Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 03:34:11 UTC No. 16579956

>>16579955
To clarify, I'm mostly hung up on physics. If a particle behaves in a way that follows it's relevant mathematics, which I'm just going to call the "rules" of that particle from here on out, those rules have to exist prior to, or at least concurrent with, the behavior of the object that these rules are defining. I say that on the basis that nothing can follow a set of rules which don't yet exist, otherwise they would in all practicality exist concurrent or prior. If we take the first case, that the math exists before the motion it describes has occurred, then math would exist in a space independent of physical things. In the second case, where the object and it's mathematical limits are generated concurrent to the behavior, then we have a Kant-like dualism of an object in its physical form and an object in it's separate, non-physical form. Either way, I keep getting stuck with a separation between material stuff and immaterial stuff, with both being equally real.

Stop guessing start learning at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 03:51:45 UTC No. 16579965

>>16579955
No. You got it correct the first time. Mathematics is a language used as an abstract point of reference for humans. The phenomenon mathematics measures already exist.

A measurement gives humans a point of reference for ANY observable phenomenon.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 04:39:24 UTC No. 16579979

>>16579955
Math is not the rules it describes and a whole lot of it doesn't correspond to anything in reality anyway

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 04:44:37 UTC No. 16579983

>>16579956
>then math would exist in a space independent of physical things.
it exists just like the set of all possible tic tac toe games. it describes all valid moves, even if they didn't yet happen

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 04:56:42 UTC No. 16579989

>>16579955
It's a thought, with rigorous logic to communicate unambiguously, but ultimately math is communicating thoughts.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 05:13:23 UTC No. 16579998

>>16579965
If you said: "I feel like leaving", you are using an abstract point of reference to describe the experience of unrest.There's no doubt, language is a set of human constructs, but they're constructs that often point a finger at non-constructed things; things that truly do occur, just not within physical space.
On the other hand, if you said "I feel like leaving" without having first experienced that sensation, we'd recognize it as a lie, because you've made a reference to something that doesn't exist. Although we understand that the experience referenced isn't physical or constructed; we've still recognized the language points out something independent of it.
To tie this in, the example above is like writing a false mathematical expression, which we know is false because it can't accurately predict observed patterns in the world. The thing that these patterns are pointing towards could be thought of as a function f(x) before the function has received any x input. And the patterns we observe in the physical world, patterns I'd call the human made euqations of mathematics and physics, is an attempt to paint a portrait of a man based solely on the sound of his voice.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 05:17:22 UTC No. 16579999

>I'm trying to see how these invented terms don't relate to something that exists non-physically
They do, all math can be linked back to logic and thought. Its easy to show logic itself must exist (I think therefore I am), therefore, mathematics must always have physical existence. Just because arithmetic happens to describe the wave of a particle does not mean that arithmetic is a force outside of reality created by god that we discovered. It is just simply set of rules we created that happen to describe it. If we were to teach a hypothetical creature outside of our reality capable of understanding the axioms and rules we created, they too would likely have the capacity to understand mathematics despite no knowledge of the applications.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:15:20 UTC No. 16580020

>>16579955
The argument is that Plato's realm of ideas as a literal place is silly

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 06:47:15 UTC No. 16580036

>>16580020
only on an esoteric level, but not like cult of passion bullshit

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 08:45:27 UTC No. 16580089

>>16579955
>math is just a language
No, math is both a language and a tool.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 08:55:24 UTC No. 16580095

>>16580089
All languages are tools

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:10:27 UTC No. 16580105

>>16580095
>All languages are tools
If L = the set of languages,
and T = the set of tools,
then you're saying,
that L is a proper subset of T.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:09:33 UTC No. 16580928

>>16580105
he stated that shit in 4 words, effective tool usage is a sign of intellect anon

plplpl at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:31:21 UTC No. 16581098

>>16580928
>in 4 words
oh yeah?
i can state it in only three symbols:
L ⊂ T

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:53:07 UTC No. 16581112

>>16581098
no, L = T

plplpl at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 09:43:22 UTC No. 16581131

>>16581112
>L = T
Wrong.

An automotive tool,
for example,
isn't a language.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 09:56:09 UTC No. 16581134

>>16581131
a wrench cannot be contained in T, it exists regardless of the statement.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:53:55 UTC No. 16581627

>>16579955
It’s a language problem.”, i. e., nominalisation of non-located “things” better denoted with verbs or adjectives. Physics is replete with such problem. You can say, “I calculate” without positing entities that aren’t found anywhere in space.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:01:26 UTC No. 16581643

>>16579999
Be is a special verb in the sense Descartes meant it. I walked around the the part doesn’t imply that my walk “exists”.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:09:15 UTC No. 16581653

>>16579999
Be is a special verb in the sense Descartes meant it. “I walked around the park” doesn’t imply that my walk “exists”.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:23:41 UTC No. 16582626

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:26:40 UTC No. 16582630

>>16579955
>something that exists non-physically
Explain what it means for something to "exist non-physically".

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:29:40 UTC No. 16582634

>>16582630
they'll talk about ideas/concepts and more abstract shit without realizing everything is particle based. the ideas they have are particle based, everything that is written down, stored in some format makes use of particles. they think "it's nowhere" but they're always somewhere, "encoded" is something based on particles or their interactions. they're funny like that

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:40:21 UTC No. 16582645

>>16581627
>It’s a language problem.”, i. e., nominalisation of non-located “things” better denoted with verbs or adjectives. Physics is replete with such problem. You can say, “I calculate” without positing entities that aren’t found anywhere in space.
>a language problem
It's not just a "language problem". Human thinking is object-oriented. Mathematics is really about mathematical relationships, but it's very hard to conceptualize relationships without conceptualizing some "things" that are related to each other through those relationships. The objects mathematics deals with are pure abstractions that are truly nothing beyond how they relate to each other, but this observation is counter-intuitive because our understand of "real" objects is ALSO ultimately based on the relationships between them, rather than what they "are" in terms of some ontological substance -- i.e. if you can understand a mathematical object in the same way you understand a "real" object, it seems like both are real in the same sense, when in reality both are UNREAL in the same sense.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:42:47 UTC No. 16582646

>>16582634
>everything is particle based
Imagine trying to dispute the notion that mathematical objects are "real" by claiming that everything is made of abstract fields and probability distributions.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:44:00 UTC No. 16582647

>>16582645
>understand
and where does that happen? "nowhere"?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:45:57 UTC No. 16582649

>>16582646
listen, all of your abstract mathematical objects exist as information in several places. in some human brains, encoded in their neurons. in some books, on some electronic devices (SSD/HDD/RAM) and other storage media. ALL are particle based.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:47:11 UTC No. 16582651

>>16582649
Last time I asked you to define "information" and tell me what instrument I can use to objectively confirm its presence, you literally had a psychotic episode.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 16:49:03 UTC No. 16582654

>>16582651
still haven't grown a spine I see

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:09:24 UTC No. 16582673

>>16582654
If you had a modicum of rationality, you would have at least done some reading to gain some insight into what actual scientists mean when they talk about "information", so that you wouldn't get stumped by the same basic question next time. kek

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:13:04 UTC No. 16582679

>>16582673
still didn't make any argument. you cannot give a single instance of "something that exists non-physically"

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:15:32 UTC No. 16582684

>>16582679
>still didn't make any argument.
I made my argument wrt. OP here: >>16582645 and wrt. your moronic assertion here: >>16582646. My points stand unchallenged.

>you cannot give a single instance of "something that exists non-physically"
Looks like I'm driving you to psychosis again. At no point did I assert hat something "exists non-physically".

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:20:07 UTC No. 16582695

>>16582684
anything that you can come up with, math related, literally any abstract concept, exist in human minds or encoded in something particle based. this isn't even debatable, not sure what you're going for with your schizophasia. you seem to be stuck in some magical fantasy world

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:22:59 UTC No. 16582698

>>16582695
>mentally ill bot repeats itself
I'm not going to reward your extremely imbecilic and blatantly subhuman worldview with any more attention. Go talk to someone all the way down on your level.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:26:35 UTC No. 16582707

>>16582698
not sure when you insterted yourself in the conversation, I replied to >>16582630 and somehow you felt butthurt and also felt the need to blurt your word salad which says absolutely nothing of substance.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:30:28 UTC No. 16582714

>>16582707
Kekt hard at your extreme mental illness. I asked OP a question (>>16582630) and replied to another anon (>>16582645). Both times you inserted yourself into my exchanges. Now you're getting assblasted over because I replied to your reply to my post. Get professional help.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:34:09 UTC No. 16582720

>>16582714
you feel threatened by me, you're giving me too much attention.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:36:55 UTC No. 16582725

>>16582720
>pesters me repeatedly with some 80 IQ "intellectual" diarrhea when I wasn't even talking to him
>y-y-you give me too much attention!
That's the only thing you're right about ITT. No more (You)s for you since you just keep shitting the bed.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:39:45 UTC No. 16582729

>>16582725
you remembered me you scared little bitch. I keep reminding you that you are a pseud with no original thought. you mastered parroting other's ideas and now you aren't the only one who knows that.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:40:26 UTC No. 16582730

>the mental patient keeps (You)ing me with incoherent schizobabble
I'm gonna be living rent-free in his head for weeks. Yum.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:43:40 UTC No. 16582734

>>16582730
that is cringe low testosterone behavior. stop acting like a woman.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:50:41 UTC No. 16582747

>the mental patient can't stop (You)ing me
Imagine being so upset about losing an internet argument that was only real in your mind in the first place.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 03:17:57 UTC No. 16583336

>>16582714
>>16582630
OP here.
When I say something exists non-physically, I'm including something like a thought as non-physical, and all conceptions, logical rules, and mathematics (that are accessible to thought) to also be non-physical. I say they exist non-physically, because things can be proven about them in their conceptual state, separate from any physical correlate.
The obvious response to this is that the brain is the physical origin of conscious experience. To that I'd say you're probably right, and that would be a world with only the physical. That would also be an epiphenomenal world, without free will or the Self as an agent; so I'm going to grip onto my hope that biologists haven't found a physical correlate to consciousness because some things exist conceptually prior to physical embodiment.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 04:36:48 UTC No. 16583374

>>16581131
T = L

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:09:31 UTC No. 16583476

>>16583336
>because some things exist conceptually prior to physical embodiment.
pure copium

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:14:48 UTC No. 16583535

>>16582630
Give me some bitcoin and I will do what you say.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:01:09 UTC No. 16583548

>>16583336
>When I say something exists non-physically, I'm including something like a thought as non-physical, and all conceptions, logical rules, and mathematics (that are accessible to thought) to also be non-physical. I say they exist non-physically, because things can be proven about them in their conceptual state, separate from any physical correlate.
What would be different if conceptions, logical rules and math lacked this "non-physical existence"? If you exclude rational actions, do "non-physical" things have causal efficacy in the physical world? Would all the physical phenomena and processes that display the relevant abstract relationships be impossible? Would machine learning stop working? If your machine is running a program that recognizes cats, it's exploiting extremely abstract patterns in order to do so (which have to "exist non-physically"). How does the physical computer access the non-physical realm? I'd say the argument against "math's independent existence" is that it isn't needed to explain anything, but only raises a bunch of insoluble problems.

>The obvious response to this is that the brain is the physical origin of conscious experience.
That's not "obvious" at all. It's dubious intuitively and impossible to demonstrate scientifically.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 14:11:11 UTC No. 16583659

>>16583548
causality is a concept you mongoloid.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 14:12:04 UTC No. 16583661

>>16583659
Mentally ill non-reply. Try again.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 14:13:58 UTC No. 16583664

>>16583661
Point to any cause. You can't because it is already gone. Why did you swallow the bugpill?
Causality is contradictory at every layer, even empirically untenable, but the bugman has an urgency to be dominated and humiliated.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 14:16:59 UTC No. 16583667

>>16583664
I don't care about your golem NPC opinions.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:35:23 UTC No. 16583766

>>16583374
>T = L
if you insist