/lit/ - Literature

Does category 5 contain god?

I propose another system of categories:

1) Things that are relevant (science, mathematics, engineering, technology)
2) Things that are irrelevant (philosophy, fiction, art)

>>5269101
How do you define "relevant"? You seem to be using the word in a strictly economically productive meaning; However, this is somewhat self-refuting because most of the things which we will discover in these "relevant" fields are highly irrelevant. It is just that science is uncertain: The best way to discover what is relevant is to dig up a lot of irrelevant things with it. Pure mathematics is highly irrelevant, but highly satisfying in my opinion.

>>5269098
It depends on how you define "god". If you define "god" in the sense that it is the all that can be and is self-caused(i hold that this is the only tenable way to do so, because it turns out that the universe probably is self-caused.), then "god" is in category 3 because it is the idea of category 1. If you define god as a conscious being, like some kind of space-grandpa-superman, it certainly is in category 5. You could also say that "god" is in category 6, and it is probably here that "god" will end up when the gaps that are used for his justification in many parts are gone, so to speak.

bump

Remember that time Wittgenstein solved philosophy?

>>5269094

How is math not dependent on humans? I mean, sure, math is the exploration of logical systems, but the math we know, and which I think you refer to, is our, human, math. We cannot think outside our limitations.

Can an abstract object exist if there is no conscious being to acknowledge it? The world will exist, containing conscious beings or not, but will physics exist?

Yeah, I remember having similar thoughts when I was 5 years old.

>>5269419
Read "Philosophical Investigations".

>>5269442
Math is indispensable for science. To add to that, even the most primitive of humans have some concept of quantity (which is how math arose as a field of study: Concurrently to commerce).
> I mean, sure, math is the exploration of logical systems,
>but the math we know, and which I think you refer to,
> is our, human, math. We cannot think outside our limitations.
First of all, are you implying that there is some "non-human" math by saying "[...] and which I think you refer to, is our, human, math."? Because if you are, your statement is incoherent. I really don't understand what you mean. Humans invented math, therefore hypothetical aliens cannot invent math? If you mean that, i would hold that they would do so because of what i said earlier: Mathematics is indispensible to our best scientific theories.

All objects are reduced to sensory experience and aesthetical quality.
All objects receive their aesthetical quality from the situation in which they are experienced, the situation is the temporal and spatial arrangement of objects. All objects are related to other objects:
1) by similarities in sensory experience
2) by similarities in the aesthetical quality

The aesthetical qualities are basically reduced to two: the sublime and the mundane.

Mundanity makes objects dull and obscures meaning: this is the realm of common language, sublimity focuses the subject in the uniqueness of a particular object in a situation: this is the realm of poetical private language

>>5269504
Are you saying you did read Philosophical Investigations? Because it's evident from the OP that you didnt or that you didn't understand it.

Words are not not mere names for objects.

>>5269539
I am saying that Wittgenstein did not solve philosophy.

>>5269098
I don't think god is a logical impossibility. That god exists seems more like a synthetic than an analytic statement to me, but I don't have any proof other than intuition. Is there any way to figure that out?

>>5269094
this image looks like the level of spyro year of the dragon with all the mammoths and ice and temples and shit

>>5269640

>>5269661
I found them on /pol/.

>>5269663
Okay. Can you explain that/provide source?

>>5269548
That's right, because there's nothing to solve. Philosophy isn't a problem, it's just nonsense, as you've been so kind to demonstrate with your OP.

>>5269094
God damn you are fucking confused, man.

>3) Abstract objects that would exist with or without humans. An example is mathematics.
>4) Abstract objects that are only possible for humans to construct. An example is the human soul.
>5) Fictous things which could not exist even in principle. Such as contradictory systems of thought.
All bullshit. The fucking phrase "abstract object" in itself is retarded. And contradictory systems of thought do exist, you see them colliding with each other every day online.

>>5269675
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
(Copied from wikipedia)

>>5269693
> That's right, because there's nothing to solve.
> [...] Philosophy isn't a problem ..."
No shit, sherlock. "Solved philosophy" is somewhat of an euphemism.

> [...] it's just nonsense, as you've been so kind to demonstrate with your OP.
What exactly is it that you do not understand? Abstract objects cannot be equivalenced to physically instantiated objects because they are in even greater part mere products of our mind. Do you understand? Is this so dammn hard? If anything, limitations in language is the barrier here.

>>5269713
Thanks, I'll look this over then. I myself have no training in modal logic though, so I'm not qualified to say whether this works or doesn't.

>>5269713
The word 'positive' seems very loose here, I don't really get exactly what Godel means by that.
>Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
Why?

>>5269132
I would not say that he was defining "relevant" to mean that which is economically productive. Sounds like projection. Besides, fiction and art and philosophy are also economically productive.

Really, I do not understand why people respond to the sort of nonsense that OP has given a prime example of.

>>5269672
give some more my nigga

>>5269732
> limitations in language is the barrier here.
More than just a barrier. You can play your language games all you want, but just remember that what you say in language says nothing about "reality."

>>5269884
>what you say in language says nothing about "reality."

>>5269815
It doesn't really matter, the proof works anyways.

>>5269863

>>5269967
It only works if we know that existing is a positive property.

>>5270011
Call it whatever you want. You can say that "positive" means something similar to "exemplified" or "instantiated".