(March 24, 2015 at 5:38 pm)Esquilax Wrote: In some senses it isn't, given that the material making up the tree is, by and large, not the material of the acorn. When we say that the tree is the same as the acorn we aren't referring to it in any concrete sense, we're referring to the fact that the tree is a result of physical process begun by the acorn that ends in a tree. They are not the same thing, one resulted in the other.

In one sense it is, but then it really isn't, and it kinda is, but not really.

(March 24, 2015 at 5:38 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...the bubble is just the composition of the soap and water, spread over a different sort of area. Nothing has actually changed but the physical form...What is it that you mean when you say the bubble has a distinct nature apart from the water...?

People regularly refer to sensible bodies by just their form or just their material, like you just did, and that becomes a source of confusion. Thus people find themselves needlessly puzzling over whether mature oaks and the acorns are one kind of thing or not. In the Western philosophical tradition between 600 b.c. and 1400 a.d. great care was taken to clarify distinctions between potential and actuality, form and substance, and accidental features versus essential features, etc.

Bubble is the form. Soapy water is the material. Soapy water can also take the form of a drop. A bubble form can also manifest in gum. An actual drop of soapy water is a potential bubble. An actual bubble is a potential drop. The soapy water cannot simultaneously be both an actual bubble and an actual drop. A bubble can contain another material, like smoke. A drop cannot. A bubble of soapy water has the dispositional property of fragility that the drop of soapy water lacks. I could go on, but hopefully you see the point.

There really isn’t anything mystical about sensible bodies having natures. The scientific enterprise is all about finding the natures of various kinds of things.

(March 24, 2015 at 8:30 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: In one sense it is, but then it really isn't, and it kinda is, but not really.

What are numbers? They can be part of a description of objects. They seem to be such an obvious aspect of so many things which we might describe, it can almost seem their essence must be out there, tied up in all the things to which they apply. But numbers exist within the world of ideas. There is no reason to ascribe any independent existence to them apart from their use to the life of a mind. They certainly have a depth of interrelatedness that is as beautiful as it is useful. Like logic, numbers reveal a world of necessary relationships that are there to be discovered. Unlike with colors, no one wonders "do numbers seem the same to others as they do to me?" We understand that numbers, though they exist as such only in the life of the mind are nonetheless neither arbitrary nor subject to personal opinion. To perceive the world as we do is to take note of number and to recognize many true and false applications of numbers.

Like everyone else here, the best I can do is to vomit up a number of impressions lacking any useful structure. I'm sure there are well articulated theories on the subject but I can't say that I've been drawn to work out any personal point of view about this. Sorry.

(March 24, 2015 at 5:53 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: I don't get it! It's hard to be a human being, existing in a reality comprised of distinct objects,

It's fucked up, man. Life is one cruel joke. You wake up, catch the bug of philosophy, try to read as much as you can and understand the nature of your existence, then the inevitable occurs: you fail, and die.

(March 24, 2015 at 5:53 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Saying "a shell is a shell" is a truth statement about the nature of a shell. It's akin to saying 1=1 which corresponds with the nature of existence.

What troubles me---yes troubles---is that the idea of a "shell" IS a one-to-one correlation with that physical object that we can study with the senses; the word is arbitrarily assigned to some discrete thing. The idea of "1" and the principles of mathematics do not entail that sort of relationship with anything we perceive: we don't find prime numbers in the world, but we find them in thought, as properties that belong to the objects, yet they exist only in the abstract. How is this so? Then we come to infinity, a property of sets. And we learn that the infinity of sets are larger than the infinity of integers. Well. Fuck. And there is NOT an infinite amount of matter, as we know by the First Law of Thermodynamics. Something strange is going on.

(March 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm)whateverist Wrote: There is no reason to ascribe any independent existence to them apart from their use to the life of a mind.

But imagine a Universe prior to minds. Doesn't math still run the show?

(March 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm)whateverist Wrote: numbers reveal a world of necessary relationships that are there to be discovered.

Necessary only when minds conceive numerical value or necessary as unchanging abstract principles with an existence independent of minds, being intrinsic properties of the whole shebang?

And doesn't that explain why:

(March 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm)whateverist Wrote: Unlike with colors, no one wonders "do numbers seem the same to others as they do to me?" We understand that numbers, though they exist as such only in the life of the mind are nonetheless neither arbitrary nor subject to personal opinion. To perceive the world as we do is to take note of number and to recognize many true and false applications of numbers.

(Bold mine)
That's... nuts. Because moreover, true applications actually reveal the whole "blueprint" for the poetry of motion...

(March 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm)whateverist Wrote: Like everyone else here, the best I can do is to vomit up a number of impressions lacking any useful structure. I'm sure there are well articulated theories on the subject but I can't say that I've been drawn to work out any personal point of view about this. Sorry.

It's okay, man. I have no idea what to make of numbers right now either. But maybe I'll become a Pythagorean.

(March 24, 2015 at 9:50 pm)Nestor Wrote: But maybe I'll become a Pythagorean.

Apparently, he also walked on water and had a golden thigh to boot!

lol....fun stuff! I'm gonna sleep on it Nestor!

---

Oh! Ask your professor if he's aware of of the intrinsic nature of Stinkiness. Tell him not to focus on the relationship between stink and physical objects such as shit and poor hygiene, rather, press him to focus on why it is that some things have an inherent smell value that are transcendent to shit or any other object that may participate in its rank intrinsic nature...

I'm not sure that I see a good analogy there. That smells are subjective experiences caused by particular properties of physical objects interacting with sense organs, which then translate molecular information into a conscious reality---while marvelously strange---lacks the unexpected feature of being a purely abstract relationship only to be conceived in thoughts (granting a physical basis of mind), thoughts that provide the entire framework for how phenomena operates, whether it is perceived or not, using principles represented by signs that appear objectively, even absolutely, true. Physics may defy our conception of logic, but I don't know if anyone would dare say it defies math.

(March 24, 2015 at 9:50 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm)whateverist Wrote: There is no reason to ascribe any independent existence to them apart from their use to the life of a mind.

But imagine a Universe prior to minds. Doesn't math still run the show?

I don't even think math runs any show now, with mind present. Nothing happens on account of math. Math merely describes the determining factors better than anything else. A great predictor, not a causal force.

(March 24, 2015 at 9:50 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm)whateverist Wrote: numbers reveal a world of necessary relationships that are there to be discovered.

Necessary only when minds conceive numerical value or necessary as unchanging abstract principles with an existence independent of minds, being intrinsic properties of the whole shebang?

I wouldn't say numbers or the relationships between them depend on flesh and blood brains holding them in their attention to 'exist'. It seems wrong to play "where's Waldo" with numbers. We can all see that is true .. from within the perspective afforded by our flesh and blood brains.

(March 24, 2015 at 9:50 pm)Nestor Wrote: And doesn't that explain why:

(March 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm)whateverist Wrote: Unlike with colors, no one wonders "do numbers seem the same to others as they do to me?" We understand that numbers, though they exist as such only in the life of the mind are nonetheless neither arbitrary nor subject to personal opinion. To perceive the world as we do is to take note of number and to recognize many true and false applications of numbers.

(Bold mine)
That's... nuts. Because moreover, true applications actually reveal the whole "blueprint" for the poetry of motion...

They model it perfectly, or when other factors are in play those too can be modeled. But math/numbers are not a causal force nor are they an underlying structure. Numbers just describe and help us understand and control our environment. Bats evolve echo location. We get numbers.

(March 24, 2015 at 9:50 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm)whateverist Wrote: Like everyone else here, the best I can do is to vomit up a number of impressions lacking any useful structure. I'm sure there are well articulated theories on the subject but I can't say that I've been drawn to work out any personal point of view about this. Sorry.

It's okay, man. I have no idea what to make of numbers right now either. But maybe I'll become a Pythagorean.

What, you don't like beans?