/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4302920]

Hey guys I apologize that I'm making a thread about solipsism, but I would like some opinions.

Is logic/math objective? Someone is trying to argue to me that it isn't, and I'm pretty stumped. Basically what he's saying is that Logic is defined as "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", so logic is based off of just "Validity" which is ambiguous and subjective. He's sort of scatterbrained, so It's hard to explain what he's saying exactly, but if you can give your general thoughts on the subject that would be cool.

[Anonymous No.4302934]

OP Here

I think I can make his point clearer with this statement:

"Math is said to be objective because of the fact that it is always the same no matter what our minds perceive it as. But how can we know that, when all we know is what we perceive it as?"

I think that's pretty much what he's saying.

[Jetty No.4302949]

For someone that believes in solipsism I wonder why you're even debating someone else.

[Anonymous No.4302960]

>>4302934
He clearly doesn't understand math. Numbers are subjective. There's decimals, binary, 101 + 110 doesn't always equal 211, in binary it is only 11. While one can argue that the numbers themselves have value and are part of boolean algebra, they only have value because humans assign the value to these symbols. Anthropic Principle pretty much.

Nothing is objective once it enters the mind if a subject, and without the subjects (humans), there would be no symbols holding those values.

Science is similar, it is not objective in any way. Bohr gave the greatest examples for this.

[Anonymous No.4302964]

The word 'objective' is meaningless.

This entire thread is meaningless.

What pattern of experience does the word 'objective' designate?

20th century philosophy says hi.

[Anonymous No.4302967]

>>4302949
Good point

>>4302960
So would you say that logic is objective? "If A implies B, then B is true. A is True, B is true." Is that objective?

[Anonymous No.4302966]

>>4302960
Also forgot to mention hexadecimals. And from there you get the alphabet, and there's also cryptography which is similar to algebra in replacing the value of symbols for more obscure ones.

[Anonymous No.4302974]

>>4302960
> 101 + 110 doesn't always equal 211 because it could be written in binary
> therefore subjective

you win the award for shittest post.

[Anonymous No.4302977]

>>4302934
Logic is a biproduct of our biology, so no.

Intuition is a little more tricky.

[Anonymous No.4302979]

Math is an aesthetic judgement like every concept. "Objectivity" doesn't exist.

Not all aesthetic judgments are equal however. Math and logic are much stronger and better than others. Its subjectivity doesn't make it "ambiguous" or "meaningless" or whatever the nihilists think to make themselves more depressed and pathetic.

[Anonymous No.4302984]

>>4302979
lose points for confusing crybaby teenagers and subjectivist stoners with nihilists, otherwise good post.

[Anonymous No.4303063]

>>4302974
Can't tell if troll or retard.
Binary - 2 symbol system
Decimal - 10 character system
Hexadecimal - 16 character system

How is it objective when the values of the symbols are relient on the subjects understanding of how to interpret them?

[Anonymous No.4303081]

OP here

>>4303063
I wasn't really asking if "math" in general is objective, because there are clear subjective qualities like the difference in systems as you explained. I mean is something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 objective?

[Anonymous No.4303108]

>>4302960
God you don't understand math. Mathematics follows a strict set of rules and is therefor objective. Mathematics always has an answer that does not change if it is under the same conditions, therefor it is objective.

[Anonymous No.4303109]

>>4303081
Well again, to most people it would be, but since I do alot of subnetting and use binary I could easily say 1+1=11 which equals 3 in decimal numbers.

So therefore it is not objective because the truth behind that statement depends on a subjects understanding of it.

[Anonymous No.4303119]

>>4303063
your analogy is simply retarded, a number system is always specified (or there is only a single correct interpretation).

101 [base ten] + 110 [base ten] = 211 [base ten], always.

there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation in the above statement. if you don't make clear what number system you're using, you're shit and you're not actually doing maths.

[Anonymous No.4303120]

>>4303109
I mean 1+1=2 just in the regular number system. If I have one apple, and then I get another apple, I have two apples. Is that objective?

[Anonymous No.4303130]

>>4303108
What the guy I'm talking to would say to that, is that sure a math proof is always the same, but what about in another universe or in a different form of thinking?

[Anonymous No.4303134]

>>4303120
But there isn't a 'regular number system', there's the decimal system which is widely used, but as far as I'm concerned you have 10 apples.

[Anonymous No.4303141]

>>4303134
Don't be thick, you know exactly what OP means by "regular number system."

[Anonymous No.4303142]

>Is logic/math objective?
It is. Whether it applies to reality is the issue. And there is no one "math". For instance, there is Euclidean geometry, and then lots of non-euclidean geometries. They're different because they have different axioms. Which axioms you pick is arbitrary. Only some sets of axioms are useful in describing what we experience.

Now, if you want to argue that we can't be sure we're not all insane and thus we can't be sure that any of our thoughts are "correct", sure, but that's just radical skepticism, which is as pointless as it is irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.4303158]

>>4303120
Reality is objective, and the math that describes apple-counting acts like the mathematical system of natural numbers, so that's the math we use.

Some people will argue the first point (reality being objective), and most of those will spout shit about perception and perspective that really doesn't address the issue. Yes, we KNOW that perception is only a reflection of reality, yes, we KNOW that our conception of the world is only a cobbled-together attempt to make sense of it. That doesn't change the objective reality of the underlying source of our experiences.

[Anonymous No.4303164]

lol /sci/ is always so shit at philosophical issues.

i see nobody actually took up >>4302964's challenge and tried to define 'objective'.

that's right, just continue your futile circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.4303166]

>>4303158
> and the math that describes apple-counting acts like the mathematical system of natural numbers
I should rephrase that.

The way we observe apples to work when we pay attention to grouping and ungrouping them them acts like the mathematical system of natural numbers.

[Anonymous No.4303177]

>>4303164
>hurr I'm smart because I think I know things you don't

"Objective" refers to that which is not dependent on the thoughts and perceptions of the observer, and is unchanged no matter the nature or choice of the observer.

The word isn't meaningless. Lots of philosophical arguments are based on confusions of what words mean and end up being non-issues, sure, but there ARE people who seriously think that reality is subjective - that what you think changes what's out there. I think they're nuts, but hey.

[Anonymous No.4303180]

>>4303141

What's regular to you isn't necessarily regular to someone else.
There is no regular number system, just as there is no regular language for speaking.

It's completely subjective methods of interpreting symbols.


Take a few Bohr quotes.

"We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections."

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..."


"What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly."

[Anonymous No.4303181]

>>4303130
If it was a different form of thinking it would not be math. Similarly, if it was in a different universe and had a different set of rules, it would probably not be math. Objectivity is one of the traits for something to actually be mathematical, i.e., if something is objective then we can most likely find a mathematical representation of it.

There's some really complicated stuff on what objectivity is. One interpretation of it states that logic is outside of humans, i.e., something can still hold true even if there is no human there to perceive it.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

[Anonymous No.4303183]

>>4303166
>>4303158
So basically, the reality itself does exist objectively, but our perception of it is subjective?

(I'm out of Tom Waits pics, so I'm gonna start using Joanna Newsom pics)

[Anonymous No.4303190]

>>4303130
You can't change how many apples you have by thinking hard.

It might, however, be possible for an entirely different universe to correspond to mathematical systems other than the ones that we currently find useful in this universe. At least, I have no reason to believe that such a difference is impossible.

[Anonymous No.4303193]

>>4303183
Basically. Humans have the ability to convert the objective universe into subjective "thought stuff."

[Anonymous No.4303200]

>>4303183
Exactly.

>>4303181
There is not just one "math". You can pick lots of axioms - it's just that most sets of axioms don't end up looking like reality.

[Anonymous No.4303211]

>>4303177
> "Objective" refers to that which is not dependent on the thoughts and perceptions of the observer, and is unchanged no matter the nature or choice of the observer.

the collapse of the wavefunction isn't an objective event?

i guess that means nothing in the universe is objective, then.

shitty definition, bro.

[Anonymous No.4303221]

>>4303211
>the collapse of the wavefunction isn't an objective event?
Many interpretations of QM deny this concept entirely.

But you're just intentionally misunderstanding what I said. I said "perceptions", not "measurements" or "interactions". Perception happens AFTER interaction.

[Anonymous No.4303251]

>>4303221
name an observation that would contradict idealism.
name an observation that would be evidence for objectivism.

[Anonymous No.4303268]

>>4303158
>2012
>Socrates level philosophy

[Anonymous No.4303279]

>>4303251
Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by idealism, exactly?

As for objectivism, the simple fact that humans agree on what they observe should be evidence enough. Though I can't really form a strong argument if I don't know what alternative you're considering. Really, objective reality is such a natural and fundamental concept to me that I'm not sure what alternative you're currently referring to.

>>4303268
Nothing to say? I stand behind what I wrote, though I'm always open to correction.

[Anonymous No.4303295]

>solipsism

[Anonymous No.4303300]

>>4303193
I am the binary guy above, I agree with you.
There's our subjective interpretation of an objective reality. For example take visible light, our eyes can see ultraviolet light, we can't sense gamma rays, radiowaves, microwaves as well as ultraviolet light.
We actually has no proof that they exist aside from the effects they have on other things. We can augment those forms of light into things we can observe and measure on the ultraviolet light, but it distorts it into something outside of its actual nature.

Take bats for example, we believe
Microbats can more naturally sense light we cannot.

So basically we can only sense a very small fraction of objective reality. Why don't we deny it's there?

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."

This quote equates to the collective/objective universe for me as I'm a pantheist.

[Anonymous No.4303307]

>>4303295
Is it solipsism if you just agree that the idea that your consciousness is the only thing you can be completely sure of? Or for it to be solipsism, do you have to completely belief that you are objectively the only real person?

[Anonymous No.4303312]

>>4303307
>Is it solipsism if you just agree that the idea that your consciousness is the only thing you can be completely sure of?

Is it solipsism if you just agree with* the idea that your consciousness is the only thing you can be completely sure of?

[Anonymous No.4303320]

>>4303307
I think it falls under being skeptical about the problem of other minds... though I'm not sure. Time to look it up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
>Solipsism ( /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind, alone, is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

It looks like both positions work. But I don't seriously entertain the notion that I am the only mind. I file it under the long list of radical skepticism notions that can't be disproved but which don't matter anyway.

[Anonymous No.4303329]

>>4303320
> As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.
Being the obnoxious and extreme version, this is what people seem to usually mean by it.

[Anonymous No.4303332]

>>4303279
idealism is effectively the converse of an objective world, the idea is that all objects are 'mental content'.

the fact you can't actually provide me with any observations that demonstrate an objective should ring immediate alarm bells that the entire discussion is meaningless.

this is essentially ayer's criterion of meaning: can you observe something that would bear upon it?

you say you're justified because it's a 'natural and fundamental concept'; this is just as meaningless as the rest of the discussion. it's not an answer, it's wishy washy nonsense.

the concept of causality is 'natural and fundamental'. yet it turns out that it's actually just a utilitarian mental model which no correspondence to reality. see hume's arguments and quantum physics.

don't think for one second that i am saying that idealism is correct. the concept of 'idealism' is just as meaningless as the rest of this discussion. it is beyond the purview of human intellect.

[Anonymous No.4303364]

>>4303332
>the fact you can't actually provide me with any observations that demonstrate an objective should ring immediate alarm bells that the entire discussion is meaningless.
....
No.

The idea of all things being "mental content" does not account for the vast and consistent agreement between independent observations. It also does not explain the apparent inability of mental illnesses, unconsciousness, or other alternations of the mind to affect the observations of any other party.

I contend that your concept of all things actually "mental content" is the one that is actually devoid of consistent meaning.

> the concept of 'idealism' is just as meaningless
Well, then we agree on that point. But I do not think you have made your case.

As far as it occurs to me now, the center of the idea of objectivism is that our experiences have a common source, and that this source is independent of our thoughts on the matter. Whatever the nature of the source of our experiences, the idea of it being a single shared, consistent source of experiences is the heart of objectivism.

[Anonymous No.4303396]

>>4303364
> The idea of all things being "mental content" does not account for the vast and consistent agreement between independent observations.

sorry, you still don't get it.

the fact is the only thing we have knowledge is is patterns in experience, and even that knowledge isn't certain.

if you cannot name an observation that would confirm or deny your idea, then it is patently obvious that you aren't even talking about anything. this has been philosophically accepted for about a century.

the only way you have knowledge of 'independent observations' is by your observations of them.

> I contend that your concept of all things actually "mental content" is the one that is actually devoid of consistent meaning.

derp, why did you even say this if you read my post? this entire realm of discussion is devoid of meaning, and yes, that includes the idea that 'everything is mental content'. there is nothing that would falsify or verify that, either, just like there's nothing that verifies the concept of 'objective'.

these words are meaningless. they don't designate anything.

[Anonymous No.4303427]

>>4303396
>the fact is the only thing we have knowledge is is patterns in experience, and even that knowledge isn't certain.
This is true.

>if you cannot name an observation that would confirm or deny your idea, then it is patently obvious that you aren't even talking about anything. this has been philosophically accepted for about a century.
You keep saying this, as though you did not have to answer my argument. If you are not trying to form concepts that will give you greater understanding of and control over what experiences you have, then you just don't want truth. I am asking you to account for the consistency between what we each claim to observe, if you deny that our experiences have a common source. If you refuse to answer, then the argument stands.

>this entire realm of discussion is devoid of meaning,
And yet you argue, and demand arguments of me in return! You are not being consistent. For how can you demand that I provide evidence for claims when you say the claims have no meaning? And then I provide evidence, and you ignore it!

The heart of my contention is that the consistency of observations by different observers is best explained by those experiences having a common origin. This common origin of experiences is called "reality". And it is objective in the sense that we are all connected to the same reality, regardless of what we attempt to think about it.

[Anonymous No.4303455]

>>4303427
(cont)
In fact, the very act of requesting evidence shows a tacit acceptance of a reality external to the mind. A person who does not believe in a reality that is both external to the mind and shared between observers has no use for "evidence"! Because any experience another observer claims to have has no bearing on your experiences, if you either deny the existence of anything external to the mind (including the other observer), or deny that you exclusively inhabit the same reality.

[Bruised No.4303456]

>>4302934
To OP:
>"X is said to be Y because Z. But how can we know that, when all we know is what we perceive it as?"
HOW CAN WE KNOW GUISE? Solipsism is pathetic, grow the fuck up.


To those attacking the foundations of mathematics from a less regressive standpoint:
SHUT UP EVERYONE, BADASS HERE. Let someone who actually knows mathematical logic speak.

Mathematical logic doesn't concern itself with whether it's axioms or rules of interference are "valid", "proper" or "true". Mathematics is deduction - deduction so strict that you CANNOT get a word in edgewise. The moment you say "no, that's not how I see it", I can show you exactly why you are wrong. Some logic systems can even prove that they themselves are immune to nonsense.

Sure, you can dispute whether the axiom <span class="math"> A [/spoiler] is "true" or "valid". But if we take it as true (along with rules of interference) then the conclusions <span class="math"> B [/spoiler] are INESCAPABLE. There is no subjectivity about it! A computer given <span class="math"> A [/spoiler] will always spit out <span class="math"> B [/spoiler].

tl;dr Mathematics doesn't say <span class="math">A [/spoiler]. It says <span class="math">B[/spoiler] follows from <span class="math">A[/spoiler].

[Anonymous No.4303483]

>>4303427
> And yet you argue, and demand arguments of me in return!

you don't seem to understand the whole discussion.

the argument is about objectivism and subjectivism.

the point is that these do not have meaning. some things do have meaning, but these words can be analysed and be found to be devoid of it. nowhere have i said that the entire realm of argumentation is meaningless.

i was not demanding observations from you. it was a socratic statement, the point of pedagogy being that there aren't any.

your argument is simply absurd. you cannot argue for the objective existence of other observers by first assuming that they do exist and then pointing to their consistency of experience, it is cyclical.

there is nothing at all you could ever show me that would have any bearing upon objectivism or idealism. it is inherently futile.

[Anonymous No.4303500]

>>4303483
>the argument is about objectivism and subjectivism.
As per the OP, it is about solipsism, which concerns the reality of things external to the mind.

>the point is that these do not have meaning
I have quite clearly stated the meaning of "objective reality".

>your argument is simply absurd. you cannot argue for the objective existence of other observers by first assuming that they do exist and then pointing to their consistency of experience, it is cyclical.
Not so. I seem to observe things in my experiences that are like myself, and which make claims about their experiences as I do. Our claims have a very high consistency. This leads me to a concept of a shared source of experiences, which we are both connected to independent of our thoughts on the topic, and through which we are in contact.

If you have erected a mental block around these specific terms, just tell me what you think about my direct arguments about you and I have a common source of experiences that is external to our minds.

[Anonymous No.4303512]

>>4303500
>>your argument is simply absurd. you cannot argue for the objective existence of other observers by first assuming that they do exist and then pointing to their consistency of experience, it is cyclical.
>Not so. I seem to observe things in my experiences that are like myself, and which make claims about their experiences as I do. Our claims have a very high consistency. This leads me to a concept of a shared source of experiences, which we are both connected to independent of our thoughts on the topic, and through which we are in contact.
And I should emphasize that I need not presume absolute certainty of the existence of other minds or of an external reality in order to be justified in the belief.

[Anonymous No.4303523]

>>4303500
again, just more talk of 'being led to concepts'. that is not evidence, it is just stating what you believe.

i have to go, but i implore you to read about the insights of David Hume, and read a little bit about the idea behind analytic philosophy. i used to be into all of this metaphysics shit too, until i realised the beautiful truth.

[Anonymous No.4303530]

mathematical entities are linguistic constructs
linguistic constructs supervene on physical stuff
math is physically real?

[Anonymous No.4303536]

>>4303523
> that is not evidence
Did you read my argument earlier about demanding evidence and how it includes a presumption of objective reality?

> until i realised the beautiful truth.
Which you have not stated, it seems.

There is ONE possibility that comes to mind in which we may have been talking past each other:
Do you deny the validity of believing in a common source of experiences external to the mind?

You certainly seem to accept the usefulness of empirical evidence, so I assume you must. And if you do, I can't guess what it is you claim to be arguing.

[Anonymous No.4303562]

>>4302920
Your friend has hit on the wrong criticism of math and logic.

The axioms of logic arn't subjective and ambiguous, they are arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.4303574]

>>4303562
>The axioms of logic arn't subjective and ambiguous, they are arbitrary.

That's not a critique of mathematics.

Read >>4303456. Mathematics aren't the premises, it is the deduction.

[Anonymous No.4303595]

>>4303574
That's a bullshit distinction. Basic rules of inference are unquestioned in a deductive language.

[Anonymous No.4303618]

>>4303595
>Doesn't understand the difference between stating rules of interference and the process of proof in which they are applied.

BAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.4303667]

>>4303618
I guess I don't really understand where you're going with all of this. You seem to be jumping around between claims what exists, what we know about what exists, and the actual psychological processes underlying our knowledge of what exists.

For instance, what do you mean by a "process of proof"? Are your referring to *intending* to prove a claim true? Are you referring to some inherent problem with the bio-psychological processes underlying proof?

[Anonymous No.4303730]

Have a look there:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/

[Anonymous No.4303780]

>>4303667
No. What I am saying is. Axioms and rules of interference are arbitrary and are not grounded in any objective truth (we hope they are close to universal truths but there is no way of telling). But applying these given rules of interference to the axioms proving conclusions IS objective. By definition there is a CORRECT and INCORRECT way of proof, if you come out with a different set of conclusions then - by definition - you have done something wrong.

Mathematics is the process of deduction (applying rules of interference to axioms), yielding conclusions. Therefore is NOT subjective. You can whine all you want about the axioms and rules of interference, but mathematics isn't concerned with their truth, hence you are not whining about mathematics.