Metaphysics as an Error

[Little Idiot]

...
I have suggested, and demonstrated that mathematical knowledge does not depend upon the empirical. You say ‘who are you to say this’ or ‘argument from ignorance’ Here is an oxford mathematician saying, (as mathematicians do) that the universe operates with great precision according to laws of math, and these laws have an existence not dependent the physical existence – not as some of you would suggest maths operates according to empirical laws, which is the other way round!...

Well, Penrose actually says mathematics is a means of describing the world. We don't think that a description of a tree is fundamental to a tree's existence, why should we think that "laws of maths" define, rather than describe, the physical world?

Do you think atoms are mathematicians?

Mathematics can be explored, but so can language. Given a descriptive tool set arising from the empirical does not suggest the tools are limited to describing things that exist.

Did you watch the clip I linked to?
He says there are 3 existent 'worlds'; physical, mental, mathematical. He says this is not dualist but tri-ist in one sense. His words not mine.
So yes, math can describe the physical, but there is a lot of maths which does not do so.
He explains it a lot better than I did here, but this is the gist of it.

So no, atoms are not mathematicians, they dont 'know' the rules of maths, but they do follow these rules; and whats more the rules existed before the atoms and the rules will still exist after the atoms no longer do.

[Kenny Login]

You have never in your life needed God. No one has ever needed God. At the most, people have needed the illusion of God. The same goes for metaphysics.

Well now. That's a bold thing to say.

But in this context, do you think metaphysics is something you can avoid? That would be unusual, no?

I don't see why it can't be avoided.

Given that scientists make use of metaphysics on a daily basis, as do postmen, as do babies, I'm not really sure where the problem lies? Unless you mean that talking about things that are difficult to concretize are a waste of time?

I'm not sure how you think you're able to remove the metaphysical from the empirical in either personal or scientific enquiry. I'm also not sure why anyone would want to do this, unless as a purely philosophical exercise. But maybe I have misunderstood what you are saying.

[GrahamH]

...
I have suggested, and demonstrated that mathematical knowledge does not depend upon the empirical. You say ‘who are you to say this’ or ‘argument from ignorance’ Here is an oxford mathematician saying, (as mathematicians do) that the universe operates with great precision according to laws of math, and these laws have an existence not dependent the physical existence – not as some of you would suggest maths operates according to empirical laws, which is the other way round!...

Well, Penrose actually says mathematics is a means of describing the world. We don't think that a description of a tree is fundamental to a tree's existence, why should we think that "laws of maths" define, rather than describe, the physical world?

Do you think atoms are mathematicians?

Mathematics can be explored, but so can language. Given a descriptive tool set arising from the empirical does not suggest the tools are limited to describing things that exist.

Did you watch the clip I linked to?
He says there are 3 existent 'worlds'; physical, mental, mathematical. He says this is not dualist but tri-ist in one sense. His words not mine.
So yes, math can describe the physical, but there is a lot of maths which does not do so.
He explains it a lot better than I did here, but this is the gist of it.

So no, atoms are not mathematicians, they dont 'know' the rules of maths, but they do follow these rules; and whats more the rules existed before the atoms and the rules will still exist after the atoms no longer do.

Yes, I watched the clip.

What basis do you have, can you possibly have, for saying that the behaviour of atoms existed before atoms existed?
"laws of physics" aren't statutes you know.

[Little Idiot]

...
I have suggested, and demonstrated that mathematical knowledge does not depend upon the empirical. You say ‘who are you to say this’ or ‘argument from ignorance’ Here is an oxford mathematician saying, (as mathematicians do) that the universe operates with great precision according to laws of math, and these laws have an existence not dependent the physical existence – not as some of you would suggest maths operates according to empirical laws, which is the other way round!...

Well, Penrose actually says mathematics is a means of describing the world. We don't think that a description of a tree is fundamental to a tree's existence, why should we think that "laws of maths" define, rather than describe, the physical world?

Do you think atoms are mathematicians?

Mathematics can be explored, but so can language. Given a descriptive tool set arising from the empirical does not suggest the tools are limited to describing things that exist.

Did you watch the clip I linked to?
He says there are 3 existent 'worlds'; physical, mental, mathematical. He says this is not dualist but tri-ist in one sense. His words not mine.
So yes, math can describe the physical, but there is a lot of maths which does not do so.
He explains it a lot better than I did here, but this is the gist of it.

So no, atoms are not mathematicians, they dont 'know' the rules of maths, but they do follow these rules; and whats more the rules existed before the atoms and the rules will still exist after the atoms no longer do.

Yes, I watched the clip.

What basis do you have, can you possibly have, for saying that the behaviour of atoms existed before atoms existed?
"laws of physics" aren't statutes you know.

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

[SpeedOfSound]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

[Tigger]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

Same as the rules of the road. A thirty mile limit might exist, but there doesn't have to be a car there for that limit to be present.

[GrahamH]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

Agreed.
Atoms don't follow rules, as LI conceded, they are what they are. How could atomnessnessness exist without atoms?

[GrahamH]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

Same as the rules of the road. A thirty mile limit might exist, but there doesn't have to be a car there for that limit to be present.

Rules of the road are statutes, which are not like "laws of physics".

[SpeedOfSound]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

Agreed.
Atoms don't follow rules, as LI conceded, they are what they are. How could atomnessnessness exist without atoms?

He has duality stuck deeply in his brain.

[the PC apeman]

It is a clear fact that the changing nature of empirical data must be founded upon 'something' to which this data relates.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. You don't know. But what is the... Oh nevermind.

Man, if reason' alone is not good enough for you, then give up on philosophy navel-gazing.

[GrahamH]

...
I have suggested, and demonstrated that mathematical knowledge does not depend upon the empirical. You say ‘who are you to say this’ or ‘argument from ignorance’ Here is an oxford mathematician saying, (as mathematicians do) that the universe operates with great precision according to laws of math, and these laws have an existence not dependent the physical existence – not as some of you would suggest maths operates according to empirical laws, which is the other way round!...

Well, Penrose actually says mathematics is a means of describing the world. We don't think that a description of a tree is fundamental to a tree's existence, why should we think that "laws of maths" define, rather than describe, the physical world?

Do you think atoms are mathematicians?

Mathematics can be explored, but so can language. Given a descriptive tool set arising from the empirical does not suggest the tools are limited to describing things that exist.

Did you watch the clip I linked to?
He says there are 3 existent 'worlds'; physical, mental, mathematical. He says this is not dualist but tri-ist in one sense. His words not mine.
So yes, math can describe the physical, but there is a lot of maths which does not do so.
He explains it a lot better than I did here, but this is the gist of it.

So no, atoms are not mathematicians, they dont 'know' the rules of maths, but they do follow these rules; and whats more the rules existed before the atoms and the rules will still exist after the atoms no longer do.

Yes, I watched the clip.

What basis do you have, can you possibly have, for saying that the behaviour of atoms existed before atoms existed?
"laws of physics" aren't statutes you know.

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

What do you mean "rules"? In what sense do atoms "follow rules"?

[Tigger]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

Same as the rules of the road. A thirty mile limit might exist, but there doesn't have to be a car there for that limit to be present.

Rules of the road are statutes, which are not like "laws of physics".

Oh I see.

[Surendra Darathy]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

Agreed.
Atoms don't follow rules, as LI conceded, they are what they are. How could atomnessnessness exist without atoms?

The point the wibblers are missing is that all wibbling can do is invent new words like "atomnessness" to label what's "behind" the rules the atoms follow. "Atom" is a label, too, but the dynamics of particles and systems, IOW, the rules, is a means of inventing a radio so you can listen to "radiationnessness". The difference is in the how-to granted by knowing the rules rather than the essence. With the "what it is", there's nothing left to say, or the wibblers would have said it by now. The data are summarized by the rules, are "recovered". Worse for the wibblers, the data are "predicted" from the rules, so that the functioning of a radio is predicted before a radio is actually assembled. That's an "invention" for you. It's not just "trial and error" for most works of engineering, otherwise we wouldn't have a long line of people wanting to be test pilots.

[jamest]

'Data' is clearly a mental construct formulated by ourselves, reflective of something beheld by us all.

No it isn't. The data never changed. The data was always a certain bandwidth of radiation. People simply had different theories and incorporated that data differently. In recent centuries, we have learned to put the data first, and the theories later and that has worked out pretty well for us. For the last hundred years now, we've been free of metaphysics because of it.

A certain bandwidth of WHAT?
Is that 'thing' different to the data that we assign to it? Yes or no? Stop acting the goat.

Why have we suddenly turned to raping philosophy of science? Just asking..

This isn't about the raping of science. It's about identifying something upon which empirical data is based and upon which metaphysics can be grounded - something distinct to the empirical data conceived by us. And your response indicated that there IS something distinct to our empirical understanding, which you vaguely define as "a certain bandwidth of radiation".
Now, I'm not particularly interested in what you think that 'thing' is, although it would be fun for me to corner you and watch you sweat in your specific ontological corner, trying to explain what it is that our inadequate understanding is about. My concern - as it ever was - is that we have an acknowledgement from you that there is something upon which our empirical understanding is grounded -something distinct to our 'empirical data'.

This acknowledgement provides me with 'something' for my basis/grounds of metaphysical enquiry. Game on.

[GrahamH]

Thats not what I said; I said the laws which the behaviour follow existed before the atoms which follow the rules existed - the rules can exist without any atoms to follow them, dont you think?

How do you know that?

Agreed.
Atoms don't follow rules, as LI conceded, they are what they are. How could atomnessnessness exist without atoms?

The point the wibblers are missing is that all wibbling can do is invent new words like "atomnessness" to label what's "behind" the rules the atoms follow. "Atom" is a label, too, but the dynamics of particles and systems, IOW, the rules, is a means of inventing a radio so you can listen to "radiationnessness". The difference is in the how-to granted by knowing the rules rather than the essence. With the "what it is", there's nothing left to say, or the wibblers would have said it by now.

I put "atomnessnessness " in there for your amusement.