hessen.social

0 Beiträge0 Beteiligte0 Beiträge heute

aadmaaIn an alternate-universe (perhaps one where the so-called leader of the still-free world is NOT bullying and terrifying my children) the Biggest Controversy of January 2025 lies at intersection of philosophy, math and physics.Not controversial: we cannot know anything about the physical world except through experiment. Not especially controversial: We can, however, determine a priori that some of own human ideas about the physical world can't possibly be correct.MOST CONTROVERSIAL CLAIM OF JANUARY 2025: We can know that reality cannot be perfectly mathematical; such that identity and (by extension) mathematical properties of reality must be imperfect and emergent.Ironic: it makes a lot of sense that in a reality where identity is impossible, things look awfully mathematical. At least, I think that makes a lot of sense. But I'm not a mathematician.Hopeful: ain't there a mathematician in this place who can help elucidate this point? **Mathematicians**, here's the prompt. Imagine that we've ruled out the possibility that anything in reality has the property of reflexivity. Then the question is like Wigner's question but with a twist: why should mathematical properties *emerge* in a universe where mathematics can only be approximate? More background if needed - <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14665746" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14665746</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/math" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#math</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/physics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#physics</a>

aadmaa[3/4]What's so "expansive" about the atheism that appears in the argument from freedom?The argument from freedom starts with the atheistic belief that there is no Creator; but also... there are no truly fundamental laws of physics; no external influencers on the universe; no external sources; no external causes. Nothing is "outside of" or "prior to" to reality. There are no brute facts imposed upon reality, as if from the outside.Why? Well - atheism is just a belief - I don't have an argument for it. But I can share that do not believe it makes any sense for reality to be subject to constraints because, to me, it is a sort of anthropomorphization: we are highly constrained creatures, and we misapply our experience to what we imagine reality to be like.I call all these things (Gods, Laws, Brute Facts, etc.) "constraints" - and I don't believe reality as a whole can be constrained. <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/metaphysics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#metaphysics</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/ontology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ontology</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/RoguePhilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#RoguePhilosophy</a>

aadmaa[2/4]In the *argument from freedom*, one starts with an expansive form of atheism, and... what sort of philosophy is this? It lives in the same space as atheism: it is a completely different sort of philosophy depending on whether or not it's correct. On the one hand, if it's true, the whole argument is about human ideas and which ones are wrong. But if it's false, it is an incorrect argument about reality itself. But hold on... <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/metaphysics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#metaphysics</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/ontology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ontology</a>

aadmaa[1/4]An interesting feature of <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/atheism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#atheism</a> is that if atheism is true, it is not a belief about reality itself. It is instead a belief about human ideas: that certain human ideas about reality are false. But if atheism is false, it is indeed about reality (albeit a wrong idea about reality).<a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/metaphysics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#metaphysics</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/ontology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ontology</a>

aadmaa[4/4]So the failure of the Anthropic Principle in a multiverse scenario is that it fails to explain why the future looks so rosy.AFTERWORD: Can I make this argument unironically going into 2025? A Rogue Philosopher can! But there are rules. Works of rogue philosophy must be made available for free. This argument comes from the rogue treatise I rogue published yesterday - <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14665746" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14665746</a> (somewhere in section 2.3)<a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosopy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosopy</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/ModalLogic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ModalLogic</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/PossibleWorlds" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#PossibleWorlds</a>

aadmaa[3/4]Because the Anthropic Principle is only good for the past:If "every possibility" is real, we're just riding the infinities, picking out the tiny number of paths where sentient life can exist in this moment (and could exist up to this moment). The Anthropic Principle explains how we ride the infinities - we can die horribly in 99.9999% of worlds in a moment, and there are always a subset of possibilities 0.0001%, say, where we did not die a moment ago. And the Anthropic Principle *can* explain this: here we are in one of the many worlds where life could survive the previous 10 minutes.But then it falls down: the Anthropic Principle fails to explain why we cannot see that we are about to die a horrible death (in 99.999% of worlds). The Principle only helps us ride the infinities of the past; but when it comes to imminent apocalyptic events, it does not protect us from observing that we are well and truly f?cked. Not until after said events have killed us off. <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosopy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosopy</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/ModalLogic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ModalLogic</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/PossibleWorlds" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#PossibleWorlds</a>

aadmaa[2/4]So what's wrong with the answer, "every possible world is real"? My favorite failure is how it depends on a misapplication of the Anthropic Principle. If every possibility is real - the argument goes - isn't it super weird that we live in a reality that can support life? (See "fine tuning" arguments for how weird it is). "Nope," the many-world-ologist replies: of COURSE we live in one of the worlds that support sentient life. Otherwise we would not be here to talk about it. The latter argument is the Anthropic Principle, and there nothing wrong with it... sometimes. For example, when it comes to explaining why we are living on a planet with a fairly stable temperature, liquid water, and so forth - rather than on a cold, untethered rock passing through a hydrogen cloud somewhere in deep space. But in the context of the "every possible" hypothesis, the Anthropic Principle fails. Why?<a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosopy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosopy</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/ModalLogic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ModalLogic</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/PossibleWorlds" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#PossibleWorlds</a>

aadmaa[1/4]The problem is NOT that we'd all be about to die minutes from now. The problem is... we'd know it. ...[What? Huh? Why? .... that's right... it's philosophical clickbait! patent pending. Read to find out more!]There are a handful of arguments for ontic vagueness. The argument from freedom requires us to examine and reject other families of ideas that might explain why reality IS and why it is the way it is. One of these is the idea that "every possible world" exists, and we happen to live in one that supports sentient life. The idea is that we can avoid having to accept that the universe is arbitrary if we accept that every possibility, in fact, exists. You will see this from philosophers (versions of David Lewis's "modal realism") and physicists - this is the "multiverse" Krauss ultimately relies on in A Universe from Nothing. I (in my capacity as a <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/RoguePhilosopher" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#RoguePhilosopher</a>) attack this family of ideas in three ways. One is fun and I hadn't heard it before I wrote it so may be new to you too.<a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosopy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosopy</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/ModalLogic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#ModalLogic</a> <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/PossibleWorlds" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#PossibleWorlds</a>

aadmaaI SEEK ONE ... strong beta reader for a <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosophy</a> / <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/philosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#philosophyOfScience</a> essay that makes a new argument for and about ontic <a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a>. Two goals: (1) provide feedback/recommendations; (2) help introduce a new idea by validating that it's interesting and may be worth a read. Although I completed degrees in philosophy and physics (once upon a time) I have lived a career of activism and union organizing, so this one is outside the expertise of my professional community. I would deeply appreciate it if a philosophically-minded physicist or a physically-minded philosopher would be willing to help out.

WIST Quotations has moved!A quotation from Orwell, George:« In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to … »Full quote, sourcing, notes: <a href="https://wist.info/orwell-george/72718/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank">https://wist.info/orwell-george/72718/</a><a href="https://zirk.us/tags/quote" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#quote</a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/quotes" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#quotes</a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/quotation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#quotation</a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/euphemism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#euphemism</a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/politics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#politics</a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/writing" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#writing</a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/justification" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#justification</a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/speech" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#speech</a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/vagueness" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#vagueness</a>

Frühere Suchanfragen

Suchoptionen

Verwaltet von:

Serverstatistik:

#vagueness