Moral Absolutism your opinion?

[Kaylia]

I'm saying the former, that I believe the axioms of peano arithmatics are true, but I'm open to the possiblity that they could be wrong. That's why I say math is not a universal truth, it's only correct when it's axioms are correct. But of course, we can't prove or know for certain that the axioms are correct, so we can never say "math is certainly true". We can only say "math is true if the axioms are true". I don't think it's possible to make any stronger statement than that.

I haven't read the entire topic, but it sounds like our viewpoints are either the same or very similar. I disagree with most of what Max has said. I'm more in favor or what Quicklet just said, especially the last paragraph (and especially the last sentence)

They do feel true, but since we are extremely biased by our brain/environment, it's really hard to say anything.

Physics doesn't use mathematics because it is convenient, it uses it because it is the best way to describe and model the Universe.

Ok, I'm going to make this statement then:

"Physics use mathematics because it's convenient, since it's an adaptative language that allow us to easily describe observation


Explain me how your statement can coexist with mine? Show me which one is wrong, or explain me how you decide which one is the most likely?

Simple bodies of statements produce simple spaces, Euclidean Universes are an example of this, frozen and jewel like, but implied by the existence of the geometry Euclid discovered.

No...just no.

What you are doing is observe physics --> maths model --> put "out of bound" number --> get result

You are predicting the existence of something, but it's not something entirely mathematics. Otherwise, every mathematics would imply the existence of something

Maybe I'm just more comfortable with discarding the idea that I am the center of things, that I am important, that I am more than just a side effect of another cause.

Stop masturbating in public please. No one in this thread had an opinion remotely close to that. In fact, you were probably the less humble about mathematics. Everyone but you is detached to these philosophical "truth" you see everywhere.

[Max™]

T
"Physics use mathematics because it's convenient, since it's an adaptative language that allow us to easily describe observation


Explain me how your statement can coexist with mine? Show me which one is wrong, or explain me how you decide which one is the most likely?

Mathematics allows us to describe observations in such a way that we can predict future observations to one extent or another, Physics is the branch of Mathematics we discovered which applies to the physical world around us.

It is just degrees of purity, and ultimately reductionism. I prefer taking everything down to the minimal level you can work with.

You are right that axioms need to be defined as true, but that ability itself, to be able to define an axiom as true, what does that imply?

It implies that we are observers capable of describing mathematical structures.

So we study ourselves, our ability to observe, the Universe we observe around us, and we produce physics, and what emerges as the most natural way to describe physics? More mathematical structures!

So we try to reduce physics, ourselves, everything, to it's most fundamental elements.

What emerges? Math!

Goddamn stuff is everywhere, help!

<= drowning in mathematics

You are predicting the existence of something, but it's not something entirely mathematics. Otherwise, every mathematics would imply the existence of something

Exactly!

Stop masturbating in public please. No one in this thread had an opinion remotely close to that. In fact, you were probably the less humble about mathematics. Everyone but you is detached to these philosophical "truth" you see everywhere.

Wouldn't masturbation be focusing on myself as the center of things, instead of recognizing that I am just another locus of observation within a body of statements described by an as yet undiscovered unified theory of physics?


I'm not quite sure what you mean about everyone being detached to these philosophical "truths" I see everywhere though.

[Quicklet]

Except that physics arose out of philosophy, not mathematics. You can do physics (albeit somewhat limitedly) without using much, if any, mathematics. Mathematics simply enables us to translate indirect experience into direct terms and to do it more precisely. It doesn't mean we can't do any kind of physics without it.

For example, we can't directly sense magnetic effects, but some animals can, and they don't rely on mathematical tools to know that there's some phenomenon which we call magnetism. If it were possible for there to be quantum-sized sentient beings, or possibly planet-sized sentient beings, and they required some kind of apparatus to understand the world around them, their version of mathematics could look quite different from ours.

Mathematics is an invention that just happens to be useful in our observations, it is not some pre-existing structure that we are tapping into. That's why we can come up with mathematical structures that do not correspond to observations we make. We invent concepts like quantity because they are familiar to our senses. That doesn't necessitate that they correspond to actual structures in the world out there, if you believe that we can ever know anything definitive about them aside from how we observe them. It's a human-made concept and the universe, whatever it is, doesn't have to rely on it to operate. Particles, as far as I can tell, don't have to compute what kind of force they're supposed to be feeling at any moment of time. They just "know". That's why this stuff about the universe not have the resources to be able to compute "such and such" is meaningless.

[Woozie]

Quicklet, you are awesome. I was having a similar conversation with someone in the physics department last month, and I wish you had been there to help me say what I was thinking.

[Beckwin]

moral relativism is strongly tied to collectivism/society. it's simply not a matter of saying that the train-exploding baby-raper is no better than I; it's more about admitting there's no higher moral authority to appeal to and making a case for morals based on societal function balanced with individual freedoms, while acknowledging that gray areas among individuals and cultures will arise. Ideally, it's realized that it's acceptable/tolerable for most of those gray areas to be gray, yet you still can criticize discrepancies based on social function and freedom.

Relativism forces you to articulate reasoning for having morals/prizing certain virtues, instead of just saying "well, it's good/God said it/etc".

[Denchi]

But it's not that simple to just say "It's whatever the collective society agrees upon." Different societies agree upon different things, as well as individuals have differing views (like the train-exploding-baby-raper). But even so, as a society, you still have to set up norms that you can agree upon. Is the goal of society happiness, pleasure, wealth? The ends should be identified. If "Articulating reasoning" is simply appealing to the masses, then that's not really very convincing.....

[Beckwin]

the morals of a society are those that are taught to individuals and/or those that occur commonly enough across the population to become majority opinion. The ends/goals will vary from society to society, which is why the sets of morals vary as well. Articulating reasons for your set of morals would include citing how it leads to functional successes as well as making emotional appeals, and your point about it not being very convincing... well, again, there's no higher authority to making it absolutely convincing. So you've got to make a damn good case for it.

You seem to be hung up on the whole idea killing being ok to some individuals... yet you and I know that's the truth- some people are ok with killing. they don't find it morally reprehensible like you or I do. But, societies refrain from having the morals of a serial killer because that does not lead to what most consider a successful society.

Now a more sensible discussion of relativism wouldn't be sensationalizing the serial killer, but examining the differences among successful societies with different sets of morals. Classic East vs. West: very different ideas about treatment of animals, group vs. individual, etc. However there is common ground- killing is bad, stealing is bad, etc. But do you want to classify the differences as absolutely wrong? What justification would you have?

You'd have to appeal to some greater-than-human authority- God or "natural law" (quasi-deist bullshit imo).

[Max™]

Morals to me are just a statement about how YOU would like to be treated.

My morals are simply put, I avoid killing unless it is to protect my life, or the life of those I cherish, I avoid stealing unless it is to return that which was stolen from me, I avoid invading the home or personal space of others.

That I would like to avoid being killed, stolen from, or crowded, can all be taken as obvious implications of my moral code.

I developed these on my own, and recognize they are only valid as a description of how I personally would like to be treated.

I can not expect such treatment unless I offer it, so I behave in this manner to encourage others to do so as well.

[Denchi]

It's hard to even see what you're saying when you use terms like "Functional Successes." I have no idea what that means. It's like saying "well obviously we agree on good things because they lead to good things."

Arreeeee the good things material wealth and bodily safety? Are they helping others and being selfless? Are they being selfish (hi Ayn Rand)? Are they treating everyone as an end within themselves (hi Kant)? Is it distributing pleasure in a way where everyone has an equal share (hi utilitarianism)? Hedonism?

Also, why is there common ground? There are certainly differences in some aspects of killing (stories of forced abortions, capital punishment being much more accepted). Is it simply because killing people leads to a stunted society who's end is wealth? I mean there are plenty of studies that show happiness isn't correlated to wealth (at a certain level), and studies that show that America and China aren't the happiest countries in the world. Sure, maybe the wealthiest.......maybe we have the most aircraft carriers. Is that our goal in life? (fully aware of the ambiguity of any study ever)

[Beckwin]

functional success would refer to a society continuing to function, and function in a desirable way.

the good things vary from group to group, but common themes tend to be personal safety and freedom. the point is that there is variation, and those variations tie in with differing moral standards. the fact that so many different sets of morals exist and are embraced seems to defeat any notion of absolute morals.

I think you might need to state your position on this, because all you're saying is that moral relativism is bad because people and societies have different sets of morals. what are the absolute morals, how do you know they are such, and why are they superior enough to be followed as absolute?

[Kaylia]

You are right that axioms need to be defined as true, but that ability itself, to be able to define an axiom as true, what does that imply?

It implies that we are observers capable of describing mathematical structures.

It means absolutely nothing. You can't talk about implication without defining a mathematical implication, and you defined none. Beside, I don't know any mathematical models that involve my awareness of the universe. In fact, i don't know any mathematical model that involve that kind of implication toward the reality.

If you want to argue about self awareness or whatever, your guess is as good as mine. I'm just going to say the universe is doing its thing in our head using hysteresis. There is no mathematics, just causality.

"Otherwise, every mathematics would imply the existence of something "

Exactly!

Proof please.

Secondly, it implies everything exist, since you can use mathematics to describe anything. It's not impossible, I do think that if we are here, in this form and shape, everything might be possible, but it's not a proof, or not a scientific/logical statement.

Wouldn't masturbation be focusing on myself as the center of things, instead of recognizing that I am just another locus of observation within a body of statements described by an as yet undiscovered unified theory of physics?

It has nothing to do with how you place yourself in the universe, but how right you think you are.

[Max™]

In fact, i don't know any mathematical model that involve that kind of implication toward the reality.

Physics.

If you want to argue about self awareness or whatever, your guess is as good as mine. I'm just going to say the universe is doing its thing in our head using hysteresis. There is no mathematics, just causality.

That isn't causality as I understand it, but I'm working with a different sort of causal structure anyway.

I think this whole argument boils down to ontology vs epistemology and empiricism.

I like to joke that I am an ontological empiricist.

Proof please.

Secondly, it implies everything exist, since you can use mathematics to describe anything. It's not impossible, I do think that if we are here, in this form and shape, everything might be possible, but it's not a proof, or not a scientific/logical statement.

Existence is the proof, I am trying to deduce the statements which describe that proof, so I can show the axioms which can be defined in such a way as to show the existence I am working from.

It has nothing to do with how you place yourself in the universe, but how right you think you are.

I am building off the work of Einstein, Godel, Newton, Feynman, and others.

I can not say that I am right, but I can say that I have yet to be falsified, though I try to find ways to do just that all the time.

[Kaylia]

Physics.

uhh....You don't works with physics postulate when you do mathematics. You already said so yourself.

Your relation to mathematics is so fallacious that it's frustrating to argue with you about this. Attend a topology or mathematical analysis class or something...it will do you a lot of good.

Max:
1-You are right that axioms need to be defined as true, but that ability itself, to be able to define an axiom as true, what does that imply? It implies that we are observers capable of describing mathematical structures. (physic -> mathematics)
2-Physics (in answer to: "I don't know any mathematical model that involve that kind of implication toward the reality") (mathematics -> physics)

1<->2
Sooooo...observing the universe (ourselves) imply mathematics, and doing mathematics imply the universe?

How is this equivalence not circular? How do you deal with that kind of mathematical abomination? Not to mention that both statement you made are NOT mathematics or physics, and are very arguable from a philosophy standpoint .

Max:
1-Math describes more than just our Universe, so it is not limited to just physics.

2-You are right that axioms need to be defined as true, but that ability itself, to be able to define an axiom as true, what does that imply? It implies that we are observers capable of describing mathematical structures. (physic -> mathematics)

2 is included in 1, since our universe is included in mathematics. However, 2->1 can't possibly be right since not every elements of 1 correspond to an element of 2.


Max:
Maths does not care if you believe in it, it is provable, that trumps any silly concept of belief for a logical mind.
What is your proof for this again? I still havent seen it, outside the fallacious statement

That isn't causality as I understand it, but I'm working with a different sort of causal structure anyway.

Causality is how you reach the current state N from N-2 and N-1, or from N-1 and N+1. It's arguable I suppose, but that's the best definitions imo.


My point is, everything is calculated ahead by the universe, including your mathematical prediction. You have no choice but to move to the next state, predicted by the previous one.

If we were truly free (in a religious sense), you lose the causality, and both mathematics and physics fall apart. If causality exists, we don't have any word to say in this, because we are a part of it.

Existence is the proof, I am trying to deduce the statements which describe that proof, so I can show the axioms which can be defined in such a way as to show the existence I am working from.

You will never be able to accomplish anything if your mathematical basis are off. Your best bet is to confuse poor philosophy students who never had the opportunity to do mathematics.

If "existence" is your axiom, you will never be able to prove mathematics, because you can only prove thing you physically interacting with. Beside, you will need more than 1 axioms with no relation to "prove" anything.

I am building off the work of Einstein, Godel, Newton, Feynman, and others.

I can not say that I am right, but I can say that I have yet to be falsified, though I try to find ways to do just that all the time.

The brain is a very very lazy piece of shit that will send you "true" whenever it feels like. I'm certain everything feel true in your head, but until you can write down your axiom and logic using simple coherent statement, don't put too much faith in your theory.

[Cantih]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/moral_relativity.jpg

[Max™]

uhh....You don't works with physics postulate when you do mathematics. You already said so yourself.

Your relation to mathematics is so fallacious that it's frustrating to argue with you about this. Attend a topology or mathematical analysis class or something...it will do you a lot of good.

I'm coming into mathematics from the other direction, so I fully agree my take on things is completely weird to traditionally educated folk.

How is this equivalence not circular? How do you deal with that kind of mathematical abomination? Not to mention that both statement you made are NOT mathematics or physics, and are very arguable from a philosophy standpoint .

Circles are insanity inducing, I know, but they're everywhere. It just gets worse when you begin considering infinite causal loops.

We're here, because we're here, because we're here, because we're here.



The Axiom problem is maddening as well, that is what Godel was speaking of, the inability to contain everything within a single set, because you can always generate an outside statement. As well as the ability to define axioms which are related to a set of statements, yet are not included in said set.

What is your proof for this again? I still havent seen it, outside the fallacious statement

What is my proof that math doesn't care if you believe in it?

If one person disbelieves in mathematics, another person can still prove an equation.

Do you know how to prove god?

Causality is how you reach the current state N from N-2 and N-1, or from N-1 and N+1. It's arguable I suppose, but that's the best definitions imo.


My point is, everything is calculated ahead by the universe, including your mathematical prediction. You have no choice but to move to the next state, predicted by the previous one.

You're assuming that causality is unidirectional.

That is an assumption, not a given.

If we were truly free (in a religious sense), you lose the causality, and both mathematics and physics fall apart. If causality exists, we don't have any word to say in this, because we are a part of it.

You can loosen causality without math and physics falling apart, though it is more accurate to say adjust causal rules.

You are right that we are embedded in it though, not merely outside observers.

You will never be able to accomplish anything if your mathematical basis are off. Your best bet is to confuse poor philosophy students who never had the opportunity to do mathematics.

If "existence" is your axiom, you will never be able to prove mathematics, because you can only prove thing you physically interacting with. Beside, you will need more than 1 axioms with no relation to "prove" anything.

Existence is the proof I am stuck with on my chalkboard.

There is a big blank space, an "=" sign, and "this Universe" on the right side.

I'm trying to fill in the blank space on the other side.

Axioms determine how to manipulate Statements, that act provides Proofs.

Existence is the answer, I am trying to find the question, and determine how that question could exist.

The brain is a very very lazy piece of shit that will send you "true" whenever it feels like. I'm certain everything feel true in your head, but until you can write down your axiom and logic using simple coherent statement, don't put too much faith in your theory.

"The easiest person to fool is yourself, recognizing this is the most important part of being a scientist." ~A man far wiser than either of us

Again, I'm not working on the basis of what feels true, I am working on the basis of what I can not falsify, because I fully recognize that I can not trust my mind telling me something is true.

I can trust that what I am unable to falsify may be true, and work from there.

[Kuya]

What is my proof that math doesn't care if you believe in it?

:/

[Kaylia]

I'm coming into mathematics from the other direction, so I fully agree my take on things is completely weird to traditionally educated folk.

You're not getting remotely close to mathematics. Mathematics build structure based on axiomatic truth, you don't. You remain in the same foggy place most philosopher spend all their life.

Circles are insanity inducing, I know, but they're everywhere. It just gets worse when you begin considering infinite causal loops.

We're here, because we're here, because we're here, because we're here.

The Axiom problem is maddening as well, that is what Godel was speaking of, the inability to contain everything within a single set, because you can always generate an outside statement. As well as the ability to define axioms which are related to a set of statements, yet are not included in said set.

A circle is a topoligical structure defined in a larger space. It doesnt have anything to do with self implication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_(mathematics). Actually, I'm curious to hear what kind of self implicating model lead to a circle in mathematics. You can get fractal and stuff like this, but I dont remember seeing a circle.

Sciences doesn't consider infinite loop. We postulate our observation, and try to explain the rest through model, nothing more. We don't try to understand the philosophical meaning behind this, we simply accept it and move forward.


Also, if the world was self implicating, you can give up on sciences right now, because the moment you intereact with the universe, the self implication would come bite you in the ass, and you wouldnt be able to find any sort of truth, since it is't true anymore.

What is my proof that math doesn't care if you believe in it?

If one person disbelieves in mathematics, another person can still prove an equation.

Do you know how to prove god?

The same way you prove your axiom in mathematics.

You're assuming that causality is unidirectional.

That is an assumption, not a given.

I didn't assume anything, I clearly said "in my opinion". Since we can only observe causality in one direction, it's the only one I can describe.

Mathematical induction is the best tool we have at the moment to describe the universe, and induction doesn't work both way. You need a start and a first case, but you can't have a end.

There is a big blank space, an "=" sign, and "this Universe" on the right side.
I'm trying to fill in the blank space on the other side.
Axioms determine how to manipulate Statements, that act provides Proofs.
Existence is the answer, I am trying to find the question, and determine how that question could exist.

That's where godel come in and tell you that causality, proof of existence, and mathematics can all coexist in the same model.

[Kaylia]

Also, can you go back to my last post and explain your statement: "math describe more than the universe" and "physics -> mathematics" can coexist.

[Max™]

You're not getting remotely close to mathematics. Mathematics build structure based on axiomatic truth, you don't. You remain in the same foggy place most philosopher spend all their life.

I've bounced and rebounded off of philosophy time and time again, it happens over the decades of studying physics.

A circle is a topoligical structure defined in a larger space. It doesnt have anything to do with self implication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_(mathematics). Actually, I'm curious to hear what kind of self implicating model lead to a circle in mathematics. You can get fractal and stuff like this, but I dont remember seeing a circle.

Topology is one thing I DO understand, and you know goddamn well I meant a circle as in a cycle, or a loop.

Sciences doesn't consider infinite loop. We postulate our observation, and try to explain the rest through model, nothing more. We don't try to understand the philosophical meaning behind this, we simply accept it and move forward.

Actually we can try to consider the meaning behind things, we simply recognize the limitation of philosophy and conversely the limits of science to explain things.

Also, if the world was self implicating, you can give up on sciences right now, because the moment you intereact with the universe, the self implication would come bite you in the ass, and you wouldnt be able to find any sort of truth, since it is't true anymore.

If the system were self-implicating outside of itself, that doesn't hold true, but you'll go insane considering those possibilities.

The same way you prove your axiom in mathematics.

Badump-tum-tiss.

I didn't assume anything, I clearly said "in my opinion". Since we can only observe causality in one direction, it's the only one I can describe.

We can only observe slices of causality, we don't observe it in either direction, we assume it functions as we describe, but you should know as well as I do that we cannot prove that the past is in the state we remember it in.

Mathematical induction is the best tool we have at the moment to describe the universe, and induction doesn't work both way. You need a start and a first case, but you can't have a end.


That's where godel come in and tell you that causality, proof of existence, and mathematics can all coexist in the same model.

I am well aware of this.

I am simply stating why my approach to math is so strange to you.

You're coming in with mathematics from the left side of the equation, and as you get closer to the equals sign you decide that is physics over there.

I'm simply coming in from the other side and groping blindly around the halls of mathematics, finding something interesting, studying it, and stumbling around for the next interesting structure.

*trips over partial differential equations*

Ow! My toe!

[Kaylia]

Topology is one thing I DO understand, and you know goddamn well I meant a circle as in a cycle, or a loop.

I was asking you for an example were self implicating loop were useful in mathematics, and you answered "Circle". How was I suposed to figure out that you meant an implication loop...

I will ask you the question again: What good does it do to science and mathematics to have a loop where science->mathematics and mathematics->science?

Max: Do you know how to prove god?
Kaylia: The same way you prove your axiom in mathematics.
Max: Badump-tum-tiss.

Did it really go over your head?

You're the one who can apparently prove sciences using mathematics, and mathematics using sciences, not me. You "prove" axioms, when you should simply accept them because they are useful.
If you can prove axiom, you should be able to prove/disprove god with the same kind of logical fallacies, otherwise, it's just something you have to accept or not.

We can only observe slices of causality, we don't observe it in either direction, we assume it functions as we describe, but you should know as well as I do that we cannot prove that the past is in the state we remember it in.

And the slice you take are ordered using t axis. The physics you study is inherently going to involve a direction because of this.

You're coming in with mathematics from the left side of the equation, and as you get closer to the equals sign you decide that is physics over there.

I'm simply coming in from the other side and groping blindly around the halls of mathematics, finding something interesting, studying it, and stumbling around for the next interesting structure.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. I never put equality between physics and mathematics, because there is no evidence we can do it.

A physics model use a large number of axioms (physics postulates/default parameters), and is purely mathematical. When you use it, every measurement become mathematical entity, and there is no approximation involved.

The only approximation is from the measurement itself that is never a good representation of the reality.