Platonism, as mathematician Brian Davies has put it, “has more in common with mystical religions than it does with modern science.” The fear is that if mathematicians give Plato an inch, he’ll take a mile. If the truth of mathematical statements can be confirmed just by thinking about them, then why not ethical problems, or even religious questions? Why bother with empiricism at all?
How does one find ethical or religious problems and questions in pure logic? Logic is fundamental and proven to be able to apply in reality. Ethics and religion operate over multiple levels of qualitative transitions and cannot(?) be fundamental.
Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York, was initially attracted to Platonism—but has since come to see it as problematic. If something doesn’t have a physical existence, he asks, then what kind of existence could it possibly have? “If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math,” writes Pigliucci, empiricism “goes out the window.” (If the proof of the Pythagorean theorem exists outside of space and time, why not the “golden rule,” or even the divinity of Jesus Christ?)
Because DoJC exists outside of space and time in minds of believers? It just doesn't have a physical counterpart and does barely have any logic to evolve/deduct from it, for us to predict events based on DoJC as if it was applicable to parts of reality. It is understandable how someone could ask "stupid" (not really) questions about maths, but when philosophers start to draw parallels, it is easy to lose track of what they are even talking about. Can someone explain what they meant exactly?
There are some core questions in ethics that might be considered so fundamental that they almost don't seem like religious question at all.
The Observer Problem is a good example. I experience life from this singular human's perspective. Why this specific one? What mechanism dictates which human my "observer" occupies? Why even a human and not an animal?
The word "soul" is a poor descriptor because it is associated with so much more, but the Observer Problem is real - or at least it might be.
I heard a theory is that there is another higher order time dimension, and all of our "observers" are actually the same one living in some sequence "simultaneously". ...but that doesnt really solve the dilemma either because even that sequence would need some mysterious ordering mechanism.
...but in all that there are core questions about what is time, what is space, what is energy, what happens to the universe... etc
One thing I tell me daughters is that death isn't scary. ...because we exist inna limited space and time. We should be no sadder to not exist in the future than not existing 10m to the left. We cannot be eternal, but if you recognize that time is just a dimension, then our existence is permanant in the history of the universe. Nothing can undo what we did and who we were.
Sorry for off-topic, but The Observer is my great interest as well. Why not an animal? Sure, why not. Imagine that your ears, eyes, taste, etc are shut down and your consciousness too. Now you feel yourself as a rock. Why not a star? Why not a computer game character? There is a bunch of problems to think of before you answer "no". The same for "yes", because there is a theory that it's a human mind that thinks of that Observer concept and makes itself "feel" it, but... it is not real, a perception mistake required for a mind to function in reality, like many others.
This has something to do with models, but it is hard topic on its own. It seems that The Observer is one of things that don't have a quick answer and may not have one at all.
With distinct Observers (like distinct photons or distinct fires) you have to solve the "where it comes from and where it goes" problem. It is not a problem if you think of it as an Observing Field (like em-field or plasma state). There is no "why not", because sure it is everywhere, but only complex enough interactive systems can ignite it at their current location. That's still pure speculation, but more aligned with Occam's and has to be considered as both a competing idea and as an answer to "why in me and not in xyz".
I stopped at this crossroad:
- distinct and only me (1)
- distinct and multiple (N)
- a field-like phenomenon (~inf)
- a perception mistake (0)
First two bring a hierarchy problem (why, how). A third has a scientific potential-like flavor. The last one is boring. Not sure if I ever get any further than that, sadly.
That's rather a simple one, every point of experience is "this specific one" for itself, but in reality there are no specific points. If you were a fish in previous life you would only know that and the question would be the same.
If you mean "why" in terms of "how", the mechanics of it, well as far as I can see it's way bigger than our intellect and in turn language can handle. One assumption I have is that at the moment of death we will get it, not intellectually because the brain won't work but rather experientially.
>our existence is permanant in the history of the universe
Tell me how do you really, existentially separate yourself from the universe?
A problem with "logic" is that there is no one, true system. There are many possible logics and at a certain level of complexity they are more or less equivalent (a Turing machine, for example) It's a just a system of symbols that we refine to represent our world. After we spend enough work inventing a powerful symbolic system we can get confused, turn it upside-down, and start thinking that it has some inherent meaning. That's silly.
But there are systems, and more to come, to test against whatever these supposed to work with. That doesn't invalidate platonism, only tells that models may not match something. But that is already obvious, like you cannot win chess by poker rules — they do not even match the problem space. A spherical infinite set of eternal mathematicians could think of and explore all of logic systems. What is a true system anyway?
> Logic is fundamental and proven to be able to apply in reality
Nothing is fundamental in logic, 2500 years later and we still haven't "figure out" Zeno's paradoxes, and as such we haven't been able to refute either Parmenides's nor Heraclitus's way of looking at things/reality.
Yes, the statements brought up by Aristotle a little later allowed us to be pretty efficient further down the road (without Aristotle's "Logic" we probably wouldn't have had "science" as we know it), but there's nothing fundamental about them. And I suspect Aristotle himself knew that, almost the only way he could attack Heraclitus's views were "ad hominem"s, there was nothing "fundamental" in his explanations of why Heraclitus was wrong and why he was right.
Zeno’s paradox is solved in a better framework for that problem.
Maths is about creating an abstract framework with the mind (which somehow exists without typical bounds of time and space like everything else we can touch). Then you use the framework to sometimes solve real problems.
>Logic is fundamental and proven to be able to apply in reality.
Logic only exists in our minds as well as other things mentioned. The problem which arises with making logic fundamental is that it does not do much for things which matter most in our lives. Like logic can not bring you happiness and joy. I can't make your experience sweet or ecstatic. Nothing wrong with logic it's just limited. Once people see those limits clearly they start exploring life beyond logic.
I recently read an article on HN about how smart ravens and crows are. The connections in their brains are wired differently than primate brains. I wonder if their logic is different than ours for that reason.
The foundational crisis of mathematics in the early 20th century should have laid the notion of Platonism to rest, right? I guess a counter-argument to that could be that the Forms would be incognizable.
In either case it's hard for me to see what Platonism can tell us about the world or ourselves given all we know about math and it's many gaps.
One trouble with debates like is math invented or discovered is people will call 'discovered' Platonism and then get into debates on all the miscellaneous beliefs Plato may or may not have had.
How does one find ethical or religious problems and questions in pure logic? Logic is fundamental and proven to be able to apply in reality. Ethics and religion operate over multiple levels of qualitative transitions and cannot(?) be fundamental.
Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York, was initially attracted to Platonism—but has since come to see it as problematic. If something doesn’t have a physical existence, he asks, then what kind of existence could it possibly have? “If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math,” writes Pigliucci, empiricism “goes out the window.” (If the proof of the Pythagorean theorem exists outside of space and time, why not the “golden rule,” or even the divinity of Jesus Christ?)
Because DoJC exists outside of space and time in minds of believers? It just doesn't have a physical counterpart and does barely have any logic to evolve/deduct from it, for us to predict events based on DoJC as if it was applicable to parts of reality. It is understandable how someone could ask "stupid" (not really) questions about maths, but when philosophers start to draw parallels, it is easy to lose track of what they are even talking about. Can someone explain what they meant exactly?