Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:10 pm bro. how can you be a foundationalist when anti-foundationalism has all the real bosses; stirner, nietzsche, pierce, james, AND wittgenstein. 

Not that this was directed at me but I’m a foundherentist precisely because foundationalism is still needed; pure coherentism can make coherent circles of nonsense and there are some identifiable things that are self-evident and incorrigible.

Too many ists spoil the broth.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:58 pm If you think it's otherwise, show how Atheism can rationalize anything else but some form of Materialism and amorality. I'd be interested in seeing any such argument.

Typing on a tiny screen. I’m a nontheist and also not an ontological materialist.

I think there is something ontological about reality that makes mathematical and logical objects real and discovered rather than invented, and they don’t have mass-energy or spatiotemporal extension (e.g., aren’t material) — though we abstract them from material things often.

That line of argument is a tactical mistake. It invites a counter that moral law is real and discoverable in the same way as numbers, or a counter that this supposed reality of numbers is borderline mysticism, or others. But all teh while you are letting Mannie off for the assumptions implicit in that "Materialism and amorality" bit.

This matters in context because Mannie's work is traditionally heavy on innuendo but light on actual argument. There always comes a point where you can't recall ever seeing the argument by which he established one of these things he insists you must agree with, but that is certain to be your fault, thus it's totally unreasonable to ask for any sort of recap.

You can forestall these issues only be requiring the supporting argument up front.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:33 pm

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:58 pm If you think it's otherwise, show how Atheism can rationalize anything else but some form of Materialism and amorality. I'd be interested in seeing any such argument.

Typing on a tiny screen. I’m a nontheist and also not an ontological materialist.

I think there is something ontological about reality that makes mathematical and logical objects real and discovered rather than invented, and they don’t have mass-energy or spatiotemporal extension (e.g., aren’t material) — though we abstract them from material things often.

That line of argument is a tactical mistake. It invites a counter that moral law is real and discoverable in the same way as numbers, or a counter that this supposed reality of numbers is borderline mysticism, or others. But all teh while you are letting Mannie off for the assumptions implicit in that "Materialism and amorality" bit.

This matters in context because Mannie's work is traditionally heavy on innuendo but light on actual argument. There always comes a point where you can't recall ever seeing the argument by which he established one of these things he insists you must agree with, but that is certain to be your fault, thus it's totally unreasonable to ask for any sort of recap.

You can forestall these issues only be requiring the supporting argument up front.

I’m not worried about the tactical element, though: I can defend the ontology of mathematics and logic as a consequence of limitation in reality; the moral realist won’t be able to defend “moral law” as a discovery. Or at least I’d love to see someone try.

Basically don’t worry, if I care about a claim, I’m making an opponent defend it. I don’t care if someone insinuates atheism implies amorality because I simply think every worldview is amoral, “morality” being a nonsense utterance with hidden premises nobody likes.

In this instance I took umbrage with linking atheism to ontological materialism though.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:12 pm I’m not worried about the tactical element, though: I can defend the ontology of mathematics and logic as a consequence of limitation in reality; the moral realist won’t be able to defend “moral law” as a discovery. Or at least I’d love to see someone try.

That's probably more interesting than most of the stuff that happens here. If nobody else steps up I might have to spin up some sort of anti-numeric-realism just to see how that sort of argument works. I have no background though so hopefully somebody else will do that one.

I don't suppose your tour of the local nutjobs and window licking yahoos has brought you into contact with Skepdick yet?

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:12 pm Basically don’t worry, if I care about a claim, I’m making an opponent defend it. I don’t care if someone insinuates atheism implies amorality because I simply think every worldview is amoral, “morality” being a nonsense utterance with hidden premises nobody likes.

In this instance I took umbrage with linking atheism to ontological materialism though.

My my, what an uncanny knack that fellow has for unsealing previously unknown strata of indigntion. It never occured to me to be miffed by that particular assumption, but each man, woman, badger and dog must draw their own line!

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:58 pm I think there is something ontological about reality that makes mathematical and logical objects real and discovered rather than invented, and they don’t have mass-energy or spatiotemporal extension (e.g., aren’t material) — though we abstract them from material things often.

The mathematician Leopold Kronecker once wrote, "God made the integers; all else is the work of man." Kronecker could have been mistaken, but I tend to agree with him and you. In fact, I view Amalie Emmy Noether's beautiful connection between the physical conservation laws (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.) and particular mathematical symmetries as conclusive evidence of this.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:58 pm I think there is something ontological about reality that makes mathematical and logical objects real and discovered rather than invented, and they don’t have mass-energy or spatiotemporal extension (e.g., aren’t material) — though we abstract them from material things often.

Okay, but that explanation's key word is "something." It may as well be the word "magic," for all the information it conveys.

So we have: "In an Atheist's view, there's 'something' that makes maths and logic objects real and discovered..."

Well, two things about that. That it is "in an Atheist's view" means nothing. And secondly, there's nothing about Atheism that compels the conclusion that maths or logic "objects" exist as "real". And especially, if we add in Materialism, we can maybe call them "concepts" but not "objects" and not "real," but only "conceptual."

And yet, you have this point: that whether it's an Atheist or a Theist, both know darn well that mathematical and logical concepts do bear some very, very important relationship to the reality in which we find ourselves.

And that fact is stunning...but only given Atheism and Materialism. The Theist can conclude we live in a universe created to be intelligible to us, through things like maths and logic. But the Atheist has to think it happened by accident; and this "accidental" match has to be the most astronomically (choosing my word carefully there) unlikelihood that's ever been recorded. Still, the Atheist has to think it WAS an accident, even if the alternate hypothesis is much easier to swallow probability-wise.

But the only reason he has to swallow it at all is that he insists on remaining an Atheist.

So Atheism chooses a "magical" and "astronomically improbable" explanation over a Theistic one.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:14 pm

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:58 pm I think there is something ontological about reality that makes mathematical and logical objects real and discovered rather than invented, and they don’t have mass-energy or spatiotemporal extension (e.g., aren’t material) — though we abstract them from material things often.

The mathematician Leopold Kronecker once wrote, "God made the integers; all else is the work of man." Kronecker could have been mistaken, but I tend to agree with him and you. In fact, I view Amalie Emmy Noether's beautiful connection between the physical conservation laws (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.) and particular mathematical symmetries as conclusive evidence of this.

Noether has always been one of my heroes when I was growing up: at first, simply because she was the most recognizable woman in physics, but then, for her actual physics. Alongside her, in my mind, was Fotini Markopoulou when I first started undergraduate courses in physics: I would read everything she wrote.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:35 pm

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:58 pm I think there is something ontological about reality that makes mathematical and logical objects real and discovered rather than invented, and they don’t have mass-energy or spatiotemporal extension (e.g., aren’t material) — though we abstract them from material things often.

Okay, but that explanation's key word is "something." It may as well be the word "magic," for all the information it conveys.

So we have: "In an Atheist's view, there's 'something' that makes maths and logic objects real and discovered..."

Well, two things about that. That it is "in an Atheist's view" means nothing. And secondly, there's nothing about Atheism that compels the conclusion that maths or logic "objects" exist as "real". And especially, if we add in Materialism, we can maybe call them "concepts" but not "objects" and not "real," but only "conceptual."

And yet, you have this point: that whether it's an Atheist or a Theist, both know darn well that mathematical and logical concepts do bear some very, very important relationship to the reality in which we find ourselves.

And that fact is stunning...but only given Atheism and Materialism. The Theist can conclude we live in a universe created to be intelligible to us, through things like maths and logic. But the Atheist has to think it happened by accident; and this "accidental" match has to be the most astronomically (choosing my word carefully there) unlikelihood that's ever been recorded. Still, the Atheist has to think it WAS an accident, even if the alternate hypothesis is much easier to swallow probability-wise.

But the only reason he has to swallow it at all is that he insists on remaining an Atheist.

So Atheism chooses a "magical" and "astronomically improbable" explanation over a Theistic one.

Well, I have an account for the "something," and of course was only speaking in a brief way since the topic doesn't relate to the is/ought problem.

I hinted at the account when I mentioned limitation. Limitation is either a necessary consequence of reality or a part of the definition of what it means to be real: all ontologically existing things are limited. Yet limitation has characteristics which we can abstract and describe as "rules." The Aristotelian "Laws of Logic" are an example, and things like mathematics are really just extended logic (we can get all of arithmetic out of an empty set, for instance); it isn't a far leap from "there is limitation" to the premises of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) for instance.

And this happens because it must; not because anything about it is "improbable" or "accidental." The supposition is that logical and mathematical objects are consequences of limitation existing (it is a description of how limitation works), and then furthermore that limitation necessarily exists in the modal way (or, and I haven't decided on this, is the definition of existence, or part of it: to be limited).

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:08 pm

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:12 pm I’m not worried about the tactical element, though: I can defend the ontology of mathematics and logic as a consequence of limitation in reality; the moral realist won’t be able to defend “moral law” as a discovery. Or at least I’d love to see someone try.

That's probably more interesting than most of the stuff that happens here. If nobody else steps up I might have to spin up some sort of anti-numeric-realism just to see how that sort of argument works. I have no background though so hopefully somebody else will do that one.

I don't suppose your tour of the local nutjobs and window licking yahoos has brought you into contact with Skepdick yet?

I don't think I've met Skepdick yet, lol.

I'd be interested in a thread of this nature if you want to play devil's advocate on it.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:12 pm Basically don’t worry, if I care about a claim, I’m making an opponent defend it. I don’t care if someone insinuates atheism implies amorality because I simply think every worldview is amoral, “morality” being a nonsense utterance with hidden premises nobody likes.

In this instance I took umbrage with linking atheism to ontological materialism though.

My my, what an uncanny knack that fellow has for unsealing previously unknown strata of indigntion. It never occured to me to be miffed by that particular assumption, but each man, woman, badger and dog must draw their own line!

Damn right! ^_^

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:35 pmThe Theist can conclude we live in a universe created to be intelligible to us

...so the universe theists conclude was created to be intelligible to us would have been created billions of years before we existed. Talk about efficient causes! What an amazing head start! It's clear god doesn't leave these paltry details to the last minute!

More likely is the prospect for both theist and atheist, including all those who don't give a damn, the WE required a few million years of brain evolution to possess the wherewithal to begin to comprehend the universe. In effect, the universe had no reason to conform to our intelligence at any time; it was the human brain which had to evolve through eons to wonder what it was looking at.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:35 pmBut the Atheist has to think it happened by accident

He doesn't have to think that at all; it would be an error on his part if he did, since until we know more...much more, the atheist cannot know exactly how the universe started or whether the dynamic of an existing multiverse created it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:35 pmSo Atheism chooses a "magical" and "astronomically improbable" explanation over a Theistic one

...only the theist knows for sure. After all, god said "Let there be", and there it was! What's not to understand? Who can you trust if you can't trust god!

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:57 am Well, I have an account for the "something," and of course was only speaking in a brief way since the topic doesn't relate to the is/ought problem.

Fair enough.

I hinted at the account when I mentioned limitation. Limitation is either a necessary consequence of reality or a part of the definition of what it means to be real:

That doesn't really help. It's ex post facto. It means, maths and logic have to be real, because we see they're already real. It doesn't really explain why they exist in the first place, or how they can be are part of an (allegedly) random universal beginning.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:12 pm I’m not worried about the tactical element, though: I can defend the ontology of mathematics and logic as a consequence of limitation in reality; the moral realist won’t be able to defend “moral law” as a discovery. Or at least I’d love to see someone try.

Oooh. A challenge! I love it.

What do you mean by "as a discovery"? I want to make sure I hit your benchmark, if I try.

FlashDangerpants wrote:In this instance I took umbrage with linking atheism to ontological materialism though.

Well, that's certainly the popular choice among Atheists. That, or Physicalism of one sort or another. Certainly nothing with metaphysics in it.

But if you think there's some ontology better to link with Atheism, tell us all about it. I'm interested.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:35 pmThe Theist can conclude we live in a universe created to be intelligible to us

...so the universe theists conclude was created to be intelligible to us would have been created billions of years before we existed.

Every account of the universe says it happened in that order. That is, unless you're so total an Idealist or Constructionist that you actually somehow believe people happened first, and then the universe appeared out of their cognitions.

And I don't think that boat's gonna float with anybody.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:35 pmBut the Atheist has to think it happened by accident

He doesn't have to think that at all; it would be an error on his part if he did, since until we know more...much more, the atheist cannot know exactly how the universe started or whether the dynamic of an existing multiverse created it.

"Multiverse" is a lame explanation, for three reasons. One, it just moves the origin problem back one step, but leaves it untouched: what accounts for the existence of a "multiverse"?

Two, it has no empirical support. That's about as good a definition of "unscientific" as one is going to get.

And three it's mathematically wrong: an infinite number of universes actually have infinite possibilities, which means any particular outcomes becomes infinitely improbable. So it forces us back again to the "why is there something rather than nothing" problem, and doesn't do a scratch to solve it.

So "multiverse" explanations are non-explanations of anything.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:30 am

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:57 amI hinted at the account when I mentioned limitation. Limitation is either a necessary consequence of reality or a part of the definition of what it means to be real:

That doesn't really help. It's ex post facto. It means, maths and logic have to be real, because we see they're already real. It doesn't really explain why they exist in the first place, or how they can be are part of an (allegedly) random universal beginning.

Limitation exists because it necessarily exists; it is incorrigible: even its proposed absence entails its presence. As logical and mathematical objects are consequences of limitation existing, that makes them necessary too. That isn't ex post facto: this would be true even if no material thing existed at all.

For instance, consider the hypothetical notion of absolute nonexistence:

P1) for any x such that x might exist, x does not exist.

Then consider the proposition:
P2) something cannot begin to exist from nothing

What I'm saying is that limitation is something about reality that's ontologically necessary: it self-contradicts to assert that it might be possible not to have it. Consider identity, for instance. If x is the existence of anything and we consider ¬x, it would still be true that ¬x=¬x, and paradoxically we would find that there is still an identity there.

Put another way, P1 leads to a contradiction with P2 for instance: if P2 is true, then something about P2 corresponds to reality. Yet if P1 is true, then that thing which corresponds to reality about P2 does not exist. Yet if that's the case, then there's no reason something couldn't exist under the supposition that there was nothing.

Put colloquially, if nothing exists, not even "rules," then there would be no rule ensuring that nothing exists (nothing = nothing wouldn't be true), and so there might be something. Yet if there is something, that thing must be limited to what it is and limited from what it is not. So there must be limitation. If there is a "rule" like P2, then it's limited (limited to being what it is and not what it is not), if there isn't a rule like P2 then something would exist anyway, which would then be limited anyway.

Limitation is incorrigible, self-evident, and properly basic. It isn't an "accident" or probabilistic in any way.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:12 pm I’m not worried about the tactical element, though: I can defend the ontology of mathematics and logic as a consequence of limitation in reality; the moral realist won’t be able to defend “moral law” as a discovery. Or at least I’d love to see someone try.

Oooh. A challenge! I love it.

What do you mean by "as a discovery"? I want to make sure I hit your benchmark, if I try.

Well, that's just another way to say that if moral realism is objective and true, then it would be "discoverable" (as in, different thinkers from completely different backgrounds could independently come to the same conclusions in the same way mathematicians do). But our debate here is mostly about this. We've covered what "good" is, but the answer you've given has decoupled "good" from "ought," so we're just waiting on when you have the time to reply about that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Astro Cat wrote:In this instance I took umbrage with linking atheism to ontological materialism though.

Well, that's certainly the popular choice among Atheists. That, or Physicalism of one sort or another. Certainly nothing with metaphysics in it.

But if you think there's some ontology better to link with Atheism, tell us all about it. I'm interested.

Atheism isn't a worldview, it doesn't have a full ontology other than rejection, denial, or skepticism of theistic propositions. Atheists can be ontological materialists or not, neither is implied by the position. I'm an example of an atheist that is not an ontological materialist. ^_^

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:37 am"Multiverse" is a lame explanation, for three reasons. One, it just moves the origin problem back one step, but leaves it untouched: what accounts for the existence of a "multiverse"?

..nothing strictly known empirically at this time which doesn't in any manner preempt the possibility of its existence.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:37 amTwo, it has no empirical support.

It's a requirement of String Theory whose probability cannot be discounted.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:37 amAnd three it's mathematically wrong:

If it were mathematically wrong it would have been cast aside long ago and string theorists an extinct species; besides, who are you to say it's mathematically wrong...!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:37 am"...an infinite number of universes actually have infinite possibilities, which means any particular outcomes becomes infinitely improbable. So it forces us back again to the "why is there something rather than nothing" problem, and doesn't do a scratch to solve it.

By that logic NOTHING would exist since any particular outcome within an endless range of possibilities would be instantly negated by it being infinitely improbable. Note: infinitely improbable defaults to zero probability which logically is itself infinitely improbable since there is always an iota of probability residual in any event happening whether in a universe or multiverse if such did exist. It remains uncertain except for types like you who are very clear on the subject and already know.

...but you can take all that up with Astro Cat. She's the physicist.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:12 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:37 am"Multiverse" is a lame explanation, for three reasons. One, it just moves the origin problem back one step, but leaves it untouched: what accounts for the existence of a "multiverse"?

..nothing strictly known empirically at this time which doesn't in any manner preempt the possibility of its existence.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:37 amTwo, it has no empirical support.

It's a requirement of String Theory whose probability cannot be discounted.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:37 amAnd three it's mathematically wrong:

If it were mathematically wrong it would have been discounted long ago and string theorists an extinct species; besides, who are you to say it's mathematically wrong...!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:37 am"...an infinite number of universes actually have infinite possibilities, which means any particular outcomes becomes infinitely improbable. So it forces us back again to the "why is there something rather than nothing" problem, and doesn't do a scratch to solve it.

By that logic NOTHING would exist since any particular outcome within an endless range of possibilities would be instantly negated by it being infinitely improbable. Note: infinitely improbable defaults to zero probability which logically is itself infinitely improbable since there is always an iota of probability residual in any event happening whether in a universe or multiverse if such did exist. It remains uncertain except for types like you who are very clear on the subject and already know.

...but you can take all that up with Astro Cat. She's the physicist.

I'll clarify that string theory doesn't necessitate a multiverse, but higher dimensionality and symmetries (ortho groups), which is distinct from multiverse concepts, especially since most of the dimensions are supposed to be wrapped up in calibai-yau manifolds and tiny compared to the "big four" we normally experience.

I take string theory with a large grain of salt. It's mostly perturbative, which means it gives answers in the form of infinite series and sequences: yet at the same time, it doesn't prove each term beyond the first few to definitely be finite (which, actually flies in the face of all the hooplah that it supposedly rids physics of the asymptotic problems plaguing GR and QM approaches).

Something that does predict a multiverse of a sort is eternal inflation. IC's right in that multiverse questions leave the realm of science and are pure metaphysics at this point, but we can still inspect theories that have predictable outcomes on the observable universe such that we can say "ok, looks like inflation does pretty well, but that has the consequence that there are other universes." It's often misattributed to Bohr that "anything beyond the prediction of the outcome of experiment is metaphysics," and I don't know who actually said it, but the saying is apt. Yet that doesn't mean that things like eternal inflation are nonsense. Demarcating something from pure physics to pure metaphysics to something in between isn't a "demotion" or anything of the sort, it's just compartmentalization of ideas and approaches.

tl;dr, just saying that it's fine if physics ideas imply multiverses, but technically correct to say we've left physics when we talk about them; at least as of now.

As for the explanatory power of multiverses, I can see both sides. The person that thinks they're explanatory points out that improbable things can be explained as you assert: the probability approaches one with infinity, so it's going to happen somewhere. The person that thinks they aren't explanatory points out that a theory that explains anything can't be falsified and so explains nothing. I think it's useful to keep both of these in mind.