| We don't care about circles, because they are called "circles". The universe is a 4D-system (at least). Objects have boundaries (i.e. not everything is endless). Some dimensions can be degenerated. Combining this results in 2D-shapes. When you have an attracting force tangential to the boundary and another force repelling in an arbitrary direction, voila you have a circle. When you have an event. And the propagation speed doesn't change. Degrading to 2D, you get a circle. Say you have mass, which is relatively unaffected by anything else, you also have gravity and a random little force in some arbitrary direction, this will result in an effect, which we call rotation. Given enough time, this will evolve into a circle. Given you have already rotation, then you're looking for the form with which rotation becomes the identity function, voila you have again a circle. None of those involves humans existing and caring about roundness. They are all properties of the universe. |
| |
| ▲ | 1718627440 3 days ago | parent [-] | | (As a preface, I like the discussion. I've known about moral relativism, but I've never heard the positions you are defending here.) > What about the area that isn't part of the circle, is that a property of the universe? Yeah a circle as an abstract concept about the shape of a boundary. The outer area is as much defining the circle as the inner. > What about when I drop crumbs on a table and they scatter, is there something special about their location? Yes, if you compare them to the original location, you maybe get some information about the speed, or about the size of gravitational force or the material of the table or the material of the crumbs. > what shape is that property? What color is it? I don't get that part, why should it be? > If I give you a microscope, can you point me to the property? If you give me an electron microscope I can show you the "shape" of an atom. A single atom is also a property of the universe, but that is not the kind of property we are talking about. But it is strange that they all look alike, isn't it? And that the shape is somehow similar to what the behaviour of the universe is, if you breath into soap water. That's what a circle is. It is a property about the universe. It exists also in the universe, but it is not a single thing. > You have an almost religious view What makes that religious? It seams like you conclude from the fact that there are a lot of (not sure if infinite) properties of the universe, that none is really important? I don't agree with that. Also some properties are more truthy than others, not because they are somehow better or anything, but because you can infer all the others from them, because others are rehashes and combinations of them. | | |
| ▲ | resource_waste a day ago | parent [-] | | >It seams like you conclude from the fact that there are a lot of (not sure if infinite) properties of the universe, that none is really important? Yeah thats basically it. Analytical Philosophy can generate linguistically true statements. I just don't find "1 = 1" interesting. You are doing the same thing with 2 x pi x r = c. That really boils down to 1 = 1. I think this is useful, but I don't think there is ontologically anything more special about circles vs 1 = 1. >If you give me an electron microscope I can show you the "shape" of an atom. A single atom is also a property of the universe, but that is not the kind of property we are talking about. But it is strange that they all look alike, isn't it? You mean, using our detection mechanisms that convert data into something we can understand with human vision and brains? How do we know they are that shape, rather than a 5D string? How do we even know they have a shape, and its not just a failure of our detection mechanisms and its merely useful to imagine it with such a shape? Not to mention, what if all atoms are technically different and we are merely assigning it to be the same shape because we don't understand the differences yet? Anyway, I reiterate, you are speaking like a Platonic Realist/Scientific Realist. The more modern understanding is withholding ontological beliefs and Instrumentationalism. I may suggest talking to chatGPT about this. But otherwise maybe send an email or add it temporarily to your profile. I put my philosophy substack in my profile, I'll respond in detail to your thoughts via substack. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 a day ago | parent [-] | | > Yeah thats basically it. Good to know. I'm the opposite, knowing how large the universe is, makes me more curious. > linguistically true You seam to perceive any kind of statement as purely linguistical and not really about the thing itself. To me this seams like taking the map for the territory. This makes it hard to argue, because I want to express something about the nature of a thing, but you take it to mean the perception of a thing and seam to reject that the nature of a thing even exists? > I just don't find "1 = 1" interesting. You are doing the same thing with 2 x pi x r = c. That really boils down to 1 = 1. Yes that's a tautology. 2 x pi x r = c is a also tautological if that is what you defined c to be. That's obviously not useful. But that's not what the meaning of pi is. It is that r -> c is computable and how. Yes you can claim that tools and perception aren't correct and giving you the truth. I think this leads to the idea that everything is just made-up by your mind and we are all just things your mind images that don't exist at all. This just means that everything is meaningless and nothing can be true at all. But this idea has a fallacy. Everything you believe or make ideas is based on that you can perceive things a being real and truthfully. If you reject that you can just reject any insight INCLUDING the idea you just had. The idea can't be true, because you just rejected that truth exists. Everything humans do and think assumes that Laplace's daemon exists and that humans somehow participate in it. Without it there is no truth, no understanding, no thoughts; nothing is anymore. > talking to ChatGPT Yeah I refrain from that especially for things I don't know about, because I know how subtly incorrect it is about things I know about quite a bit. I also like to my correspondent having a grounding in reality. | | |
| ▲ | resource_waste 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | You could have an existential crisis if you keep reading about ontology and epistemology. I'm 50/50. Def sad there is no universals, but its also liberating. You would be classified as a Platonic Realist or Scientific Realist. I am a Fallibilist and Instrumentationalist. Its not that we are denying the usefulness of these claims, we are denying the certainty of our knowledge being divine. If you want an extremely short book, easy to read, natively English, and the Magnum Opus of a field: Pragmatism by William James. Separately: >2 x pi x r = c is a also tautological if that is what you defined c to be. That's obviously not useful. Idk, I find it useful. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've read Wikipedia about William James, which includes a quote from "Pragmatism". It indeed seams to state the same you are claiming. That's how I perceive the argument: We assume there is no absolute truth. (This is ex-ante, an assumption you can't argue about that.) Therefore we take the word "truth" to mean "social consensus about facts". (Ok, but that's not truth, that is social consensus about facts.) Given that we proclaim: "The reasons why we call things true is the reason why they are true [...]" (Yeah, that's consistent, but only because you redefined truth to mean exactly that.) As you see, all the truths are simply random linguistic agreements; there can't be real absolute truth. Ok, I can see that. But that will lead you to a reductio ad absurdum, because that's just a random thought you have, there is no reason, why I should accept it's the truth. I mean you just told me yourself that it is not the truth. Also that is really a circular argument. | | |
| ▲ | resource_waste 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | It doesnt really matter if Pragmatism is 'Truth'. Its useful. If its useful, use it. If its not useful, don't use it. There is no knowledge claim here. It does matter if Platonic Realists are claiming circles are special properties that exist outside our universe. There is a knowledge claim here. >I don't think knowledge is divine. You are going to have the existential crisis. Your ontological and epistemological beliefs are about to converge on anti-realism. I recommend again that book Pragmatism. You will personally benefit from learning about the flaws of Platonic Realism, Monism, and Universals. You will be able to answer questions more accurately. I know I get book recommendations and I generally ignore them, but I will challenge you to read for ~5-10 minutes. I think you will be hooked: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wow. That left me baffled. You're filtering your philosophy according to what affects you, really? I mean there are some interesting ideas in there, but no elaborate argument matters when it is circular and refusing the very base it stand on. The claim is that circles are a property of the universe. That's not a knowledge claim, that's a claim about truth. > exist outside our universe I never said that. When you monomorph a C++-template, it exists in the final binary. It of course won't be a single thing, it's existing among multiple things. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > Your ontological and epistemological beliefs are about to converge on anti-realism. Based on Wikipedia about Anti-Realism: no. Something must be logical AND exist to true, otherwise it's merely logical imagination. > It doesn't really matter if Pragmatism is 'Truth'. That sounds like you bend your perception of reality to match your belief. And when it's inconvenient you say it doesn't matter. I really think there is a fallacy here, can you please refute that? |
|
| |
| ▲ | 1718627440 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What do you thing about what I claimed is a fallacy? Like, I think if you don't agree that your perception tells you about the truth, than you can also claim that you are a test tube brain and you won't be wrong. When there is no causality between what you are thinking and reality, your thoughts are just random ideas and don't mean anything. Heck, you don't even know causality exists, because you just don't know anything. I think this ideas are quite well expressed in: C.S.Lewis "On living in an Atomic Age". For example: https://www.andybannister.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/csl... (I find it a bit easier to understand in my translation, but that may only be the fact, that english isn't my mother tongue.) | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > we are denying the certainty of our knowledge being divine I don't think knowledge is divine. Knowledge is quite often wrong and incomplete. But that doesn't affect truth. Truth is independent of knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
