM - Karnewarrior: no, it doesn't
9:21 PM - bfel001: ITS LITERALLY YOU
9:21 PM - Karnewarrior: you're still thinking of the fourth dimension as fundamentally different from space
9:21 PM - Sprin: Actually the brain is more of decriptor of conciousness
9:21 PM - bfel001: THATS LITERALLY THE PART OF YOUR BODY THAT CONTAINS YOUR CONSCIOUS THOUGHTS
9:21 PM - Sprin: if that makes sense
9:21 PM - Sprin: like
9:21 PM - Sprin: Imagine
9:21 PM - Karnewarrior: The brain is where the conciousness comes from, but it doesn't have anything to do with continuity of conciousness
9:21 PM - bfel001: No, I'm still thinking of the mind as fundamentally connected to the body
9:21 PM - Karnewarrior: it's not really
9:21 PM - Sprin: HEY
9:22 PM - bfel001: Sorta true
9:22 PM - Sprin: I KNOW HOW TO FIGURE THIS OUT
9:22 PM - Karnewarrior: Sprin said something smart
9:22 PM - Karnewarrior: everyone shut the fuck up
9:22 PM - Sprin: lets kill BFEL
9:22 PM - Karnewarrior: nevermind
9:22 PM - bfel001: In that the electrons firing along your nerves are the "real" consciousness
9:22 PM - Sprin: lol
9:22 PM - Sprin: The brain sorta interprets conciousness
9:22 PM - Karnewarrior: It's not that
9:22 PM - bfel001: Yeah, but it makes you well, YOU
9:22 PM - Karnewarrior: when you think of you you think of all your connected thoughts and feelings and such
9:23 PM - Karnewarrior: but you're not really thinking of your brain
9:23 PM - Karnewarrior: your brain is the hardware all that is installed on
9:23 PM - Karnewarrior: but it's not your conciouness in itself
9:23 PM - Sprin: your using better words
9:23 PM - Karnewarrior: You are like a computer program
9:23 PM - Karnewarrior: if you break the computer, the program temrinates.
9:23 PM - bfel001: Yeah, and changing that hardware will change the output
9:23 PM - Karnewarrior: But that doesn't mean the computer is the program
9:24 PM - Karnewarrior: Not really
9:24 PM - bfel001: Its the difference between running a game on a shitty laptop or on a super computer
9:24 PM - bfel001: You straight up won't get the same results
9:24 PM - Karnewarrior: two twin programs run on a Mac and a PC will run essentially the same
9:24 PM - Karnewarrior: they won't be the same program
9:24 PM - Karnewarrior: but that has to do with simultanity
9:24 PM - bfel001: You'll have different bugs and glitches though
9:25 PM - Karnewarrior: yes but that doesn't matter
9:25 PM - Karnewarrior: what I'm saying is
9:25 PM - bfel001: Thus, different thoughts
9:25 PM - Sprin: Brains are wierd
9:25 PM - bfel001: STOP MISPELLING WEIRD
9:25 PM - Karnewarrior: Anything that can exist in the same fourth-dimensional space as itself without requiring a stable time loop to do so must therefore be existentially different
9:26 PM - Karnewarrior: 9:25 PM - Sprin: Brains are wired
9:26 PM - bfel001: It DOESN'T exist in the same fourth dimensional space as itself
9:26 PM - Sprin: why cant I spell wierd right
9:26 PM - Sprin: weird
9:26 PM - Sprin: WEIRD
9:26 PM - Sprin: WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIRD
9:26 PM - Karnewarrior: What do you mean, BFEL?
9:26 PM - bfel001: It exists in the same fourth dimension space as a copy of itself
9:26 PM - Karnewarrior: exactly. Ergo, it cannot be the same conciouness
9:26 PM - bfel001: Basically every second is a "copy" of your brain, and thus, your conscious mind
9:26 PM - Karnewarrior: thats what I'm saying
9:27 PM - Karnewarrior: It's not
9:27 PM - Karnewarrior: it's all the same entity
9:27 PM - bfel001: No, thats what *I* was saying
9:27 PM - Karnewarrior: because what you see is a fourth dimensional cross-section
9:27 PM - bfel001: YOU were saying that its the same
9:28 PM - Karnewarrior: The me of five seconds ago (is angry) can't exist in the same fourth dimesnional space as the me now. They are the same entity, because they cannot exist simultaneously
9:28 PM - Karnewarrior: if the universe was five-dimensional, you could travel back and cause paradoxes with yourself because you wouldn't occupy the same fourth dimensional space
9:29 PM - bfel001: 11:28 PM - Karnewarrior: exactly. Ergo, it cannot be the same conciouness
11:28 PM - Karnewarrior: it's all the same entity
9:29 PM - bfel001: RECTIFY THOSE TWO POINTS
9:29 PM - Sprin: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH SHIT
9:29 PM - Karnewarrior: What I'm saying is
9:29 PM - Karnewarrior: imagine a man. Man A
9:29 PM - bfel001: WAIT
9:29 PM - Karnewarrior: Man A waits for five minutes, then enters a time machine set for five minutes ago
9:29 PM - bfel001: I figured out why you're wrong
9:29 PM - Karnewarrior: now he has two choices
9:30 PM - Karnewarrior: wait
9:30 PM - Karnewarrior: actually, he only has one
9:30 PM - Karnewarrior: stable time loop
9:30 PM - Karnewarrior: because creating a paradox would make him man B
9:30 PM - Karnewarrior: fuck I lost control of this scenario
9:30 PM - Karnewarrior: let me try again
9:30 PM - Karnewarrior: ok so
9:31 PM - Karnewarrior: Conciousness A
9:31 PM - Karnewarrior: Conciousness A creates a perfect copy of itself instantaneously
9:31 PM - Karnewarrior: This copy exists in the same fourth dimensional space as Conciousness A, correct?
9:32 PM - bfel001: but now the copy is Consciousness B
9:32 PM - Karnewarrior: yes. precisely
9:32 PM - Karnewarrior: at the same time
9:32 PM - Karnewarrior: if Conciouness A waits for ten minutes
9:32 PM - Karnewarrior: it is still conciousness A
9:32 PM - bfel001: Fourth dimensional space is time
9:32 PM - bfel001: No
9:32 PM - Karnewarrior: because it is not occupying the same fourth dimensional space as Conciouness A T-10
9:33 PM - bfel001: Every second Consciousness A turns into counsciousness B
9:33 PM - Karnewarrior: Conciousness A T-0 may act differently from Conciouness A T-10, while not acting differently from Conciouness B at all
9:33 PM - Karnewarrior: but Conciouness A is Conciousness A, and B is B, regardless of action or thought
9:34 PM - Karnewarrior: That's what I'm disputing. Conciouness A cannot become Conciouness B
9:34 PM - Karnewarrior: only create Conciousness B
9:34 PM - bfel001: I'm disputing
9:34 PM - Karnewarrior: (sprin is dead)
9:34 PM - bfel001: That any consciousness in different points in fourth dimensional space could be considered the same
9:35 PM - Sprin: im not dead
9:35 PM - Sprin: Im just
9:35 PM - bfel001: You aren't the same BECAUSE YOU AREN'T IN THE SPACE YOU ARE IN
9:35 PM - Sprin: I lost track of the convorsation
9:35 PM - Sprin: >_>
9:36 PM - bfel001: You can't be in two places at once (barring remote control style shenanigans)
9:36 PM - bfel001: Thus you can't be in two TIMES at once
9:36 PM - Karnewarrior: No, I'm in the same first, second, and third dimensional coordinates. But I'm a different cross-secton of the fourth-dimensional hyperentity
9:36 PM - bfel001: AND THAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT
9:36 PM - Karnewarrior: by which I am spacially different, but fundamentally the same
9:37 PM - Karnewarrior: your finger doesn't stop being your finger if you point at something different
9:37 PM - Karnewarrior: think of it like moving along a snake
9:37 PM - bfel001: TOTALLY DOES
9:37 PM - Karnewarrior: you're still the snake. Just a different PART of the snake
9:37 PM - Karnewarrior: whereas a different snake will never be the same snake
9:37 PM - bfel001: Its now the new yous' finger

I think Sprin is dead.

Just gonna leave this here.

Also, you don't know that parts of math aren't dependent on reality, cuz of the whole "living in reality" thing. 1+1 being 2 could well be a factor of our universe's rules and not apply elsewhere.

[Frumple]

1+1=2 has jack all to do with our universe's rules, though. Math derives itself from its axioms, which are things we invented, for all we largely tried to fit them with reality as we perceive(d) it. Its existential connection to the forces of reality amount entirely to the structure of how humans create and interpret concept systems. Everything else is, at base, functionally incidental. If you start from the same base, the results would be the same, basically. Everything besides the axioms themselves and their interrelation is irrelevant. If you wanted a different math, you'd have to use a different set of assumptions... and then it wouldn't be math, because those assumptions are fundamentally all math is.

It'd be like taking english, changing the alphabet, grammar, and vocabulary entirely, and then trying to say it's english again. It's still a means of communication, but a different one.

The only reason parts of it seem to adhere to what we consider real is because those are the parts where we use math as a way to describe what we see as reality. The math itself is as connected to what it describes as the language I'm using to communicate right now is a fundamental mechanic of existence (i.e. it isn't, to any direct extent).

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

@quotedquoteinvolvingSprin: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1

[pondicherry]

Philosophy starts when mathematic ends. Read it somewhere.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I've been thinking about mathematics. It's not entirely tied to reality, yet it is somewhat bound to it.

There's a part of math that is not dependent on reality. No matter where I go, 1+1 will equal 2, 1 will be =/= to -1, and the square root of 4 will be 2. Right?

But when I see how Euclidean geometry came about because that's how people understand the world, I think that mathematics can only be created by material beings existing within a reality if there is some similarity between that which is being discussed and that which can be observed.

Not true. Working with the finite field of elements {0,1} with + defined as:
    0+0 = 0
    0+1=1+0=1
    1+1=0

And * defined as:
    0*0=0*1=1*0=0
    1*1=1

Then 1+1=0.

That's the beauty of math- if you want a particular property, you can just construct the elements required for that property to show up, assuming it's possible.

(1+1)mod1=0

that is true

But! That is with a different set of mathematical rules! I was assuming the standard mathematics things. I haven't taken a class on the rigorous basis of the simplest parts of mathematics, but I'd like to. Those rigorous foundational rules can be changed, but that is not tied to reality, the universe, or anything else. However, it is impossible to describe something that can neither be observed nor compared to observation. Two is one and one, and one means a singular thing. Thus arithmetic comes from counting objects. If objects were counted differently in another universe, mathematics would revolve around something else.

[NJW2000]

I think there might be a mathematics derived from different axioms (not symbols, axioms) but concieting of it in a universe in which those axioms iold firm is very unlikely, if not impossible.

So all maths we can access is dependent on thd universe's rules, just like everything else in the universe.

Maths vs percieveable reality is another debate, which I believe may hold the key to the reason for this specific reality. But that is a question for another time, not 12 pm on a phone.

[NRDL]

Posting to philosophise, never had too much of an interest or aptitude for mathematics, so I'll just observe, jump in when the topic switches to ethics or such.

[BFEL]

What does mathematics have to do with the current universe? That's physics. There's a difference.

It was INVENTED in the current universe. By sacks of meat and chemicals called humans. Thus it's rules are based on the firing of neurons in human brains, which is part of the current universe/reality.

[Max™]

It seems that we take the law of the excluded middle for granted over here.

It is possible to have something be true, and it is possible to have something be false, can you not have something be true and false? Can something be neither true nor false? Can you even discuss something which could not be described in the framework of truth or falsehood? Can you discuss the concept of that which is not verifiable or falsifiable? You can have something, and you can have nothing, could you have other options? Is it possible to describe a concept which is itself not a concept?

Mu.

[misko27]

What does mathematics have to do with the current universe? That's physics. There's a difference.

It was INVENTED in the current universe. By sacks of meat and chemicals called humans. Thus it's rules are based on the firing of neurons in human brains, which is part of the current universe/reality.

Technically "Invented" is a loaded and meaningless term. Discovered is almost universally more apt, especially regarding Physics and things that are true for all observers, like mathematics. I'd argue you could reasonably use the phrase "discover" regarding more specific things like television sets or the wheel, but I imagine historians would disapprove of the historical determinism. Regardless, unless you embrace a solipsistic view and argue that humanity (or more specifically, yourself) is the only measure of things, I'd argue that most things (but not all, see: Quantum Physics) would still be so regardless of whether they were observed. As such, I'd say the importance of a hill in a military engagement is an objective fact even if there is no war to be fought. It is simply true, although it is truth without purpose.

This is called meta-physics, and it falls under the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. One thing I do not solve is practical problems, like how to stop some mean mother-hubbard from tearing me a structurally superfluous new behind.

Mu.

I could not for the life of me determine what this is a reference to.

[Frumple]

Eh, "discovery" in mathematics is a matter of analysis. It's not really finding something new as it is puzzling out the implications of what's already known. Which... makes it very unlike the normal usage of discovery, to the point it's frankly kinda' misleading, for all it's used fairly often. Very very different from something like physics. Physics you test, math you prove, or along those lines.

Know there's a better word for it vis a vis stuff like math, but I've forgotten what it is

[Max™]

Mu.

I could not for the life of me determine what this is a reference to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)
"I have no answer to provide."

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Did somebody say morality?!

I used to be a "weak" moral relativist, but now I'm thinking that there is no way to logically justify morality itself. That is, any system of morality will be arbitrary, except for the fact that it was evolutionarily produced. A morality that says "kill all babies" will result in a dead civilization. That is the only absolute definition of "good"; all other definitions are made from that, and nothing is objectively good or evil in the sense that people use the terms. You can only call things good or evil with a reference frame of a particular arbitrary set of morals.