I don't expect a real answer because let's face it, you're all fucking stupid. But I need you to answer this question.
Does a book in an empty room still have meaning? Or is it just ink on a page?
Do mathematical objects only exist in computers such as the mind, or are they actually referent to real things?
It could be a clue.
That is -- unless you're being Einstein and the room is in fact analogous to space where up is down and left is right.
>It could be a clue
What could be?
A clue to what?
As in evidence?
How does this have anything to do with my question?
This feels like a philosophical question rather than a political one.
>Does a book in an empty room still have meaning? Or is it just ink on a page?
Factually it is ink on a page regardless of how you define "meaning." Basically, this question cannot be answered until you define what you mean when you say "meaning."
>Do mathematical objects only exist in computers such as the mind, or are they actually referent to real things?
I've got a BS in math, and math is fundamentally a constructed system. There's no inherent meaning to the symbols or mechanical logic used in mathematics, but we have been trained to understand that 1+1=2.
"No you're stupid, if I have one thing and then I have another one, I've got two things."
Counterpoint: by saying that you have "one object" you are inherently defining one-ness, then addition, then two-ness. If a dog has two tennis balls does the dog understand that 1+1=2? Hard to say, but this only highlights the fact that "having" "two" of something means you're implicitly defining math. You're the one deciding that one thing and another thing can even be grouped together. You don't even think about sets and groups in math when yo do arithmetic, but the reason you're able to add 1 and 1 is because they are both in the same group and can be added. You can't add 1 and A because A is not a number.
>computers such as the mind
I'll grant you this one, but that's not a light assertion to throw around. You get into some heavy philosophy of the mind there.
>are they actually referent to real things
Sure, we define them to be as such, right?
You don't know what you don't know. You only know what you think you know and usually what you think you know is simply something you heard your Jewish liberal professor say. Does that make it real? And concurrent to reality? Let me ask you another question: what is real is all an illusion. Everything you see touch taste smell and fear is an electrical impulse in your brain. P.s. I farted and shit came out tehehehehe poopy pants hurrr durrr got poop in my pants hehehe poooopy
Nothing has any meaning if there are no humans to interpret it.
>current year
>existential philosophy
>digging for China in a sandbox
You must be joking
Would you call yourself a nominalist? Because that's exactly what I'm trying to understand -- any sense in any other view than nominalism.
>Math is a fundamentally constructed system
I also am of that opinion, however, there are those filthy platonists who suppose it is not. Not only do I not understand how they justify their beliefs, I don't understand what it is they are referring to when they refer to metaphysical universals i.e., mathematical objects outside of minds. In this way I can't even explain what I mean by "meaning" in my example since I think it is non-cognitive. I can't understand how one can believe that math models actual universals. I don't know what math can even be other than, as you pointed out, predicated on man-made models.
>I'll grant you this one, but that's not a light assertion to throw around. You get into some heavy philosophy of the mind there.
I'm aware, but I think it's absurd to think of the mind as not at LEAST a computer.
>Sure, we define them to be as such, right?
But then it is our definition which is real and certain, not the referent. We understand what cartwheels are because we define that relationship between a body and an action to be a cartwheel.
surely I'm joking...
platonism in math isn't popular simply because platonism in general isn't popular, modern people have a radical materialistic view of things to the point of rejecting metaphysics as a whole
some people however consider the metaphysical world as preceding the material one, which would be just a manifestation of the former, so I assume that's where platonists start
so basically what I'm saying is that you can't understand math platonists without understanding platonists as a whole
I'm not particularly convinced on any of those in particular
I agree with everything you say with the exception of
>platonism in math isn't popular simply because platonism in general isn't popular
Platonism in it's current incarnation is very popular. Slavoj Zezik for example, and his overwhelmingly large fanbase are Platonists following a Laconic tradition.
That comic rocks. I recommend anyone interested in logic to read it.
yes it does
well, "very popular" depending on what demographic you are considering
I'm a mathfag myself, most mathematicians though don't care about its philosophical foundations, and since they are educated to a fundamentally materialistic view of the world(since platonism isn't really taught as true in our educational systems), they end up with a view of it that is most close to a materialistic view
oh man this really made me think
eeeyy who linked Jaden Smith to Sup Forums ?
>It's a post pictures of philosophers and don't talk about politics thread.
This doesn't belong on this board.
they're first semester philosophery students, so they're edgy as fuck
They make good taxi drivers though
>i read a wikipedia article on philosophy and now i think im deep
but what makes a first semester philosophy student? hmm
are they those who study the first semester of philosophy or those who study philosophy for their first semester?
>babby's first philosophical thought
>Would you call yourself a nominalist?
I've never studied philosophy in depth and I try to avoid labels because they come with a lot of potentially undesirable baggage, but a quick read over the wikipedia summary suggests that I would agree with most of that school of thought.
I think the idea of platonism is that there is some sort of fundamental thing-ness or objects or concepts that we are experiencing representations of. I think the idea is absurd, except in the case of our universe being a simulation or something where there exists an outside reality with "true" forms of something. Of course now that I write that out, it's still absurd and has absolutely no bearing on us.
I'm not a philosopher, I like to think of myself more as an engineer. I work with systems and data, I'm pretty used to the concept of defining or classifying something so that it can be manipulated. I can only be certain of the existence of universals in systems that I've defined or have studied in depth. I don't think existence is so simple that I can do that to it. It doesn't really matter if you define an action as a cartwheel or not, but doing so allows one to reproduce it and analyze it, and this is a useful and exploitable property.
Am I an utter pleb for genuinely finding these tree falling in a forest questions completely moot? Surely it purely depends on your definition of 'meaning.'
To me the ability of someone to go and read the book is always implicit in such a question since to me it's implicit in the definition of having 'meaning', so yes.
Also check my resting pulse rate wtf.
the point of these questions is to discuss the underlying assumptions and conclusion regarding our perception of things, not to literally talk about the thought experiment
Depends on how you define "pleb."
Just means that you don't have an interest in philosophy. I would agree that a lot of these moot questions are just things to think about, nothing actionable.
Things acquire meaning through people, art that isn't seen is art that doesn't exist.
Imagine you draw a picture, and hide it, so no one will ever see it. Immediately after that you die. Does it exist in a meaningful way? It will never be inside the memories of someone, so the answer is no.
It's meaning would come from people remembering it, telling other people about it, so it can live on, like people who have children.
concepts without Legitimate definitions are meaningless; meaning is bounded .
ps. if thats TOO much for your little head too comprehend then maybe you need to be higher like your Atheist hero
Meaning is subjective. People give different objects different values based on their emotions. A book is nothing but a thing occupying space without a reader. A thing without a proper place is just clutter. Ergo, a book that is never read is simply clutter. Given enough time exposed to the elements it would return to dust, and the earth whence it came.
Not really. It's just a book sitting on a shelf.
Stop over-analyzing everything and let it be.
What the fuck do you think? What a fucking stupid quasi philosophical question to ask on this board. You dumb faggot think for yourself we don't have time for this shit
a book in an empty room still has meaning, it's information, and it's highly organized information
there's no such thing as a 'mathematical object', but if you mean mathematical concepts, then no, they exist in nature, as does the mind. Fractals for example, exist in nature, and two rocks next to each other are still two rocks, and they're still held to the earth by gravity, a force that results from higher mathematics in the universe
>tfw too addicted to Sup Forums and current year politics I never read any of the books in my libraries I have amassed for 31 years.
I would say meaning is not something inherent to an object, but rather given to it by something that already has a meaning to us, so it is all constructed upon layers of meaning. The top layer might be what the book wants to tell you, below it you have a meaning for each of the words it uses, the concepts, and at the very bottom, the only thing that's left is the brain. The arrangement of its atoms gives you an impression of having a meaning in itself, upon which you can further build more layers.
There is no meaning below that bottom layer, as the very question becomes just as meaningless as the question "what was before the universe", as the word "before" has no meaning without a universe, as does the word "meaning" without our brain, us.
>I only meant that the brain is a computer in the sense that it is capable of computation. I needed to include both minds and computers in my example because both are capable of computation, and only something capable of computation can hold (represent?) a mathematical object.
I have a huge interest in your field BTW. I've watched most of the Stanford lectures by Dr. Sapolsky. I'm especially interested in how heuristics work in simpler brains.
Hey, Summerfriend, read the fucking sticky.
I appreciate and agree with your response. And LOL at your jab at Russell who I find most persuasive on theological problems.
Historically reading and writing was reserved for the elite, powerful few.
Words have powerful meaning. Their intent can be to provide record of an event or issue, all the way up to causing revolutions on biblical scale
This intent can be passed on through writing, letters combined into words organized as a language scribed on rock walls or just paper.
The words are infinite and indefinite. They represent what is possible, for the intent to take shape and relay information or insite change.
That they once were, means they are, shall they forever be. Once written, on pavement, or stone, or code, the intent of the written words is possible. Where possibility exists, infinity exists.
I think that matters. Fuck I'm blazed
Yes.
You should hide your books and only out them on the bookshelf until you've read it. It might guilt you into reading haha
Get a rope, tie a noose, find yourself a nice quiet place where you can get the two or three feet necessary for a clean neck snapping drop and get busy.