h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"The universe acts as it acts. It is not "compelled" to obey anything."

It was a bad choice of words. Instead, say that it obeys mathematical laws because they are inherent in the universe. There are its nature, if you like.

"Mathematics is a human invention, which helps us to understand and predict how the universe acts."

No. Our human understanding of mathematics is what we have discovered about the fundamental mathematics that drives the universe.

"If there's a contradiction here, it's mathematics which is wrong, and must change, not the universe. The universe, by definition, is correct."

If there's a contradiction, it shows we have made some mistake in our understanding of mathematics. The universe and mathematics cannot contradict one another because they are one and the same thing. Maths is a quality of the universe.

"Where is this 'somewhere'?"

It does not have to be somewhere in order to exist. Where is the wind? An abstraction can have objective existence without physical presence. This is the point I've been trying to make for many, many posts.

If an abstraction is consistent between viewpoints, it is (by definition) objective. Full stop.

If it helps, think of it as being everywhere; because an objective abstraction is inherent in the universe.

<[An abstraction] does not have to be somewhere in order to exist.>

I think it does. And please remember that I claim that abstractions do not exist *in the Real World*. Of course they have existence - in the minds of humans (but nowhere else)!



"Wind" is a word we use to describe air, moving. Air has physical existence, although it is transparent. So does moving air. Wind is locatable. Invisibility (to human sight) is not a barrier to physical existence. That's why yesterday I used X-rays as an example of real-world phenomena.



And, for many, many posts, you've been making assertions without justification.

I think the problem with the case you are presenting is that you assume, for example, that the universe is bound by the rules (or laws) of logic. On the contrary, the universe acts as it does, unbound.

The laws of logic *reflect* or *simulate* the universe with sufficient accuracy to help us humans understand and predict how the universe will act. *We* invented logic, and the universe is not bound by our invention. It is bound only by whatever it is that causes it to act as it does. The laws of logic are abstractions, without existence *in the real world*. [I highlight that last phrase because it is central to the statement I made, all those posts ago, and you have dropped it in favour of 'objectivity', which has its own baggage.]



But you're missing an important point: these abstractions are human inventions. They are *defined* to exist, and to be as they are defined to be. Of course they are consistent across all minds that care to accept the definition. This is, as you mathematicians say, the trivial case.

The universe worked before there were humans around to frame our rules of logic. When we *did* formulate those rules, the universe changed not at all. And if we disappear, and our rules of logic with us, the universe will still continue unchanged. These abstract rules of logic, which exist only within the minds of humans, are not necessary for the operation of the universe.

As Magritte said: "Ce n'est pas une pipe".

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"I think it does. And please remember that I claim that abstractions do not exist *in the Real World*. Of course they have existence - in the minds of humans (but nowhere else)! "

My assertion is as follows:

1) Abstractions do not have physical presence.
2) If something is objective then it is consistent between all possible viewpoints
3) Something that is objective is, therefore, independent of any mind
4) Therefore, anything objective can be said to 'exist' in the sense that it can be discovered in a similar way as a physical object, and that its nature and validity do not depend on any considering mind.
5) Therefore an objective abstraction 'exists', and can still be considered part of the 'real world' as it is inherent in the 'real world'

That's what I was trying to get across.

"Wind is locatable."

Not really. Where does the wind stop being wind and become another wind, or still air? It does not have properly defined boundaries and so isn't properly locatable.

"I think the problem with the case you are presenting is that you assume, for example, that the universe is bound by the rules (or laws) of logic. On the contrary, the universe acts as it does, unbound."

No. The rules are what the universe is. It can no more stop obeying them than it can stop being itself. The two are inseparable; the universe is defined in part by the rules it has.

"The laws of logic *reflect* or *simulate* the universe with sufficient accuracy to help us humans understand and predict how the universe will act. *We* invented logic, and the universe is not bound by our invention."

No. Logic is what the universe is, our laws are just approximations we have made to help understand it. I said before there is a difference between the 'mathematics' of the universe and such of it that we have discovered. We did not invent logic, we learnt it from the universe. The universe is still bound by its logic.

"It is bound only by whatever it is that causes it to act as it does."

Which is logic, mathematics and statistics.

"The laws of logic are abstractions, without existence *in the real world*.""

Apart from the way they define the universe.

"

But you're missing an important point: these abstractions are human inventions."

Not necessarily. An abstraction is 'a thing which exists only in idea'. If it is objective, then this idea is not tied to any mind, human or otherwise. It may not be currently discovered, it may not be currently considered, but it is always available for both. And is available before any mind exists. My assertion was that there is such a class of abstractions that are objective, called mathematics.

"The universe worked before there were humans around to frame our rules of logic."

Exactly! The rules the universe follows are inherent in it. They are called mathematics. We've merely discerned some of them. Cause and effect is not a human invention, it is a property of the universe. The principle of cause and effect is an abstraction, but it is objective.

"As Magritte said: "Ce n'est pas une pipe"."

Indeed. Mathematics is the pipe, what we know of mathematics is the picture .

"No. The rules are what the universe is. It can no more stop obeying them than it can stop being itself. The two are inseparable; the universe is defined in part by the rules it has."

How do you know that the universe has any rules and why do you think we know any of them? It may be, in fact it is quite likely in my opinion, that the simplest description of the universe (the smallest set of rules that completely determine it) is itself. Either you are saying something empirical, or something with no content. Give me an example of a rule that the universe must obey.

I'm not sure why p-c is insisting that you locate the abstraction in physical space though. This demand seems to assume the philosophical perspective which he is arguing for.

The universe has no rules, it's just that we have to invent rules to understand it. If anyone can say with any conviction how they can measure and observe an infinite space, then I will worship them as they are clearly a higher life form.

The problem is we don't have, and couldn't have, a comprehensive list of ALL possible viewpoints. If we could then we could have Objective knowledge, but we can't. Objectivity in this strong sense (the sense PC is using - we've discussed this before) is not possible. In a weaker sense, where it is simply contrasted with subjectivity, and is taken to mean something like consistent with all known viewpoints that are not themselves inconsistent. Of course, a further problem is that consistency itself is such an objective abstraction, making the definition self referring. For most purposes we actually use 'objective' to mean - objective enough for the purposes in hand, the most demanding of which are Logic and Mathematics.
Something that is objective may be independent of any particular mind, but not of minds in general.
To be more accurate the universe is an iteration of the rules (rules+history). Of course, this is an objective abstraction in the sense that I have been suggesting we use the term, but again, it cannot be SHOWN to be true outside of minds.

Most interestingly, another such abstraction is physical space. The demand that one abstraction be located inside another one is certainly interesting. I'll have to think about it.

Noggin

Way back in post 2012:

MaW:

PC:

The example concept was originally atheism, then I introduced "two" as a simpler one.

I am trying to make the point that an abstraction does not exist in the Real World that we all live in and experience. It exists in our minds. By "insisting that [Queex] locate the abstraction in physical space", I'm just trying a bit of reverse psychology to make the point that abstractions *don't* exist in the Real World (not necessarily "physical space").

If we can accept - and I know Queex doesn't! - that abstractions exist only in our minds, it follows (by Queex's reasoning, with which I agree) that abstractions are subjective things. Thus there can be no such thing as an 'objective abstraction'.

<...the simplest description of the universe (the smallest set of rules that completely determine it) is itself.>

Hmmm. Aren't you saying that the picture *is* the pipe (referring back to Magritte)?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away." - Philip K Dick

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Since it is impossible for us to know anything about the Universe, all we can come up with about, say, the 'laws of physics' are approximations to things we can observe. These are then refined through further experience (the scientific method being one way to do that) to fit more closely. However, we can never be entirely sure that what we're observing is actually behaving according to those laws, or to some different ones which just happen to coincide with ours for every single instance in which we've observed the behaviour of the thing in question.

Mathematics is one such thing really - it doesn't exist by itself, it just happens to be rather useful in modelling what we can observe of the universe, and so, in that sense, it can be seen to be a universal truth. It may very well be the best one we've got. However, if all humans died out, mathematics as we understand it would be gone - the things it can be used to model would still be there, but they wouldn't care about mathematics - they just do stuff.

Exactly

'Exactly' from me too. Well put, MaW.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Alexandra wrote:

I'm with you here.

Yeah, the Business Forum's in rare form lately, ain't it?



*sits back w/ a and keeps watchin'*

* applauds *

* joins GTB with a *

*hovering quietly at the back of the lecture theatre, paying close attention and hoping to understand the occasional word here and there*


Ah, go on then, I'll take a cuppa if you've got anything non-alcoholic there. Just to be sociable.


On a totally unrelated subject, has anyone here come across the Skeptic's Dictionary? @ http://skepdic.com/
It'll probably be familiar to many members already, but is certainly worth a read for those who haven't seen it. I thought it could sit comfortably on the FFF home page, seeing as there's already a Skeptic's Annotated Bible link (although I don't think there's any connection between the two sites).


Oh yes... I notice my old Chair is looking a little rickety. It's been suffering from neglect, I suppose. Fortunately I have a new one. It's called 'Chair of Evolutionary Psychology, specialising in the study (and occasional practice) of self-deception'.

GT Bacchus, I would be honoured and grateful if you would record this change in my circumstances, if there's room enough for it all to fit, in my little corner of the FFF register.

Cordial thanks,

Lear, too busy to contribute much but still interested enough to drop by from time to time