This was the case during platos time as you were not respected as a philosophical thinker unless you understood trigonometry. But now anyone can be a highly respected philosopher without any mathematical understanding. The training to become a philosoher seems wholly inadequate in producing intellectuals. Anyone who is “interested” enough can earn a PhD and become a professor. There is really nothing that will weed people out for being inadequate. But if a prerequisite to becoming a philosopher would be to earn a masters or even a PhD in pure maths, I believe the field of philosophy would improve greatly. We could have been spared so much pseudo intellectualism from philosophers who really shouldn’t have been respected as intellectuals. This can apply to pretty much every non mathematical field. To be honest I believe that most fields have absolutely no real training necessary. For instance in philosophy the you do not need philosophical training to understand philosophical arguments by professors. But when it comes to math you would need years of training to understand modern math. It just shows how much a waste of time graduate school really is for many fields. It would probably be best for all subjects to have their professors be guys with math phds who decided to read about those subjects.
Yes, maths and physics. Modern philosophy is fucking abysmal garbage for new age spiritualist types.
>>16168968Anyone who does math and not geometry should also be filtered to accounting.
>>16168977>new age spiritualist types.>t. retard who has no idea about modern academic philosophyOP is on point, but you're completely wrong. Philosophy scholars and humanities scholars in general tend to be very opposed to anything New Agey. Most of them are scientifically illiterate STEM worshipper types that also have super woke political views. To the extent that they are interested in religion or spirituality, mainstream academic philosopher are only interested in (((Judaeo-Christian))) spirituality and shit like Maimonides and Kierkegaard. You can actually publish stuff on someone like Maimonides or St Augustine today. If you tried to do a dissertation on Nietzsche and Buddhist philosophy or something like that, everyone would think you're a closeted neonazi or something. Modern academic philosophy is basically wokeified logical positivism STEM worship. Its basically like Frantz Fannon + Karl Popper + Carnap.
>>16168968Of course. Any philosopher who can't even do college math is a brainlet moron who should be completely ignored and ridiculed.
>>16168988>accountingWhy that specifically?
>>16169271Abrahamic religions are the only western religions with any theology of note. Seethe.
>>16168968Yes but it should also go the other way. You really shouldn't be allowed to graduate with a STEM degree without some of the basics of philosophy. If you don't understand the difference between a platonic form and matter then you have no business in any of the quantitative sides of STEM. If you don't understand Aristotle's notion of causality, you certainly can't approach anything dealing with physics, as all of modern "scientific-materialism" claims that efficient causes are necessarily emergent from material and formal causes.If you don't understand the basics of how the metaphysics which undergird modern science functions, you don't understand how to do science.
>>16170224The problem is that Philosophy is taught backwards, and you're a prime example of it. There is zero value in Plato's epistemology, and yet that's one of the first things taught. Philosophy comes across as the equivalent of alchemy, long supplanted by Science and with no value in the modern day.
>>16168968>acting as if mathematics weed out apjeetshumans are much smarter than you think bozo
Philosophy without science and math is just an embarrassing and grotesque travesty, just wordcels tripping over their own legs, producing a hollow diarrhea of sentences easily replaceable by chatgpt.
>>16168968>>16170545Mathematics is a (minor) Philosophical category.
Math has always been the polar opposite of philosophy. Math proves its claims whereas philosophy just expects you to believe its bullshit based on subjective faith. Math produces valuable tools for our understanding of the world while philosophy in its entire history never answered any relevant question. It has always been like this. Even in ancient Greece we had geniuses like Euclid and Archimedes on the one hand advancing humanity with math, and Plato and Aristotle on the other hand talking baseless bullshit of no value other than creating the illusion of pseudointellectualism in their readers.
>>16168968Yes, but maths only will fill the philosophy sphere with dysgenic automaton goblins who specialize in symbolic manipulation devoid of any real meaning on it (jews, chinks, pajeets), so make sure to also require athletic proficiency and at least one artistic skill (drawing, composing etc...) to filter them out
>>16170569See: >>16170553Mathematics is a branch of Semiotics, which is a branch of motion, becoming, exchange, etc., which is a branch of Difference, which is a branch of Catholicism, which is a branch of Theology.
>>16170576Semiotics? Lmao, you don't know what that word means. Semiotics is about shoving spaghettiOs up your vagina in front of an audience.
>>16170577Pardon?
>>16170574Don't forget about the sexual skills. You can't become a philosopher unless you have an official sex haver certificate signed by a biological cis woman who doesn't work as a prostitute and isn't obese.
>>16168968Then they would be pretty much mathematicians, wouldnt they? Let them play with their shitty ideas, its still better than religion.
>>16170578Only oldfags understand the reference, zoomie.
>>16170585I know what the reference is.
>>16168968read deleuze and then nick land
>>16168968Computers can do math. They can't do philosophy.
>>16170230You could not be more wrong. Science cannot "supplant" philosophy when science itself relies on a philosophical framework in order to justify its epistemological value.You are confusing "scientific-materialism" (i.e., a philosophy of science) for "science." Scientific materialism has not supplanted philosophy, it is a philosophy (and one with many many problems at that).
>>16170665>science itself relies on a philosophical framework in order to justify its epistemological value.It doesn't. You're an epistemologylet.
>>16170675So please explain then the value in scientific contribution. What is the process by which the scientific method produces new knowledge?
>>16170677>t. got filtered by the scientific methodEmbarrassing
>>16168968 >Should Mathematicians be required to demonstrate philosophical proficiency?FTFY....or let me guess, you forgot what the "Ph" in your PhD. of Mathematics stands for?
>>16170700It's funny that Anglos use the terminology "PhD" even though they are intellectually unable to understand philosophy. Meanwhile the civilized countries which actually contributed to philosophy just call the degree a doctorate.
>>16168968>le years of trainingExactly. You're just an animal which was trained to do some symbol crunching.
>>16169271You sound like an incel.
I'm gonna start violently killing people so I can study how people act this is the power of science, if this statement stands out as odd then you have used philosophy
>>16170767If you posted that statement using an electronic device, you have used science
>>16170774What if I beat your brains out with the same device in the name of science
>>16170774Computing is a framework outside of a particular medium. It is math, not science. You are the pencil maker claiming the Pulitzer.
Lol just tell the philosophy rejectors that you will kill them for science and then all of a sudden philosophy matters
>>16170794And yet you're forced to use a particular medium because you are a meatbag. Suck it up.
>>16170767The "philosophers" in the so called "ethics councils" already approved of vaxx mandates and legal persecution of unvaxxed or vaxx injured citizens. Surely they'd approve of your suggestion as well, at least if you're a multi billion dollar international pharma corporation.
>>16170796>philosocucks are so bad at convincing someone with arguments that they have to resort to threatening violence insteadLmao, you're intellectually impotent
>>16170808It's not surprising. Philosophy is just a pyramid scheme at this point
>>16170218>Abrahamic religions>westernare you retarded?
>>16168968If any of these people were already proficient in math at an early age but abandoned its study and use later on in adolescence then it wouldn't be a problem to reeducate them at the adult level. Now what do you afterwards?
>>16170688I didn't get filtered by the scientific method. I have a PhD in an engineering field. I don't think you understand how scientific developments work. This is especially relevant in more "theoretical" parts of science like those which deal with theoretical physics and applied statistics. Your job is literally to do your best to fit a platonic form (e.g., a mathematical dynamical model) to a chaotic, complex and stochastic material form. The synthesis of the platonic form with the material cause is literally the whole process of development in many fields. It's incredibly relevant, and without understanding how these pieces fit together you get retards who can't tell the difference between our modeling process and the actual material world we seek to model.
>>16170841Please, explain for me in detail how you and "fit" these "platonic forms" with "material causes".
>>16170853I can do so, but could you do me a favor and give me a hint at your level of education and general field so I can tailor it appropriately?A very simple example from my background is the notion of a "linear time-invariant deterministic system." There is no such thing as a properly linear time-invariant and properly deterministic system in reality. What you learn in a linear systems or dynamical systems class are in fact platonic forms. They are idealized models which represent the "simplest" and "most pure" representations of these physical interactions devoid of the complexity exists in their material representation. Yet, these platonic forms come from somewhere. Newtonian mechanics came from trying to develop abstract mathematical representations which gives reliable modeling of the movement of material bodies. Newton's laws are platonic forms (abstract mathematical constructions) which are developed to explain material causes (the actual movement of the actual object with actual mass through the actual medium in which it moves). The whole point of theoretical physics is to develop these sorts of mathematical models (as abstract platonic forms which do not refer nor depend on any specific material objects) which allows us to have explanatory power over the actual material objects and their states in this material world. It is exactly the process of synthesizing a pure platonic representation of our "physics" to a messy, stochastic, complex and heterogenous material reality.
>>16168977it always makes me lol when illiterate retards call shit 1000's of years old "new age." I dont understand how this of retardation manifests itself into the material world
>>16170863You can assume that I have a PhD in a mathematical field. There was never any mention of "platonic forms" and their apparent usefulness in any math textbook that I've read or class that I've taken. >Newton's laws are platonic forms (abstract mathematical constructions)What do you mean by abstract? They're just computational schemes for predicting and describing the trajectories of bodies, which works to some approximation. >The whole point of theoretical physics is to develop these sorts of mathematical models which allows us to have explanatory power over the actual material objects and their statesMathematical models don't "explain" anything. They describe things.
>>16170869>my philosophy is 2800 years old, that means it isn't newLol, newfag doesn't even know Sumerian philosophy.
>>16170892> What do you mean by abstract?What I mean is that F = ma doesn't refer nor depend on any particular object in material reality. It is abstract in that it is modeling a "point mass" or a "particle" as an abstract object which can not possibly correspond to any material object in reality. I mean that the Hamiltonian which describes the total energy of a mechanical system at a particular time is abstract. It doesn't require material manifestation in order to be defined. It isn't pointing to nor referring to any particular material objects, but instead modeling their configuration and momenta in a "pure" sense.> Mathematical models don't explain anything. They describe things.This is in some sense true and also completely misunderstanding how mathematical modeling is used within science. Mathematical models describe the relationship between the abstract mathematical concepts/functions which we use to describe material objects (mass, derivatives of displacement, energy etc.) and how we expect the material object to behave (and thus explaining its behavior in a sense). > There was never any mention of "platonic forms" and their apparent usefulness in any math textbook that I've read or class that I've taken.That is because you have likely only worked through textbooks written within the past 50-60 years when the philosophical paradigm of scientific-materialism "became the water in which we swim." If you go to read Descartes and his development of the Cartesian Continuum (a.k.a what all of our notions of "continuous intervals" refer to) and his developments of geometry/algebra, you'll see that this was not quite so fixed yet. We have essentially decided that we've "figured it out," and as a result largely deprive our students of the actual philosophical understanding which made the developments in mathematics/science we enjoy today possible.
>>16170910F = ma makes no reference to point masses. Not sure what your point is there. >the Hamiltonian which describes the total energy of a mechanical system at a particular time is abstract.It's not abstract because it's something you can write down.>It doesn't require material manifestation in order to be definedIt doesn't require an abstract existence either.>but instead modeling their configuration and momenta in a "pure" senseNot really, that's just a narrative you tell yourself.>Mathematical models describe the relationship between the abstract mathematical concepts/functions which we use to describe material objectsMathematical models don't refer to abstract things so that can't possibly be true
>>16170919Do you know what the word "abstract" means? Every single mathematical construction is abstract. They don't rely on specific material objects in order to function. When you say that "A = A" do you need to hold the A in your hand for that to be true?
>>16170919>It's not abstract because it's something you can write down.>Mathematical models don't refer to abstract things
>>16170924>Every single mathematical construction is abstract.That's just a claim. I could just as well claim that mathematical constructs are physical or social or mental or whatever. >"A = A" do you need to hold the A in your hand for that to be true?Do you need the abstract statement "A = A" to project itself from the platonic heaven and somehow possess the physical inscription "A = A" in order to declare it to be true?
>>16170943When you write down the function f : R -> R where f(x) = x^2, what particular material objects are needed for that function?
>>16170943>declare it to be true?That's not how truth works. Truth is not declared, truth is discovered.
>>16170948Some ink to write down the function, some muscles to move my hands, etc. I'm surprised that you think you need to be possessed by ghostly entities in order to write down f(x) = x^2.
>>16170949Okay, explain how the ghosts of creatures which live in the platonic heaven possessing the inscription "A = A" makes it true
>>16170951Are you being purposely dense? Yes, to write down the function or draw a picture of its graph you need physical objects within which to represent that function.That physical picture that you draw on paper is a depiction of f(x) = x^2. You could depict it in many different physical objects with different pieces of paper and different scaling, but it is a depiction of something shared. What is that shared thing and what physical object is necessary for that shared thing?
>>16170960>What is that shared thing and what physical object is necessary for that shared thing?Probably just linguistic conventions in human societies
>>16170967A linguistic convention is not a physical thing. You could write down a book containing written words which explain a linguistic convention, but the conventions themselves are not material objects.
>>16170977>A linguistic convention is not a physical thingWhy do you think so?
>>16170979> Why do you think so?Because the contrary is an absurd thing to think. It is absolutely absurd to believe that f(x) = x^2 must actually be specifically in referent to a particular material x to be meaningful. The entirety of mathematics is developed around working directly with the abstraction of the "number" which doesn't actually rely on any particular object or collection of objects to be understood. What physical object contains the linguistic conventions of a particular time and place such that they do not have meaning except in reference to that physical object?
>>16170869Modern soccer moms and a bunch of retarded hippie types are the demographics that latch onto ancient spiritualist shit. That is why it is called "new age". Retard.
>>16170991>Because the contrary is an absurd thing to thinkI don't see why. If words in ordinary language like "ass" can be said to gain "meaning" through physical interactions between physical creatures, without the existence of an abstract "ass" in platonic ass heaven, I don't see why the same can't be said about mathematical terms. Or maybe you think there are platonic ass heavens too? And these platonic asses give real asses their meaning?
>>16171013The word "ass" doesn't specifically refer to my ass or your ass or your mom's ass. This has to be the case because when I say "my wife's ass" you have a concept of what I am referring to without any material reference. You've never seen my wife's ass or what she looks like, but you are able to discern what I am referring to without that material referent being necessary. You understand that she has one regardless of having absolutely no concept of what her particular ass looks like because you have an idea of what "an ass" is divorced from reference to any particular person's ass. That concept is an abstraction. It is a platonic form. Physical asses are a realization of "ass" as a concept, but "ass" exists as an idea outside of physical reference.
>>16171029I don't see why there needs to be an abstract ass which is a referent or how the supposed existence of this abstract ass even helps give meaning to real utterances of "ass" or thoughts which contain "ass" tokens. If computer engines can beat chess masters without referring to abstract chess entities, people can talk about asses without referring to abstract asses.>but "ass" exists as an idea outside of physical reference.Ok, so "ass pooping next to f(x) = x^2" also has an abstract existence too? It must be getting very stinky next to mrs. "f(x) = x^2" in platonic heaven right now.
>>16171071The more you talk the more I'm convinced you don't know what is going on in any of the examples you mention.While in principle there are many different kinds of chess engines, we can use stockfish as an example because it's the one most modern engines are built on. Stockfish has three basic components, a board representation, a decision tree, and a move evaluation function (or in more typical decision theory language a value or reward function). The way this computer makes decisions is by evaluating the expected value/reward for each state-action pair and picking the move with the highest expected value. What is this expected value in terms of physical terms? Yes, the computer itself is physically in existence and performing digital arithmetic physically at some level, but what is the function the computer is trying to optimize? Well, it's trying to optimize the probability that a sequence of moves will result in a winning game. Is that probability a physical thing in your view? The realization of the game's outcome (win/loss) is physical, but do you view that probability distribution itself as being physical for some reason? If so, what physical object does it specifically rely on? Does this distribution change if you change the specific chess board used, if not why not?
>>16168968Philosophers should have to demonstrate a basic understanding of quantitative reasoning skills and basic empirical truths of the natural world.Mathematicians and physicists should likewise be required to demonstrate an understanding of qualitative reasoning skills and ethics.
>>16171003uh ... no. New age refers to the age of Aquarius you fucking psued
>>16171003also, this doesnt even make any sense on its face>soccer moms like something that is why we call it new age!Like wtf are you even about you stone cold retard
>>16171158Well, a chess engine is just a bunch of circuits firing in some manner. You say that it's "trying" and "deciding" to do this or that but that's just you anthropomorphizing it.
>>16170665>You could not be more wrong. Science cannot "supplant" philosophy when science itself relies on a philosophical framework in order to justify its epistemological value.Except you've completely misunderstood what I said. Philosophy education fails because it teaches garbage first on the way to actual substance. Imagine if science was taught like this. Biology 101 would talk about the four humors, chemistry 101 would talk about the philosopher's stone, and astronomy 101 would begin with the class identifying their birth sign. That's the problem. A STEM student enters a Phil 101 class and receives no value, walking away assuming philosophy to be obsolete woo.>>16170819Yes, Christendom is western. Seethe. Pagans have no theology other than "the Gods did it".
>>16168968>instance in philosophy the you do not need philosophical training to understandThis >>16170892>There was never any mention of "platonic forms" and their apparent usefulness in any math textbook that I've read or class that I've taken.isnt entirely trueIt was implied
>>16171180A "bunch of circuits firing" is sufficient to realize a chess engine. You could also do the exact same optimal decision solution on a pen and paper. It isn't anthropomorphising when the engine is literally a machine (in this case a computational algorithm, which exists as an abstract problem solving problem and is then implemented on a computer) created by humans in order to automate a decision problem. That's literally what it is doing. It is "deciding" the next move based on the outcome of a statistical test. >>16171183I don't think I agree. It seems more or less impossible to teach a proper philosophy of science without covering Plato and Aristotle. The dialectic between Platonism and Aristotelianism is literally what brought about the enlightenment and the modern scientific method.It takes longer to get there than a single class, but I don't see this as any different than saying "it's useless to teach high school algebra because a STEM undergraduate student needs calculus, ODEs and linear algebra to do anything." Teaching the basics of Platonism and Aristotelianism as a gateway to a modern philosophy of science is very possible and very important so that you don't end up with people thinking retarded shit like "there's no abstraction in math" and "the algorithm is a physical process because you can use a computer to execute it."
>>16171165Based
>>16171380>It seems more or less impossible to teach a proper philosophy of science without covering Plato and Aristotle. The dialectic between Platonism and Aristotelianism is literally what brought about the enlightenment and the modern scientific method.They should be covered, but not first. Plato in particular should be avoided in Phil 101, he is a total meme at this point and all of Western Philosophy is about debating just how wrong Plato was. It's not a gateway or a foundation, not anymore than alchemy is a gateway to Chemistry. If you need to start somewhere, you should probably start with Medieval Philosophy as that's where modern philosophy really starts; arguments like Just War Theory from St. Augustine are still relevant for example while anything out of Plato absolutely is not.
>>16170569Aristotle was not a blabber.
>>16170960>what physical object is necessary for that shared thingspecific intuition ingrained in your brain from dealing with it in school. I think it's more likely the root of the idea of parabola is purely anatomical and not an abstract, perfect Platonic object.
>>16168968>Should philosophers be required to demonstrate mathematical proficiency?yes.If he an not do basic logic in numbers then he can not do basic logic in anything at all.
>>16170569>AristotleYou need to understand geometry and physics to fully comprehend Aristotle, both require mathematical logic.
>>16171446A good half of mathematicians today are Platonists. Almost all of modern pure mathematics deals with Platonic objects that are entirely divorced from the requirement of physical representation. If you don't understand Plato you don't understand mathematics, as mathematical Platonism is perhaps the most prevalent mathematical philosophy besides maybe Logicism (which is in many ways Platonism in disguise). >>16171515The "root of the idea" of the parabola is exactly a Platonic form. That's what a Platonic form is in the context of mathematics. People attach a lot of strange baggage to the notion, but all it means for f(x) = x^2 to be a Platonic form is that it exists as a conceptual notion independent of any particular material referent. The notion of a parabola is one that doesn't require the x to be any realized variable but can be realized via specific applications of the form to the material.
>>16168988Nothing more fun than a group of CPA's talking about prime numbers they've met.
>>16171543>A good half of mathematicians today are Platonists. Almost all of modern pure mathematics deals with Platonic objects that are entirely divorced from the requirement of physical representation.lol, no they aren't. "Platonic object" is an absurdity without Plato's epistemology, which nobody believes in today because all of the issues which led to that epistemology (a priori knowledge in uneducated individuals) have been resolved by either science or other epistemologies. Mathetmatics is considered an example of emergent phenomenal experience, not perfect forms because there is no afterlife where you experience such things in order to gain true knowledge. Monkeys and infants can add things together or solve basic trigonometry not because they were told the answers in-between reincarnations but rather because mathematical calculations are an emergent property of neural networks. We don't need a "perfect trajectory" to explain why certain species of fish can preform advanced calculus to match their speed with a bird flying above the water and then leap out to catch it. You're a coked up ideologically possessed autist imagining things that don't exist.>If you don't understand Plato you don't understand mathematics, as mathematical Platonism is perhaps the most prevalent mathematical philosophy besides maybe Logicism (which is in many ways Platonism in disguise).ELOHEL
>>16171559Why do you have this strange insistence that there needs to be some sort of afterlife for abstract truths to be true without material referent? It seems like you've confused mathematical Platonism (i.e. the idea that "2+2=4" would be true regardless of whether there were ever humans to say such) with some strange religious concept.I think you should actually humble yourself a bit and read some people who are more considerate and intelligent than yourself. It shouldn't be hard to find some writers who fit that category. Probably any random humanities undergrad would do (unfortunately).
>>16171562>Why do you have this strange insistence that there needs to be some sort of afterlife for abstract truths to be true without material referent?Because that's literally Plato's epistemology. The reincarnation is the entire point.
>>16171577You don't need Plato's epistemology to ascribe to mathematical Platonism. In fact most mathematical Platonists are not people who believe in Plato's epistemology or the theory of recollection.You don't need to dogmatically believe everything that Plato ever wrote uncritically to adopt parts of Platonism. In fact, that's literally one of the main points of the Socratic dialogues!You don't need to believe that all intelligent beings are inherently born with every bit of knowledge ever to be discovered to believe that mathematical truths are true independent of us as sentient beings and independent of material objects. They are disjoint concepts entirely.
>>16171582Subscribe to mathematical Platonism* oops.
>>16171582>mathematical platonismNonsensical position. The entire question that Plato sought to ask is "where does knowledge come from" - and you know damn well what his conclusions were and why. "Platonism", regardless of era or subset, MUST believe that a priori knowledge comes from a separate world of perfect knowledge, and how the fuck is that accessed jackass? You need to access it in a prior like in order to be born with the a priori knowledge. And that entire concept is completely obsolete because we now know that such a priori knowledge requires no mystical perfect forms at all.
>>16171543>If you don't understand Plato you don't understand mathematicsEgyptians (ancient ones), Arabs, Indians and Chinese understood mathematics without nay help of Platonic knowledge.
>>16171595Not only that, but Pythagoras predated Plato and we all know how much he loved math. Platoism is a question of where knowledge comes from, and math doesn't need to be "real" in some other universe or even in this one in order to "exist". It's like saying that in order to be a lawyer you must believe in "justice" in the Platonist sense.
>>16171592> Platonism, regardless of era or subset, MUST believe that a priori knowledge comes from a separate world of perfect knowledge.No, this is not true. All that one must believe in order to be a Platonist is that there are truths which are true regardless of whether there ever were to exist sentient beings to beleive them. If you believe such truth exists, congratulations, you are a Platonist. If you believe that 2+2=4 would be true even if there never evolved a human species to write such an idea, you believe in a Platonic mathematical object. That's it, that's all it needs. Nothing else. Humans can attempt to discover Platonic truths, and that will always be imperfect, but this doesn't imply there is anything "special" about a Platonic truths other than it is true even before being discovered as such. > And that entire concept is completely absolutely because we now know that such a priori knowledge requires no mystical perfect forms at all.Again, if you believe that 2+2=4 would not be true if there were not humans to think this, explain why. Explain where exactly the human subjectivity or material reference comes into play in 2+2=4. There's nothing mystical about a Platonic truth. You don't need some spooky spiritual ghosts for Platonic truth. It is simply another category of truth that relies on neither material objects nor mental belief for its validity. That is it.
>>16171602>No, this is not true. All that one must believe in order to be a Platonist is that there are truths which are true regardless of whether there ever were to exist sentient beings to beleive them.That's called empirical realism, not platonism. Subjective experience vs thing-in-itself is Kantian, not Platonist. I don't know where you got your philosophical wires crossed.
>>16171595I swear, you people are impressively illiterate. For a moment I'll ignore how influential Plato and Aristotle were on Islamic mathematics, as it is a bit of a distraction from the others.Platonism doesn't mean they have read Plato and subscribe to his specific beliefs in the way he formulated them. I can't believe you are getting so filtered by this concept. Platonism and its relationship to truth is very simple. If you believe that there are truths that would be true without a single person having ever existed or without referring to a single real object in material reality, then you believe in something equivalent to a form of Platonism. If you believe that form of truth to be a God (or God's from the polytheistic religions), you still believe it to be divorced from both the mortal coil and mental state of belief. If you believe that truth to be the fundamental Qi which drives the world, you still believe in a truth which is independent of both material reality and mental states of belief.
>>16171602Furthermore, 2+2=4 not because that is true just because, but rather true because of the laws of addition - which are Human created. Mathematics in the formal sense may seem to resemble some "objective" perfect mathematics, but the universe has no interest in your arithmetic scribbles. You're basically trying to make a roundabout "Do you believe 2+2=4? Well, God made 2+2=4, so therefore you believe in God" type argument; which is totally illogical.
>>16171606Empirical realism is not Platonism. Empirical realism states that all truth is grounded in the experience of being. Platonism is a transcendental realism. There never has ever needed to be a person or any other sentient being to experience "2+2=4" in any sense and it would still be true.
>>16171611all that text and you, wait, that is even worser AAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH>truth to be the fundamental Qi bro is just generating random sentences out of thin air
>>16171614Glad we agree that Platonism is nonsense then. Mathematical knowledge doesn't come from some supernatural universe, it comes from empirical observation and calculations by neural networks - which may or may not be pre-programmed.I want you to remember that all of this comes from Plato's amazement that slaves could solve trigonometry problems. We are literally talking about an overeducated Greek who couldn't believe that the Pythagorean theorem could be identified by anyone other than a fellow philosopher like himself, and had to make up a religion in order to explain it.
>>16171616>worser
>>16171612Can you create a consistent arithmetic in which 2+2=4 is violated? You could recast them with different symbols so that it was "glorp ma glorp ye scqielp" but if they are referring to the same concept, it is the same underlying truth.The laws of addition are not "human created," they are a fundamental aspect of reality. If 2 separate groups each containing 2 objects (material, mental, metaphorical, transcendental, energetic, whatever you want) you have 4 of those objects. It isn't something we have created, it is just a truth that is a priori true without us. Not only is it a priori true without us, but we cannot make it in true.
>>16171618Where did I say supernatural you illiterate fuck? Those "neural networks" are adapting to a consistent observation such that those patterns repeatedly emerge. What is that consistency coming from?
>>16171616No, I'm giving examples of how these different belief systems find themselves referring to very similar concepts. Namely, that all point to some conception of "a priori truth independent of us and our understanding." You can identify that with religious beliefs, you can identify it with "scientific" beliefs, you can do whatever you want but they all point at the same notion. That is the notion that Platonism aims to address, the truth "transcendent" or "independent" of the experience of sentient beings. Truth that would be true without there ever having been a brain to observe it.
It's a bit sad that no one is getting phd guy's point. The state of this board.
>>16171620>if they are referring to the same concept, it is the same underlying truthSame underlying truth based on what, tho? 2+2=4 is NOT derived from a magical universe where a perfect 2 joins with another perfect 2 to create the most perfect 4, but rather "Sally has 2 apples, Billy has 2 apples; how many apples do they have all together? Count with me now, children! One! Two! Three! Four~! Good job, everyone!" You don't even need to be taught it, you can figure it out for yourself for the same reason why monkeys who are given less grapes than the monkey next to them for the same work can figure out the concept of "unfairness" despite no "perfect form of unfairness" needing to exist somewhere else.Mathematics is NOTHING without objective empirical experience, just like all human knowledge. If I were to tell you something completely unconnected from material or mental experience - both of which, I might add, are required to be a 'perfect form' - then you would be incapable of understanding it. It's like Lovecraftian-level knowledge, utterly incomprehensible, and yet this is allegedly where all knowledge comes from according to Plato. He tries to make some "it's too deep for you if you don't get it" argument, but the fact is it's a mystery cult religion just like Pythagoras before him. I would like to you further recall that while Plato is remembered somewhat fondly today, he was widely ridiculed at the time and was irrelevant until Christian philosophers picked up some of his ideas because they liked it in a religious context. They didn't believe in the Land of the Forms, but it was a good foundation for talking about Christian philosophy - and that's Plato's actual legacy. Everything else about Plato is a laughingstock to this day, and in any Philosophy class you will catch absolutely nobody who seriously calls themselves a Platonist because the past 2000 years have been spent mocking and disproving him.
>>16171624He's not making a point. He's just really wants to die on the "math comes from some other dimension" hill for some stupid reason.
>>16171621>Those "neural networks" are adapting to a consistent observation such that those patterns repeatedly emerge. What is that consistency coming from?The neural network's ability to remember patterns it has seen before. So much of memory is purely chemical. Just look at adaptive immune systems. Even single cells have cognition and memory.>WHAT YOU'RE SAYING SINGLE CELLS CAN THINK?Yes, that's increasingly proven. Vertebrate nervous systems are just made up of specialized cells who only 'think', but any cell has the capacity.
>>16171626The first paragraph is just schizo-babble. Again, nothing I've said requires "a magical universe," or "the most perfect 4." It simply requires that 2+2=4 doesn't need Sally or Billy or apples or grapes to be true. It just is true. We can use this truth for our purposes, but it is true without us. > Mathematics is NOTHING without objective empirical experience, just like all human knowledge.I think you mean subjective empirical experience, but I understand what you are trying to say. Unfortunately, it simply cannot be true. While almost by definition all human "subjective truths" will be ones which are derived from empirical experience, there is no amount of human experience which would disprove the fundamentals of (as an example) arithmetic of natural numbers.Human experience could never produce a world in which "2+2= 7" would be arithmetically consistent. Thus, it must be independent of our experience, as our experience cannot possibly falsify this truth. At best we can change the linguistic symbols by which we represent this concept with human language.
>>16171641>Again, nothing I've said requires "a magical universe," or "the most perfect 4." Platonism by definition requires a Land of the Forms. You are using a motte and bailey argument. First you claim that mathematics requires platonism, then when you are criticized for platonism's supernatural aspects you claim "uhhhh, no, perfect knowledge doesn't need to actually exist somewhere outside of empirical or rational experience/contemplation, it... um... it uh just is, somehow.">It simply requires that 2+2=4 doesn't need Sally or Billy or apples or grapes to be true. Yes, if there are no apples or material things to count, then there are no integers. It's why for the longest time the Greeks didn't believe in the concept of Zero. If you don't have an example of "null" in front of you, it's very hard to utilize "null" in your mathematical system. Under a Platonist reasoning, the concept of Zero should have been self-evident - requiring no experience or mental effort at all. It is from the fact we are surrounded by objects in varying quantities that we derive positive integers, and from their absence or owing we derive negative integers. All other mathematics come from measuring various substances. If we lived in a one dimensional universe where there are no triangles, for example, then there would be no Pythagorean theorem. But you are claiming - if you are indeed a platonist and not just LARPing as one - that in a one dimensional universe you should still be able to have knowledge of higher dimensional objects without observation or mental effort because, well, things are true because they are. 2+2=4, right?Answer me this question: if there was only one object in the world - just one and only one - could 2+2=4 be known? Not whether or not it is TRUE, could it be KNOWN?
the absolute midwittery in this thread clearly proves that STEMfags need philosophers.
>>16171634There are pretty significant problems with the computational theory of mind, but we'll ignore this for now. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any proper evidence for the idea that subjective experience is fundamentally emergent from neural computation. We see that neurology interacts with subjective experience of reality, but the functioning of neural tissue doesn't seem sufficient for generating said subjective experience without some ingrained patterns of being that we don't properly understand yet. There was actually a very interesting conversation between Bob Wright and Dennett about this nearly 30 years ago now (god I'm old). That's another discussion for another day though. Let's look at this thesis a bit and see where it breaks down. Neural tissue remembers "patterns" it is exposed to through electrochemical signaling and memory networking to retain states. That is all well and good. These neural networks are exposed to "patterns" via observation/attention mechanisms that are also electrochemical signals. That is also well and good.None of this actually answers the question. What are the patterns and where do they come from? Why are they so consistent and independent from person to person and time to time (to the point that they appear somewhat independent species to species). These neural networks are observing the same set of patterns, what are these patterns they are attempting to make sense of? It is all just solipsistic experience all the way down in your view?
>>16171647>There are pretty significant problems with the computational theory of mind, but we'll ignore this for now.Yeah, let's just ignore the scary idea that single celled slime molds might have mental phenomena or 'souls', that's a big issue that might blow serious holes in your credibility. Best to ignore it and focus on your bullshit.
>>16171645I've tried to explain this to you 10,000 times, but you still don't seem to understand.You don't need to beleive in a literal "land of the forms" (and there's even quite a lot of Platonic scholarship to suggest that Plato intended this largely as metaphor itself) in order to believe that there are a priori truths independent of material reality and mentation. The alternative to this is to either believe that all truth is itself contained within some form of mentation either human or some transcendent kind (e.g., Kastrup's analytical idealism) or believe that truth exists in a duality between mentation and the material. I do not believe that human mentation is required for 2+2=4 to be a meaningful truth..I don't think it would matter if humans ever existed or there were ever Greeks or a guy named Plato who sat in a cave and picked dust from his bellybutton while staring at shadow puppets. 2+2=4 just simply is true, whether anyone would ever have been around to know it or not. > Yes, if there are no apples or material things to count, then there are no integers. It's why for the longest time the Greeks didn't believe in the concept of Zero. If you don't have an example of "null" in front of you, it's very hard to utilize "null" in your mathematical system. Under a Platonist reasoning, the concept of Zero should have been self-evident - requiring no experience or mental effort at all.1) Where on Earth did you get the idea that Platonism should require that all truths are "self-evident" or "requiring no mental effort?" Literally the whole purpose of the Socratic dialogue is to entice you to question your beliefs about truth and what their contingencies are. This isn't an easy process or without "without mental effort" and yet it's at the center of Platonism. The point is not that truth is self-evident or "easy," it is that it is there with or without us and we need to put in effort to discover these fundamental truths.
>>16171645>>161716562) Whether a truth "can be known" or "can be understood" by a particular being in a particular place and time has no bearing on whether it is true. > But you are claiming - if you are indeed a platonist and not just LARPing as one - that in a one dimensional universe you should still be able to have knowledge of higher dimensional objects without observation or mental effort because, well, things are true because they are. 2+2=4, right?We do mathematics in arbitrary and even infinite dimensional spaces all the time. This isn't something that is so strange and shows you as both philosophically and mathematically illiterate. 6 dimensional state space models are the standard for objects moving in a straight line in 3d space. This state space exists in a way that we cannot conceptualize directly as 3d beings and yet we can still perform mathematics in these spaces. Curious isn't it. It's almost as if whether we can experience 6th dimensional existence has no bearing on whether we can perform mathematics on this space.> Answer me this question: if there was only one object in the world - just one and only one - could 2+2=4 be known? Not whether or not it is TRUE, could it be KNOWN?If the only sentience in existence was you, it certainly couldn't be known. You can't even seem to grapple with the most basic of abstractions. Maybe get your "neural networks" checked.
>>16171649Are you capable of engaging in thought without nonstop non sequiturs? I shouldn't have given you the distraction from the fact that none of what you've said about neural networks answers the question of "what are the patterns they are observing and what existence do these patterns have?"
>>16171656>You don't need to beleive in a literal "land of the forms" (and there's even quite a lot of Platonic scholarship to suggest that Plato intended this largely as metaphor itself)"Intended as a metaphor" is cope. Plato's epistemology needs reincarnaton.>in order to believe that there are a priori truths independent of material reality and mentation.You are basically claiming those truths are independent of the state of the universe or social phenomena. That regardless of whether or not Humans exist, 'justice' exists and can be known independent of experience - somehow. In a universe of only one object, 'two' exists and can be known independent of experience - somehow. In a universe made up primarily of substances that are neither material nor mental, 'material' and 'mental' exist as concepts and can be known independent of experience - somehow.This is all obsolete theory already criticized and addressed by centuries of philosophy. You may as well say "real alchemy has never been tried, philosopher's stone was just a metaphor'.>Where on Earth did you get the idea that Platonism should require that all truths are "self-evident" or "requiring no mental effort?"How far back into Phil 101 do we need to go exactly? Slave doing math, apparently. Plato rejected both empiricism and rationalism as an exploitation for why uneducated individuals still 'know' the solutions to mathematical problems. The entire argument of Platonism is NOT "truths are true even if you don't think they are", which is literally just empirical realism as I've already said, but rather the nature and true source of knowledge. You either agree or disagree with Plato where that knowledge comes from. If you think that mathematical knowledge comes from being taught it, you disagree with Platonism. If you think that mathematical knowledge comes from thinking about math, you disagree with Platonism. It's that simple.>>16171666This is 4chan, I am free to insult you.
>>16171664>If the only sentience in existence was you, it certainly couldn't be known.Okay, so Platonism is false because under Platonism you would have a priori knowledge of 2+2=4.
>>16171671No shit you retard. I'm trying to actually understand how someone can be so fucking unhinged that they think a slime mold "needs to have a soul" for neural computation to be insufficient to explain subjective experience. The rest of this post isn't even worth responding to. You're running in circles again and confusing transcendental realism with empirical realism. Modern Platonism is not literally 100% in compliance with the most 80 IQ interpretation of Platonism that turboniggers like yourself that got filtered by your freshman philosophy course come to understand. Plato's answer for why some knowledge appears intrinsic/effortless doesn't require that all knowledge is effortless and only a literal retarded ape could possibly get that from reading Plato (or modern Platonic works).
>>16171675You wouldn't have a priori knowledge of anything. I'm amazed you even know how to breathe without manually forcing yourself. That's how little a priori knowledge you have. And yet 2+2=4 is a priori true statement regardless of whether you ever discover it. I don't even believe in a God and you make me want to pray to one just to hope you eventually become less unhinged.
>>16171678>I'm trying to actually understand how someone can be so fucking unhinged that they think a slime mold "needs to have a soul" for neural computation to be insufficient to explain subjective experience.You seem to be confusing my insult of you with my actual beliefs. I guess I should have suspected this as I was dealing with an obvious autist, so let me explain my insult IN FULL:Slime molds are capable of quite interesting behavior, including very basic computation skills. So, under Platonism, where do they receive that knowledge? They are slime molds, don't go to school - and obviously as we've discussed the idea of their souls reincarnating to learn math in the land of the forms is pretty fucking stupid - so what's the solution here to their a priori knowledge? Evolution? Chemical computation (not neural, we're dealing with the next order down of 'thinking', so deterministic it can barely be called that)? What? It is an interesting question, and one that really cuts in deep to your entire argument. If mere biological automata knows that 2+2=4, do we really need a dumbfuck Platonist explanation at that point? Could mathematics not just be 'objectively true', but also 'usefully' true - such that evolution itself carved it into organisms and thus all this 'a priori' nonsense has less to do with truth and more to do with "if you go for 2 apples instead of 3 apples you fucking die, so molecules better learn to count to at least 3".
>>16171681>You wouldn't have a priori knowledge of anythingWhy not? Do you not know what 'a priori' means? It means BEFORE EXPERIENCE. If you lived in a universe of NOTHING but still had a priori knowledge, you would STILL KNOW THINGS. BECAUSE THE KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE TO BE IN THE UNIVERSE.Holy shit, you are legitimately retarded.
>>16171685This is the last time I will say this. Platonism doesn't require you believe verbatim Plato's epistemology you 45 IQ vanta-black nigger. Bertrand Russell and Godel didn't believe that all knowledge was reincarnated you fucking brainless nigger. The rest isn't even worth responding to because you'll just ignore what I say and respond with some other non sequitur using the word "magical" or "perfect" anyways. Regardless of the implications of biological automata, it's a waste of time. It also is a complete non sequitur from Platonism, which again, doesn't require that you believe the most strict form of Platonic epistemology, as not a single modern Platonist does.
>>16171686The existence of "a priori truth" doesn't mean that you as an individual sentient being have "a priori knowledge" of this truth. Are you a computer scientist? I've only run into this level of retardation coming out of CS departments.
>>16171700>Platonism doesn't require you believe verbatim Plato's epistemology you 45 IQ vanta-black nigger.If you disagree with everything Plato says, then you are not a Platonist. End of story.Plato believed in:>Perfect forms, the 'real' knowledge of the universe>Perfect forms explain a priori knowledge>Allegory of Cave metaphor for comparing Perfect forms to material world; as well as the cycle of reincarnationThat's Platonism. Gnostics believe it, Neoplatonist Christians believe it. You either agree or disagree with these concepts; or you are not a Platonist end of story. It's like saying you believe in Science, but not in expeirmentation.
>>16171701>Are you a computer scientist? I've only run into this level of retardation coming out of CS departments.Moral philosophy and epistemology, as well as geology.
>>16171702This whole conversation could have been avoided if you just admitted you don't know what the word "Platonism" means, just like you didn't know what the word "abstract" means. I say this from the bottom of my heart, stop thinking. You have literally nothing left to learn because you are so unbelievably stupid that it is a marvel of science your basic bodily functions are still properly maintained.You are too fucking stubborn to even once think "maybe this person means something different than what I think they mean" and instead substitute in your absolutely braindead interpretation in whenever you get the chance. I genuinely hope there is not a single person that depends on your intellectual output, because they are absolutely fucked if they do.
>>16171704Wait, a person with an epistemology background is confusing claims of metaphysics for epistemology? Are you genuinely fucked guy? Geology is kind of neat though. Probably a more productive avenue for you.
>>16168968Even math is rotten in academia. I saw a math phd on twitter claim that the digits of pi are 'truly random' because someone proved that each digit occurs with the same frequency. The fact that there's a deterministic algorithm for generating each digit didn't stop him from making his claim of 'truly random'. For some reason humans at all levels are susceptible to conclusion jumping of this sort. It seems to fulfill a psychological need.
>>16171707>This whole conversation could have been avoided if you just admitted you don't know what the word "Platonism" meansProjection. At no point have you advocated what you claim to advocate. You have been thoroughly criticized, and responded only with "No, it's not like that, it's... well it just is!" You have, however, admitted that mathematical knowledge is impossible without experience, so I will take that as your concession.>abstract"Abstract knowledge" isn't Platonic. Platonic is transcendental (a word you yourself have used in this conversation, I might add), which is a completely different concept to 'abstract'. Again, you advocate realism but not anything approaching platonic.>>16171708Are you claiming that Platonic forms aren't metaphysical as well as epistemological? Or are your next words "just because" again? Saying "math is true because it is true" carries no meaningful weight, you can make that claim for anything. And I countered it with "math is true because of the various laws which we have created to make sense of math are true", to which your response was>Can you create a consistent arithmetic in which 2+2=4 is violated?Which is a tautology. Humans have created formalized math, the universe doesn't care. Only Humans care. You're the one arguing there is some objective truth out there that does 'care', and Humans have gained some sort of supernatural (and it must be supernatural, for it is neither material nor mental, and thus not mundane) access to it. You can shrink from the reality of your own mystery cult all you like, but the fact is you're the one making claims you've yet to justify in any way and your only response to criticism is 'you just don't get it'.
>>16171559extremely high levels of stupid in this post
>>16171726Okay, namefag, you want to get into this debate too? Please explain how Platonism is remotely relevant in modern philosophy or how Platonism can even remotely exist without all the reasons why Plato advocated it in the first place, I'd LOVE to hear it.
>>16171720Whether "the universe" "cares" whether "2+2=4" is entirely irrelevant to whether "2+2=4" is true. "Care" is a moral choice about priority and attention, not an answer to whether something is objectively true without any material reference or sentient observer. > At no point have you advocated what you claim to advocate. Here is what I advocate. If you spend literally 10 minutes reading:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/You'll get a cogent explanation of mathematical Platonism that has been carefully written by people smarter than myself. Mathematical Platonism is three things and three things only:1) Mathematical objects/truths exist.2) Mathematical objects are abstract, meaning they do not refer nor depend on any particular material objects nor are they temporally contingent. Mathematical truths are true regardless of where you are in space time.3) Mathematical objects are independent of the thoughts of particular sentient agents, their particular linguistic practices or means of expressing said objects. It doesn't matter what language you write "2+2=4," if it means the same thing it's the same object.That's it. That's the whole thing. There's obviously more writing about the implications of this belief and its relationship to modern mathematics, but those are the only three fundamental theses of Mathematical Platonism. > Are you claiming that Platonic forms aren't metaphysical as well as epistemological?Whether or not a Platonic truth is knowable by any real sentient being is entirely irrelevant to whether it is metaphysically true.You are confusing epistemology for metaphysics and getting yourself lost in the process. If you want to understand Mathematical Platonism, read the Plato link from Stanford above. You'll note that the works they cite weren't written by Plato, and they generally don't require magic nor "perfect trigonometry" nor any of these other shadows you cast in ignorance.
>>16171731You say you'd love to hear it, but won't even bother to spend 10 seconds trying to search who Platonists are and what they believe. Instead you choose to shadow box with caricatures because you are too lazy and stubborn to spend 10 minutes putting effort into trying to understand another way of thinking.
Imagine trying to argue plato with someone who has not read the complete works of plato
>>16171732>Whether "the universe" "cares" whether "2+2=4" is entirely irrelevant to whether "2+2=4" is true. "Care" is a moral choice about priority and attention, not an answer to whether something is objectively true without any material reference or sentient observer.Yes, 'care' is relevant in this case because obviously I'm talking about the objective truth. If, let's say, Humans had some sort of serious defect. Went around thinking for millennial that 2+2=5, and objectively it doesn't. There would be something that 'cared' in this circumstance. In a Platonic sense, and again you're going to fight me on this because you don't know what the word means, what would fight you would be objective truth. In an empiricist sense, it would be the world around you. In a rationalist sense, it would be reason (but not relevant because, as stated, we're imagining humans have a brain defect that forces 2+2=5 upon them just for the sake of this argument). But if Humans went around with a false mathematical belief, nothing would really change. There would be consequences, yes. No civilization. But that's a consequence upon Humanity, everything else just keeps going. 'Objective truth' >Here is what I advocate. If you spend literally 10 minutes reading:Here is what I advocate, you spend literally any amount of time reading:https://www.ducksters.com/kidsmath/mathematical_laws.phpAnd then ask me where the fuck they came from. If you say "exists independently of us and our language", then I would challenge you - once again - whether any of that would exist without experiences or matter to act upon. And you have already stated here >>16171664 that they wouldn't.Your answer to my question. Nothing I said.(cont.)
>>16171731Most physicists who arent hacks agree Plato was right. How is it relevant? I mean he used math to prove the existence of God and multi dimensions long before any of the hacks you have ever heard of with m/brane theory and string theory etc. He descrobed the aether long before your QM hacks ever talked abolut quantum foam and "fields," dark matter etc. You don't know any of this because you yourself are a hack and know nothing about Plato's work
>>16171732>>16171747>Whether or not a Platonic truth is knowable by any real sentient being is entirely irrelevant to whether it is metaphysically true.Russell's teapot. I wasn't going to do this, but let's say there was 'shadow mathematics'. Mathematics that deals with concepts and objects outside of our universe. Just completely beyond any relevance to us - nothing supernatural or spiritual, just weird mathematical concepts. According to you, shadow math is true whether or not we acknowledge or experience it, which might sound philosophically stimulating but at the same time it is utterly meaningless. Mathematics is a tool. We use it for things. If we have nothing to act the mathematics upon it is babble. If I told you "2?2=5", we might derive some interesting new mathematical rule to derive that 5. Maybe the '?' means you always add up the two numbers plus one, maybe something else. It doesn't matter. What utility is the new mathematical law of '?'? None. We haven't gained new knowledge from this. That's why I mock so heavily. You are trying to feel very smart by using the term 'Platonism', father of Philosophy and all, but you don't have any real attachment and indeed the whole principle is fruitless and adds nothing.
>>16171752Well meme'd, sir.
>>16171747The answer is yes, mathematical truths would exist in an abstract sense and be true without any sentience to experience them or write them down. I gave you a resource if you want to actually learn what the words "Mathematical Platonism" mean, but you're too busy being a retarded fuckwit to actually learn anything.
>>16171755Indeed
>>16171757Different topic.You know Sam Harris? I hate the guy. Not because of the atheism, don't care about that, but because he tried to invalidate the Is-Ought Problem by claiming that all 'ought' statements are inherently religious, and from that he could use his dumb idea of brain scans - which he called the 'moral landscape' - to create a totally original and never before seen branch of moral philosophy that definitely 100% was not just preference utilitarianism, trust me bro.You remind me of him. You don't want to talk about what philosophers actually advocate, you just want to use words to make meaningless statements that end up as common sense. "What if math... was just objectively true even if you miscounted on your fingers?" Okay, smart guy, and who or what decided that? Now, it can't be the objective qualities of the universe that 'decided' that, that would make you an EMPIRICAL realist. So you must think something ELSE 'decided' that. But hmmmm, what could it be? Maybe God? Land of the Forms? No, that's silly, you don't believe in that. So what could it be? I guess it doesn't really matter. Things are true because they are. So simple, so child-like. It can't be nuanced or falsifiable, it can't take into account human experience, reason, or artifice. Things are just true because they are.Just like Sam Harris was a neurologist who had no business butting into moral philosophy, mathematicians have no business butting into epistemology.>>16171762>physical objects aren't physicalThis is what I'm talking about, and really the whole subject of this thread. STEMtards have no concept of what philosophy actually is, and just assume they can butt their heads in at any time, ignore everything that everyone else has said, and then walk away smart. "Mmmm, yes I will be a mathematical platonist today, that sounds good." The words of a dunning kruger.
Plato himself never made any contribution to mathematics, but he was a huge "fan" of it. In that sense, he would probably be very similar to the "I fucking love science" type people today
>>16171773To be fair, that wasn't his wheelhouse.
>>16171773>the "father of geometry" never contributed to mathstupid nigger alert
>>16171773Plato is considered the "father of geometry" for defining a point, line, and circle, and for solving the problem of finding the cube of twice a given cube's volume. His postulates have provided a framework for mathematical growth and evolution for thousands of years.yep, nothing of import here, dumb shit
>>16171773Mathematical objects known as platonic solids are named after him
>>16171781>>16171784All of that was known to ancient cultures prior to the Greeks, Plato just repeated it all very loudly.
>>16171780>>16171781Are you confusing euclid for plato, you illiterate namefag?
>>16171753Again you consistently confuse utility (a moral philosophy concept) and interpretability (an epistemological concept) when this discussion is itself about metaphysics (what mathematical truths is, not how we want it to be or how to communicate it properly).Even with shadow math, one could argue it is unproductive or immoral to study such things but nowhere does this negate the truth value of their claims.In terms of utility and applicability, Banach was studying functional transformations on infinite dimensional measurable spaces and calculus on infinite dimensional smooth manifolds in 1902. We happened to find meaningful ways to apply these concepts in robotics, information theory, and communications. Were these mathematical truths useless or beyond relevance to us prior to these applications in your view? Any shadow mathematics one could develop may very well have utility for objects inside our universe even if the Platonic forms developed in the process are not specifically in reference to something useful here and now.
>>16171781You never read plato
>>16171785>source: my ass
>>16171771And moral philosophers should stay the fuck out of mathematics because my god are you retarded.
>>16171788top lol. I literally spoonfed plato to you imbeciles for the last decade. I am the only person on this entire website who has read and understood plato. your ego is wounded because of your public thrashing and you will now lash out wildly in your attempt to save face (to yourself, everyone else knows you are a retarded hack already)
>>16171786nope, you are confusing yourself thinking you are smarter than you actually are, you arent confusing me however
>>16168968Holy shit this.jpeg made me Kek. Thanks for sharing.
>>16171790https://www.britannica.com/science/mathematics/Mathematics-in-ancient-EgyptWhenever you get the urge to think the Greeks made a mathematical contribution, check with the Ancient Egyptians first.>>16171787What I'm telling you is that an infinite number of things could be metaphysically true, and all of them are meaningless except 'truths' which we can observe and make use of. This is fundamental to the disciplines of Science. If you cannot falsify it, you must assume it is false or at the very least pseudoscientific. Even if some sort of 'shadow math' did exist, even so much as advocating it or using it as a thought experiment as I have is suspect. We should not regard 'shadow math' at all, even if true, as 'truth' in and of itself is not MERELY a question of "exist, y/n?" but also of meaning and relevance to us. Mathematics is "true" to Humanity not because of the objectivity of 2+2=4, but rather its utility. We gain value from the truth of 2+2=4, but gain no value from 'shadow math'; which is the difference between the two in its metaphysical value. Not all truths are equal.>In terms of utility and applicability, Banach was studying functional transformations on infinite dimensional measurable spaces and calculus on infinite dimensional smooth manifolds in 1902. I will agree that exploration of pure mathematics is valid (and don't consider this 'shadow math', as it is built off of whatever you want to call regular math) not only because of potential utility but also because it still rests upon 'real' foundations and as a result we are exploring the mental phenomenal world of math - even if what we might be describing might not be 'true' or 'useful' and instead just mathematical hallucination. Counting to numbers higher than the number of possible particles in the universe, for example. It's 'exploration' beyond absolute limits, even when the numbers we are discussing are legitimately ones we've created wholesale.
>>16171794If you don't want me to intrude on math, then don't use terms like 'platonist' if you don't want to sign up for its bullshit.
>>16171803>he thinks he knows more about the Egyptians than I do
>>16171809Okay, so why do you think Plato had contributions to geometry via Platonic solids? They're only named after him. He didn't discover them at all, he just attached his name like the midwit he was.
>>16171812Where did I mention Platonic solids?
>>16171771If you wanted to actually learn about what mathematical Platonists actually advocated, you'd read the Stanford article I linked you with an in depth explanation. It literally addresses almost word for word your ignorant thrashing about relating to "moral value" and "knowability." There are dozens of different schools of thought relating to this, and a very large segment of modern mathematics implicitly relies on the developments of Mathematical Platonists. None of that matters to you. > Okay, smart guy, and who or what decided that? Now, it can't be the objective qualities of the universe that 'decided' that, that would make you an EMPIRICAL realist. So you must think something ELSE 'decided' that. But hmmmm, what could it be? Maybe God? Land of the Forms? No, that's silly, you don't believe in that. So what could it be? I guess it doesn't really matter.The whole point of something being "a priori true" is that there doesn't need to be a "decision" made for its truth value to hold. If you make the statement, "There are no prime numbers between 10 and 20," you don't need a God or a land of the forms or even a language for that to be false. It simply is false by virtue of 11, 13, and 17 being prime numbers and being between 10 and 20. It simply is a truth without any reliance on human decisions or language or material objects for its truth to be retained.The "utility" of this truth, or the way in which human beings arrive at this truth are related to human experience, but the human beings are arriving via experience to a truth that preceeds their experience (otherwise it could not possibly induce the experience which then it is derived from later).
>>16171812you want to learn about Egyptian math? You got no idea young buckstart herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCkQqNI6EyQ
>>16171816>If you wanted to actually learn about what mathematical Platonists actually advocated, you'd read the Stanford article I linked you with an in depth explanation. It literally addresses almost word for word your ignorant thrashing about relating to "moral value" and "knowability."And I'm telling you it's wankery. Mathematical concepts are phenomenal, like color. We don't need to involve Platonic concepts at all.
>>16171808Mother fucker it's a standard term. Mathematical Platonism is a major field of philosophy of mathematics. You can be a whiny bitch about it "not being real Platonism" but it's a prominent view among modern mathematics and very relevant.
>>16171820There's lots of things people believe that aren't true. I'm not beholden to STEMtard misconceptions about resolved issues.
>>16171819> And I'm telling you it's wankery. Mathematical concepts are phenomenal, like color. We don't need to involve Platonic concepts at all.And I'm telling you that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. There are no phenomena which could prove "There are no prime numbers between 10 and 20" to be true. The only possible way would be to alter the actual mathematical object itself (meaning you'd be proving a different mathematical object).
>>16171824None of that requires platonic concepts. I've already told you why.
>>16171816>and a very large segment of modern mathematics implicitly relies on the developments of Mathematical PlatonistsIt absolutely doesn't. Rather, it is the formalization of mathematics is what has led to its huge growth in the previous century.
>>16171822Do you consider the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy to be "STEMtard" material? If so, where do you recommend I go that isn't for STEMtards? Your primary source seems to be a mix of your ass and Wikipedia, so maybe there is where the "real philosophy" can be found?
>>16171829The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy includes all sorts of things, from Plato to Spinoza to Kant to Marx to Nietzsche. All very interesting, but only one can be true.
>>16171785It was known to cavemen that you could draw a picture but I wouldn't negate Rembrandt because a caveman made a stick figure
>>16171828Really, I'm going to end this whole debate by agreeing with this. Nothing about Platonic Mathematics adds anything, but formalization of rules adds everything. It literally doesn't matter if there is a perfect 2 somewhere in the universe or if the real perfect 2 was the friends we made along the way; the only thing that matters is mathematical rules which humans wrote down based on observations of their calculations. We don't need to discuss Plato or anything that claims to be such. I have not heard ONE argument as to why it is so necessary.>>16171836Plato was no Rembrandt.
>>16171827> None of that requires platonic concepts. I've already told you why.1) Does the mathematical statement "There are no prime numbers between 10 and 20" exist as a mathematical object? If so, it satisfies the existence criteria for mathematical Platonism. 2) Does the mathematical statement "There are no prime numbers between 10 and 20" have any particular reliance on a material object/set of material objects or a period of time to derive its truth value? If not, this object satisfies the abstractness criteria.3) Does the truth value of "There are no prime numbers between 10 and 20" depend on which language I write the statement in? If I had written it in Italian would it be less true or more true? What if it was written in a language I couldn't read? Would it then suddenly be false?If you can answer all three of these questions with their obvious answers, then you have accepted that "There are no prime numbers between 10 and 20" is itself a Platonic mathematical object/form.
>>16171838Weak comeback fag
>>16171819so much stupid in this post .... so much stupid. straight lines only exist in your mind
>>16171838>It literally doesn't matter if there is a perfect 2 somewhere in the universe or if the real perfect 2 was the friends we made along the wayExactly. Platonism is just a fairytale that some people want to believe because they think adding the adjective "real" to their mathematical symbol games somehow makes it more respectable.
>>16171846>straight lines only exist in your mindPlatonists would absolutely deny this, you moron
>>16171850He's literally a platonist you moron
>>16171852How can he be a platonist if he denies platonism, you retard?
>>16171850you are so stupid it is painful to witness at this point
>>16171855How can plato be plato if plato ever once changed his mind
>>16171838> It literally doesn't matter if there is a perfect 2 somewhere in the universe or if the real perfect 2 was the friends we made along the way; the only thing that matters is mathematical rules which humans wrote down based on observations of their calculations.I agree with this in some sense, but this is also why I find it important that people learn about these things. My belief that modern mathematics is very reliant on the contributions of mathematical Platonists (which, if you believe Godel, Frege, Russell, Banach or Nikodym have made any contributions, you in some sense do as well). However, none of that gives you as a practitioner a reason to care about whether mathematical truths is constructed or a purely formalistic exercise. Why it matters to me personally is the map-territory problem. In some sense we are intractably tied to only interacting with the map as these mathematical constructs do not (and properly cannot) correspond to real physical entities in most cases of practical engineering/scientific utility. Instead, they serve as an "approximation" via a mathematical object which behaves like the most well behaved and simple/homogeneous version of the material good we wish for the map to describe. If it is truly the case that both the territory is intractably complex and thus inscrutable mathematically, and that the map itself doesn't refer to any meaningful truth outside of linguistic symbol pushing, then it seems the entire enterprise is a waste and we are only likely to get real utility in cases of extreme convenience. However, we've found that mathematical abstractions do tend to be fairly decent "idealizations" of the real thing in many cases.Thus it matters to me both because I simply believe the basic theses of mathematical Platonism, and it gives a more meaningful way to interpret the failings of human derived mathematical modeling of material phenomena.
>>16170569The first fully recorded mathematical proof in history is found in Plato's Meno. You are a blathering idiot and an illiterate.
>>16171862NTA. That's compelling...
>>16171559Mathematical "Platonism" has nothing to do with Plato and is a relic of an era filled with bad mathematicians, worse philologists, and some of the worst metaphysicans to ever live. It has nothing to do with Plato and Platonism. The "mathematical Platonists" merely borrowed some of Plato's terms, copied some of his analogies, and vaguely replicated the of his thinking. They've substituted Plato's nouns for their own, doing violence to the original work. Let's get some things straight. First, Plato's forms do not exist "in another world." They exist squarely in this one, and Socrates explicitly says this in Plato's Republic. Therefore, there is no "mathematical realm." Furthermore, forms and mathematical objects are not the same. Refer to the analogy of the Divided Line if you want to understand how noumenal objects and mathematical objects relate to each other. Mathematical objects are merely "intermediates", not forms in of themselves, and Plato's intellectual descendants make this point very clear, even as they argue against Plato's philosophy. Mathematical "Platonists", stuck in post-critical ontology, have done serious damage to both the image of Plato and the health the profession by using the phantom of Plato to justify the existence of any nonsensical mathematical model independent of the things that mathematics was developed to represent. They invented an intellectual vacuum and thanked Plato for its existence, when the old master himself would have told them that they merely invented a deeper cave within the cave.
>>16171892vaguely replicated the **thrust** of his thinking*
>>16171862>Banach or NikodymWhat do Banach or Nikodym have to do with Platonism? Did you just namedrop the two latest mathematicians you heard of?
>>16171992Kek, pseud BTFO
All of you dimwits saying philosophy is useless gloss over the fact that youre allowed to watch your fury and anime(borderline child) porn in secret is because of philosophy in the first place, philosophy gave birth to political science and the idea of freedom and value of privacy of an individual in a modern state is because of the so called useless philosophy that you hate.
>>16172003>philosophy is the root cause of furry and anime pornOne more reason to hate philosophy.
>>16171992What do you think the Banach-Tarski paradox is about? The whole reason why "doubling the ball" is problematic is that the connection with physicalism. If you accept that balls in Euclidean spaces are abstract and not physical notions then you do not arrive to this notion being paradoxical. The mathematical justifications only matter if it is in fact problematic to be able to cut a ball in 3d space into two pieces of exactly the same measure.Nikodym's main contributions to mathematics were in the form of Boolean lattices. You may have only heard his name from an integration course or something, but his later important contributions were in this sub-domain of abstract algebra. His last book was "The Mathematical Apparatus for Quantum-Theories" and its main goal was to provide a mathematical philosophy and theory of quantum operations and the notion of quantum state for physicists. Its literal purpose was to provide these abstractions in a non-physical manner so that physicists could use them for solving their abstract quantum problems.How do you believe these two interact with the notion that mathematics only has meaning in physical realization? Their major philosophical contributions to mathematics are ones which only make sense if you understand mathematical truths as non-physical in nature.
>>1617086999.999999999999% of modern philosophy is just layers and layer of constructed bullshit on top of the central premise that it's impossible to prove anything exists. This is why the only people in who have any use for modern philosophy are modern philosophers who love to wallow in their own shit while claiming to be heirs of ancient philosophers.pic unrelated
>>16172129>What do you think the Banach-Tarski paradox is about?not him, but it's just midwits seeing a problem where there is none
>>16172129>Mentioning Banach in a discussion about Platonism is not namedropping because... le spurious connection I just made up between the Banach-Tarski theorem and Platonism and Physicalism>Mentioning Nikodym isn't namedropping either because... I just learnt that he wrote an obscure book on quantum mechanics which is not read or used by actual physicists (or even other mathematicians, probably). No I won't mention von Neumann or any other of the many mathematicians who worked on physics instead because... I just won't ok??!!You've not really thought much about any of this have you?
>>16172142What do you think Von Neumann's conclusions were for mathematical philosophy? I'll give you a hint, they were very closely related to Godel.
>>16171850Some real mouth breathing happening ITT. You should never post on this board again
>>16172201 My pointYour head>they were very closely related to Godel.Nope. Here's what von Neumann actually thought https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Von_Neumann_Part_1/>I think that it is a relatively good approximation to truth - which is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations - that mathematical ideas originate in empirics>As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source, or still more, if it is a second and third generation only indirectly inspired by ideas coming from "reality" it is beset with very grave dangers.>In other words, at a great distance from its empirical source, or after much "abstract" inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration.
>>16172214>*incoherent schizobabble*
>>16172227If logic and reason sound like "schizo babble" to you, it is because you are the schizo
>>16172232Lol, retard
>>16172224Your reading comprehension is very poor. This section was a response to intuitionist mathematical philosophy, not a rejection of a priori truth as a concept within mathematical philosophy.You also don't seem to understand what he is saying with this first quote. He is saying that empiricism isn't a truthful representation of mathematical objects, but it's a good approximation of the truth. Not a page earlier he expresses skepticism that empiricism alone can account for mathematical truths.> It is very hard for any mathematician to believe that mathematics is a purely empirical science or that all mathematical ideas originate in empirical subjects.You are reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. Quite typical of an empiricist actually.
>>16172244I won't even bother addressing this tripe but I'll just point out that you've squeamishly changed topics when you were called out for namedropping like a dumb pseud.
>>16172249Banach and Nikodym both were analysts who performed work on abstract spaces which have very limited connection to physical/empirical reality. They both contributed to major fields which disputed the notion that mathematical truths must correspond to physical truths. I wasn't changing topics, I was responding to your assertion that Nikodym's contributions weren't significant and comparing them to VonNeumann. My response was that VonNeumann wasn't an empiricist. Your response was to bring up VonNeumann in an article that you either didn't read or didn't understand in which his main point is that empiricism cannot possibly be the source of mathematical truth, but that empirical truths and empirical inspiration must remain key to mathematics (arguing against intuitionist and artistic/aestheticism). You're calling me a pseud and you won't even read the articles you linked, let alone bother to try to understand them. VonNeumann was a very complicated thinker and someone who was very concerned with trying to marry practicality to absolute truth. He certainly wasn't an empiricist, he was a pragmatist who wished to find some way to unite Platonism and empiricism via a dialectical process.
>>16172273I have no interest at all in continuing this discussion with bad faith pseuds like you, sorry
>>16172285Okay retard. Let me know when you figure out where exactly humans factor into "2+2=4" being true.
>>16171850This is actually the central core and thesis of Platonism. Are you really this stupid or is this an elaborate troll?
>>16171850But only because platonists are gay and reject the platonic form of straightness.
>>16168977Only continental is like that
>>16170230I agree with much of your opinion of Plato but trying to lump Aristotle in with Humors/Alchemy is just absurd, sorry.
Isn't there a single board on this dead shitheap that isn't overrun by bots
>>16172288Flawless victory. I kneel for Platochad.
>>16170224>platonic formdis nigga thinks numbers exist!come laugh at him!
>>16170841Reading this chain was fucking hilarious.Thank you anon. Stop falling for trolls.
>>16172736>mfw dumb platonists don't even know what they believehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices.
>>16173600So you are really that dumb. Thanks for clarifying
>>16173792Great comeback there, retard
>>16171842It's clearly a statement about the relations of a set of integers, and as such it can be tested for logic value, no ancient pedo magic needed, you're just too busy smelling pseud farts to see it
STEM autist incels should be banned from their fields until they can demonstrate an understanding of TAG. Frankly, anyone who is still a materalist should be sterilized.
>>16171850>>16172736both of you groups of people are wrong. Platonists believe that 1) it exists in the mind because 2) the universe is mind (not to be confused with solipsism as we participate in the universe). Plato definitely isn't saying we make shit up either. the eternal truths are true regardless of how we feel.
>>16175222This doesn't refute my post in anyway retarded faggot
>>16176146it partially refutes you
>>16171602>Explain where exactly the human subjectivity or material reference comes into play in 2+2=4. Material realization: I have two books. I have another two books. wtf, now I have four books
>>16169271>You can actually publish stuff on someone like Maimonides or St Augustine today. If you tried to do a dissertation on Nietzsche and Buddhist philosophy or something like that, everyone would think you're a closeted neonazi or somethingYou’ve got it completely backwards. Nietzsche is arguably one of the most important philosophers for postmodernity and basically all of the original postmodernists owe a massive theoretical debt to his work. Foucault literally got his idea of genealogy straight from Nietzsche. Maybe for analytics this could be somewhat truer but who cares what analytics have to say especially when the man who invented their discipline (Wittgenstein) later switched sides and called them idiots for it.
>>16170645Too based for /sci/
Mathfags have this strange propensity for applying their autistic special interest to literally everything. I don't know why. Maybe they regret studying something so arcane and detached from the day to day realities of life. Or perhaps they've been so thoroughly convinced by themselves and by their colleagues that they actually believe that understanding math somehow makes them an expert in every field.
>>16168968Analytical hands typed this
>>16177066Ah, okay, so 2+2=4 is only true for physically realized entities? It's not true for more abstract/conceptual notions like, say, dollars in your checking account?
>>16173848Okay, so you test the statement for logical consistency. Does that logical consistency depend on people in some fashion or is it, maybe just maybe, true independent of people? If instead of humans some other alien race were the first to think of this problem, would it be any less true than how it is now where humans are the sole logicians?
>>16177625https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences
>>16177852I remember reading this a while back. It's disappointingly shallow. Einstein also had an essay on this called "Geometry and Experience" (link here: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_geometry/) but I also think it doesn't really go in depth into the problem. Good for philosophycel STEMmers to get introduced to the topic though.
>>16177871Based euclid appreciator
>>16170645time cube?????
>>16170569if you consider line by line proofs to be a major part of math, then its also a major part of meta-ethics, where cognitive ethics examines its logic in the form of is/oughts.
>>16177919You shouldn't brag about committing a categorical error.
>>16177846I didn't say it was false for abstract numbers. I can add that addition of abstract numbers is only legitimized by the consistency of the process of addition of physically realized numbers
>>16177951But the entire point that was being refuted was that "Math proves its claims, philosophy doesn't". Formal logic in philosophy does exist.
>>16177981Any abuse of formal logic in philosophy is merely a LARP by cretins who understand neither math nor philosophy and who mistakenly believe that establishing a cargo cult around logical symbols would give them more credibility. It's a strong indicator of low IQ.
>>16177988I don't see how analyzing the gramatical construction of ethical statements in the form of true/false values is "an abuse of formal logic" especially since it understands the nature of ethics as being built on assumptions which serve as axioms, or rather "oughts", in which all logical statements are built upon on, thus making it impossible to purely tie a proof in ethics to complete facts, or "is's".
>>16177989Treating moral statements as logical propositions is morally wrong.
>>16178009A moral statement follows the rules of logical propsitions though? You just displayed it in your post.
>>16178021>"Lying is morally wrong" is an absolute true statement>noooo, you're not allowed to lie when a murderer asks where to find your daughter (AMAB) so he can kill her ... because lying is immoral, I proved it logically The absolute state of amoral soicucks and their cargo cult of pseudologic
>>16178030You just proved my point though, that its actually:>Lying ought* to be morally wrongBecause to use "is" would imply that its a fact, which you disproved.
>>16175222Just read the first sentence of the article >>16173600 instead of making shit up. Platonists believe in the existence of mind-independent abstract objects so they would deny the statement "straight lines only exist in the mind". This is just basic logic
>>16178036Logic OUGHT to be applied only to factual statments, not to moral oughts.
>>16178077NTA there's no reason moral oughts can't be factual statements
>>16178091See the example in >>16178030
>>16178096That only shows at most that acting morally can be complex
Let's put it simply.FEM LOGIC AS EXAMPLE.[SMART MAN WITH DEEP KNOWLEDGE]argues with[SMART MAN WITH DEEP KNOWLEDGE]RESULT [DEEP KNOWLEDGE USED AS SOURCES][FEMINIST ARGUES BARELY LITERATE]VERSUS [SMART MAN WITH DEEP KNOWLEDGE]RESULT: NONSENSE TIME WASTE Feminist declares "But what about my feelings?", Feminist argues, "Definitions are just SEMANTICS". When asked to define "SEMANTICS" the Feminist doesn't know at all since she's basically reciting a "word spell" she heard but literally doesn't know what a "definition" is or what a "semantic" is, in fact she hasn't used a dictionary or read a genuine book in decades.Result is a time wasted because you're arguing with essentially a retarded word noise regurgitating creature that seems victory through confusion or annoyance of the opponent. The noise vomiter doesn't "understand" the concept of "meaning" or "logic" or "definitions", it just recites noise pattern that results in its pussy getting wet. An ignorant debate opponent is a car without an engine. An ignorant debate opponent is a wheelbarrow minus a wheel. An ignorant debate opponent is a chicken sandwich without any chicken meat.
>>16178104Reading this postRESULT: NONSENSE TIME WASTE
>>16178108>Reading this post>RESULT: NONSENSE TIME WASTEDo your zippertits scars hurt much?FEMINIST PROVES HYPERGAMY WHILE ARGUING AGAINST IThttps://m.youtube.com/shorts/7HAYKrgc3UYCOLLEGE GIRL TRIED TO PLAY SMART WITH ANDREW?! https://m.youtube.com/shorts/f3Luw6zlF18Retarded Whore: "...and that is not how logic works you can't just say that I'm willing to..."Andrew: "Tell me how logic Works. Give me one rule of law of logic give me one law of logic, ONE."Retarded Whore: "um it's based in fact and Truth."Andrew: "What? What? Hahaha. What. Can you, did you? Give me a single Law of Logic."Retarded Whore: "Can you?"Andrew: "Yes. The first is the Law of Non-Contradiction the second is the Law of Excluded Middle. How many would you like? Would you like to get into informal logic as well?"Bryan: "Yeah, go for it."Andrew: "Would you like to get into the Law of Identity that's a third. What else would you like?Retarded Whore: (SMUGLY) "That's SEMANTICS at this point. I, uhhh..."Andrew: "No no, that's literally the opposite of semantics. Do you know what semantics are because that's not semantics."Retarded Whore: (dismissively smug sarcasm) "Okaaaaay..."
>>16178104Philosocucks BTFO
>>16178104>Definitions are just SEMANTICSThat is literally what semantics is thougheverbeit.
>>16178077Again, my original point was that all "is" statements are logically connected to "oughts", which are assumptions.Like for instance your example would be:>Telling the truth is allowing a murderer to find your daughter>A murder finding your daughter is going to cause her to be murdered>Allowing your daughter to be murdered ought* to be morally wrong
>>16170665>science itself relies on a philosophical framework in order to justify its epistemological valuenobody but sorry victims of the brain disorder called philosophizing care about that. shows you are very distant from STEM; coherence of results is all that matters.
