Moral Absolutism your opinion?

[Max™]

Care to explain the bolded part? Preferably with logic this time. If mathematics were provable, your axioms would also be provable. They are not (hence why I brought self consistency). Your statement is incorrect no matter how you spin it around. The only thing that is provable in mathematics is what come out of your axioms, and only in relation to your axiom. Yet, you made like 10 statements that goes way beyond them.

The relationships between axioms and proofs, between sets and members, this is what I am referring to when I speak of mathematics.

Yes you need to specify the axioms to produce broader statements and proofs, but the fact that there is a manner in which you can do this is what amazes me about math.

That and the baffling edges, such as the inability to handle concepts such as this: If I type this statement, then it is a lie.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" - Einstein

[edit]
Found a 3rd quote that seal the deal.


I could describe pink unicorns and God with mathematics, but is it really something fundamental?

What are you describing when you work with maths that can't be applied to our universe anyway? And while we are at it, find me one exemple of mathematics that perfectly describe something in our universe.

Transfinite numbers, infinities of any sort are not a part of this Universe. This is a finite body of spacetime, with limits above and below any of the scales you can apply to it. Still the concept of infinity arises from numerous mathematical structures we describe.

Euclidean geometry with respect to flat spacetime perfectly describes the concepts of lines and points and shapes. Various adjustments to that concept hold true in curved spacetimes, and all of physics is striving towards a universally valid description from which you could produce everything right down to what we observe as a right triangle.

Personally, I think our brain is just good with causality (mathematical implication) because it evolved to be able to predict stuff. The universe is real, physics laws are also real, and we are simply following the flow like everything else.

The Universe is a set, the laws of physics are what we observe of the axioms which describe relationships between members of that set, and their relationships with the set itself.

We are also included in that set, we are not unaffected observers.


The reason this came up, is because we are trying to apply arbitrary rules to our interactions, morals and such. These don't exist in any fundamental manner.

If you removed the Universe, removed the observers, you would remove the moral concepts as well, but the principles of mathematics would remain. It seems obvious to me... perhaps not to everyone though, because the Universe is a result of those principles, it is a subset of them. Not the cause, not the source.

From studying the subset of mathematics we emerged from, which we know as the laws of physics, we were able to deduce the broader nature of math as a whole. Just as studying one set of formulae can lead one to produce another set of equations which were not immediately obvious, nor were contained in the first set.


It is a cruel irony that I come off sounding like a preacher, for I feel that does injustice to what I am speaking of, as it is far more important than religion.


Yes I do re-read everything I post to make sure it is how I intended it to be, and no this is not all I have, this is what I do to relax from my studies, and it is a fun way to interact with people. So different from face to face interaction.

[Denchi]

Moral Relativism is scary imo. If I'm a relativist, then I don't really have much to say about murderer's and such. I may not like murder, but if I'm a relativist, then I also believe that someone who murders may have a different moral set than me which may be OK for them. Hence.... I can't really say that murder is bad in general, I can only say that it's bad for me. Fact of the matter is, there are some interesting people in this world who derive happiness and pleasure in all sorts of fucked up ways (I read a story once about a guy in Russia who derived sexual pleasure from blowing up trains). Or people who stab babies in the face.

Relativism also has problems within a society. If we're all to conform to certain, agreed upon norms, then what's the deal with reform? Reform wouldn't exist if relativism was true, since there would be no need for it, unless it was completely and utterly arbitrary.

Absolutism seems to be the only way. As civilized society, through ages of deep thought, moves closer and closer to living well, I think we're seeing some of the absolute truths come to the forefront.

Also... Science: Quantitative, not Qualitative. It may tell me when something is dead, or how far away the sun is, or why my leg hurts, but it doesn't tell me that being dead is bad, or how to live, or make any sort of quality claim about anything ever. I get so confused when people tell me they believe in science. There's nothing to believe.... and it tells you nothing of how to act.

[Faris]

Moral Relativism is scary imo. If I'm a relativist, then I don't really have much to say about murderer's and such. I may not like murder, but if I'm a relativist, then I also believe that someone who murders may have a different moral set than me which may be OK for them. Hence.... I can't really say that murder is bad in general, I can only say that it's bad for me. Fact of the matter is, there are some interesting people in this world who derive happiness and pleasure in all sorts of fucked up ways (I read a story once about a guy in Russia who derived sexual pleasure from blowing up trains). Or people who stab babies in the face.

Relativism also has problems within a society. If we're all to conform to certain, agreed upon norms, then what's the deal with reform? Reform wouldn't exist if relativism was true, since there would be no need for it, unless it was completely and utterly arbitrary.

Absolutism seems to be the only way. As civilized society, through ages of deep thought, moves closer and closer to living well, I think we're seeing some of the absolute truths come to the forefront.

Also... Science: Quantitative, not Qualitative. It may tell me when something is dead, or how far away the sun is, or why my leg hurts, but it doesn't tell me that being dead is bad, or how to live, or make any sort of quality claim about anything ever. I get so confused when people tell me they believe in science. There's nothing to believe.... and it tells you nothing of how to act.

this

[Cantih]

By definition, absolute must apply to everything, it must exist in the absence of anything else. All of your arguments center around humans and civilization.
Consider a Venn diagram. You have a circle and inside it, is all that is people. If it is the only circle, it is everything, then yes, you MAY be able to prove absolute morality.

But, it is not the only circle. You have another far larger one around it that contains animals, and an unimaginably vaster one around those that contains the whole universe. You need to prove morality in those spaces as well, in order for it to be absolute.

Put simpler, if you can't prove morality in the absence of humanity, it's not absolute.

That's attacking the issue externally. I can also do it internally, but I need sleep atm. If you're impatient, you can start here to see where I'll be going.
Ethical dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Quicklet]

Transfinite numbers, infinities of any sort are not a part of this Universe. This is a finite body of spacetime, with limits above and below any of the scales you can apply to it.

I'm not sure how there's any basis to assert a statement like that. If anything we have to be neutral to the possibilities of infinite scale in nature in either direction.

Mathematics could just as well be a set of concepts humans invented to understand their experiences. There's no reason why mathematics itself exists apart from human cognition (or any kind of cognition), or that mathematics somehow has a tangible reality to it that is not contingent on the "universe" it exists in. If anything mathematics is a subset of the universe and not the other way around.

[Woozie]

Just to clarify, when you say "I believe the axioms are true", do you mean "i defined the axiom are true"?

If you do, I'm in complete agreement with you here, and it's exactly what I was trying to say.

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)

Mathematics could just as well be a set of concepts humans invented to understand their experiences. There's no reason why mathematics itself exists apart from human cognition (or any kind of cognition), or that mathematics somehow has a tangible reality to it that is not contingent on the "universe" it exists in. If anything mathematics is a subset of the universe and not the other way around.

[Evensong]

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. 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.

Thanks for your previous reply btw! An additional note to ultrafinitism, which I think not only constructivists but even finitists view as extreme, is that I don't think I could personally agree with its view (I say "don't think" because I don't fully comprehend it, as I had said earlier, I'm no mathematician) but since very few mathematicians advocate it, I'm sticking to the majority group. Not that quantity is of relevance. Kuhn's idea of "scientific revolutions" implies the need for those "innovators" who help that paradigm shift to come about, so for all I know, ultrafinitism could be the beginning of a new paradigm, if I at all agree with the notion of paradigms.

Since the axioms are logical in themselves, and since we as humans need logic in order to, (well, reducing this train of thought to the simplest of terms) work, I'd like to believe they are true and also agree with your statement regarding "we can never say math is certainly true" but then that got me to wondering, does that mean we believe in maths?

[Max™]

I'm not sure how there's any basis to assert a statement like that. If anything we have to be neutral to the possibilities of infinite scale in nature in either direction.

The large scale structure of the Universe clearly has an edge, while it could be possible in some models that this is simply a bubble in a larger/possibly infinite Universe, it isn't causally relevant, as there is an event horizon from our side looking out. No infinity for us looking that way.

The small scale structure of the Universe also has finite graining, and vigorously resists any further division beyond a certain point, you can't arbitrarily reduce things beyond a certain point. No infinity for us looking that way.

Yet we produce the concept naturally, strange.

Mathematics could just as well be a set of concepts humans invented to understand their experiences. There's no reason why mathematics itself exists apart from human cognition (or any kind of cognition), or that mathematics somehow has a tangible reality to it that is not contingent on the "universe" it exists in. If anything mathematics is a subset of the universe and not the other way around.

The Universe is closer and closer to being described fully by a set of mathematics, there is even a finite number of possible calculations which could be performed in the Universe, it is clearly not an infinite set in reality.

Whatever reality may be, but as there is no real way of defining reality you are stuck with defining based on senses, but as there is no way of proving they are universal or accurate, you are stuck defining based on concepts, which brings us back to Kant... who nicely covered various implications of the thought structures which arise.


If the Universe is capable of being described by, an as yet found, mathematical structure, then there is little difference in the concept of said structure and the concept of the Universe itself.

The nature of the Universe leads us to naturally deduce the presence of mathematics, and our own curiosity leads us to explore such.


As physics moves closer to pure mathematics, it appears that there are ways to describe other Universes besides our own, so one must ask how a single set can contain not only it's own description, but descriptions of other sets, sets which are clearly not contained within the first set.


If we do not wish to accept the validity of mathematics in describing the Unvierse, then I hope you have something to replace Physics with, because you just threw away the last few hundred years of work in that direction.


If we do accept that it is valid to describe the Universe with mathematics, then you must recognize that the Universe is then not the whole of mathematics, but merely a set within it. From that set, we have been able to deduce others, but that does not make them contained within this one, as there is clearly no infinity present in observed or observable reality.


We must be describing something which is not a part of this Universe, it is hard for people to even realize that the present they see is not the only moment that exists, so it is even harder for them to realize that the Universe they are within is not likely to be all that exists.

It does not follow.

[Quicklet]

The large scale structure of the Universe clearly has an edge, while it could be possible in some models that this is simply a bubble in a larger/possibly infinite Universe, it isn't causally relevant, as there is an event horizon from our side looking out. No infinity for us looking that way.

The small scale structure of the Universe also has finite graining, and vigorously resists any further division beyond a certain point, you can't arbitrarily reduce things beyond a certain point. No infinity for us looking that way.

Yet we produce the concept naturally, strange.

I'm apt to disagree with you on both accounts, though much more strongly on the small scale side of things. Both limitations are really more limitations of our sense experience and not anything we can really say about whether or not the universe contains infinities. Infinities that are irrelevant/impractical for us? Perhaps. It's also possible that our concept of infinity is merely a flawed concept because of the connotations attached to the term. I'm actually quite open to the idea of there being a finiteness of scale (in particular on the quantum level, because it would fit neatly with a lot of our reductionist tendencies), but I think trying to even ask that question outside of the context of some kind of measurable experiment is a fruitless exercise.

As for the rest of your comments, you're assuming that mathematical models are faithful representations of what the universe (possible or actual) "is really like" as opposed to what the universe "is really like (to us)". Physics inherently will never be pure mathematics and any attempt to move it in that direction is apt to lead us astray (see string theory). Physics utilizes mathematics because of its convenience and effectiveness but you can never divorce physics from measurement.

Anyways, I just think it's a lot of mathematical mysticism and it's more wishful thinking than grounded argument.

[Max™]

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

Language is convenient, but it doesn't accurately describe and model processes.


Attempting to remove a minimum scale for anything in the Universe produces nonsense answers, keeping it in produces models which match up with reality nicely.


A full theory of physics should produce a mathematical structure which contains the observed relationships in our Universe, and it should be rich enough to contain it's own observers.

String Theory went too far, it is too rich, too complex, and as such gives an insight into possibilities unknown to our day to day experience.

Math does seem arcane at times, but there is nothing mystical about it. I am not trying to replace god with math, I am trying to understand how math could emerge from within a Universe.

In doing so I like to take model universes and tinker with them, their structure, seeing what conclusions I can produce from simple rules.

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.

There should be a set of statements and axioms which implies the existence of this Universe exactly, that set seems to be broader, and capable of describing other Universes, of which this is simply a particular arrangement of values.

So then you have to ask if it seems more likely to you that this is the only Universe, is the sum of all that is and could be, and it just happens to contain implications of structures which it does not contain, paradoxically it seems.

or

Is this just a portion of what is possible, just a bubble of mathematical potential expressing itself according to it's rules and members.

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.

[tyven]

i dont even know what an axiom is

[Zosi]

Man, I had hoped we had chased Denchi out last time a philosophy thread came up... don't you have anything better than the same recycled argument that moral relativism is the same thing as amorality because you're incapable of understanding how moral judgments could be useful even if there's no absolute standard to judge them by?

[Max™]

It is something which is taken to be true outside of the body of statements it is applied within.


Or, for more than you ever wanted to know about Axiom's: Axiom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enjoy, it's fun to wander around through the mathematical jungle in wikipedia.

[Faris]

i dont even know what an axiom is

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe axiom is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

[tyven]

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe axiom is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

amazing

[Cantih]

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe axiom is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

You are wrong
It's an SUV. Isuzu Axiom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Man, I had hoped we had chased Denchi out last time a philosophy thread came up... don't you have anything better than the same recycled argument that moral relativism is the same thing as amorality because you're incapable of understanding how moral judgments could be useful even if there's no absolute standard to judge them by?

This

[Denchi]

I think I just stop posting when angry people start talking. Not really very fun. But everyone does something to reach some end. Identifying those ends and the virtue of those ends seems to be the discussion right? Either they're good for they're own absolute reasons, or they're good for relativistic reasons, which could be anything. I'm simply pointing out the dilemma in admitting of relativism.

[Quicklet]

Max™'s stuff

I think we just approach physics from two completely opposite viewpoints.

[Shiroikage]

I think we just approach physics from two completely opposite viewpoints.

You approach it from the viewpoint that does not make you sound like you are crazy.

[Kaylia]

The relationships between axioms and proofs, between sets and members, this is what I am referring to when I speak of mathematics.

Yes you need to specify the axioms to produce broader statements and proofs, but the fact that there is a manner in which you can do this is what amazes me about math. That and the baffling edges, such as the inability to handle concepts such as this: If I type this statement, then it is a lie.

Ok, so let's assume your definition of mathematics is correct (the bolded one). You stated earlier that mathematics are more general than physics laws, right? If they are more general, can you give us a mathematical model that explain the beginning of physics, with mathematicals axiom only?

If physics is a subset of mathematics, it shouldn't be a problem, right?



Define me the word definition with mathematics (or english if you cant), and try avoiding self reference. Is english more fundamental than mathematics, because we need it to establish some mathematics concept?

The Universe is a set, the laws of physics are what we observe of the axioms which describe relationships between members of that set, and their relationships with the set itself.
If you removed the Universe, removed the observers, you would remove the moral concepts as well, but the principles of mathematics would remain. It seems obvious to me... perhaps not to everyone though, because the Universe is a result of those principles, it is a subset of them. Not the cause, not the source.

From studying the subset of mathematics we emerged from, which we know as the laws of physics, we were able to deduce the broader nature of math as a whole.

It is a cruel irony that I come off sounding like a preacher, for I feel that does injustice to what I am speaking of, as it is far more important than religion.


Yes I do re-read everything I post to make sure it is how I intended it to be, and no this is not all I have, this is what I do to relax from my studies, and it is a fun way to interact with people. So different from face to face interaction.

For the love of mathematics and sciences, stop making statement like this. It's not a fact, it's not a needed axiom in physics or mathematics, it's not a self evidence. You're allowed to state your opinions, but if it's something you can't measure or demonstrate, you're not talking about "truth", you're preaching belief.


And for the 3rd times, there is no evidence that physics emerge from mathematics. We don't know any mathematics that can describe the universe in its exactitude.

Just as studying one set of formulae can lead one to produce another set of equations which were not immediately obvious, nor were contained in the first set.

What? No. One set of equation doesn't produce another. You can only move from one set to another if you define a function that allow you to go from one set to another, you didn't discovered anything, you simply made up another axioms.