Objective Reality vs A Popular Ideology (that makes claims about objective reality)

[PseuTonym]

A helpful word in this thread: “intangible.”

The truths of number theory are an intangible part of objective reality.

The best example that I can think of is:
#1 If Fermat’s Last Theorem is true, then it is a part of objective reality.
#2 If Fermat’s Last Theorem is false, then the fact that it is false is a part of objective reality.

Ever since popular magazines announced that Andrew Wiles had a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, there has been a temptation for people to say, “It’s simply a matter of language and logic, and doesn’t refer to objective reality. Because there can be no doubt that it is true, this truth is merely a matter of logic and language. Mathematics itself doesn’t include any number theory. Mathematics is just a corpus of deductive reasoning that starts from accepted assumptions that are not necessarily true, etc”

However, what happens if a counter-example is discovered? Then it will be “not part of objective reality, because it isn’t true.”

The ideology that places truths of number theory outside of objective reality seems almost immune to refutation, but of course that is the nature of ideology. It gives people confidence in their opinions, no matter what those opinions happen to be.

As for Wiles, he discovered an error in the alleged proof that was the basis for the announcements. He was then in the uncomfortable position of trying to create a completely correct proof under new circumstances. Previously he had worked in secret, and felt excitement without any sense of obligation. After all, how can you be obligated to prove that a statement is true if it might actually be false?

---

Just to show that what I am responding to isn’t a figment of my imagination, but is an actually existing ideology, here something from an old post:

As a non-mathematician, “three” is defined to be an integer, “nine” is defined as three threes, and “prime” as divisible only by itself and unity. Therefore “three is prime” is necessarily true, meaning it is true in all possible worlds by definition. If you like, the definitions in the English dictionary are the axioms, and “three is prime” follows as a correctly formed theorem. It asserts nothing about objective reality

Of course, that post is not as old as A. J. Ayer’s book published in 1936. However, it uses the same method as Ayer’s book: select a trivial example, and then rely upon it as though it were representative of all possible examples.

Link to the post …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13066235&postcount=7

 

[Tomdstone]

A helpful word in this thread: “intangible.”

The truths of number theory are an intangible part of objective reality.

The best example that I can think of is:
#1 If Fermat’s Last Theorem is true, then it is a part of objective reality.
#2 If Fermat’s Last Theorem is false, then the fact that it is false is a part of objective reality.

Ever since popular magazines announced that Andrew Wiles had a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, there has been a temptation for people to say, “It’s simply a matter of language and logic, and doesn’t refer to objective reality. Because there can be no doubt that it is true, this truth is merely a matter of logic and language. Mathematics itself doesn’t include any number theory. Mathematics is just a corpus of deductive reasoning that starts from accepted assumptions that are not necessarily true, etc”

However, what happens if a counter-example is discovered? Then it will be “not part of objective reality, because it isn’t true.”

The ideology that places truths of number theory outside of objective reality seems almost immune to refutation, but of course that is the nature of ideology. It gives people confidence in their opinions, no matter what those opinions happen to be.

As for Wiles, he discovered an error in the alleged proof that was the basis for the announcements. He was then in the uncomfortable position of trying to create a completely correct proof under new circumstances. Previously he had worked in secret, and felt excitement without any sense of obligation. After all, how can you be obligated to prove that a statement is true if it might actually be false?

---

Just to show that what I am responding to isn’t a figment of my imagination, but is an actually existing ideology, here something from an old post:

Of course, that post is not as old as A. J. Ayer’s book published in 1936. However, it uses the same method as Ayer’s book: select a trivial example, and then rely upon it as though it were representative of all possible examples.

Link to the post …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13066235&postcount=7

In that thread, post #5, you claimed that two and a half could be a whole number. Give us an example of where two and half is a whole number and where three is not a whole number. If half of x is a whole number, then a whole number could be infinitely small by repetition of division by 2.

 

[PseuTonym]

In that thread, post #5, you claimed that two and a half could be a whole number.

I looked and saw that I asked a question: “Do the following two statements mean anything to you?”

Obviously, I had to then provide two statements in order to complete the question. If I had refrained from supplying two statements, then surely you would tell me that I failed to ask a complete, clear, coherent question.

Didn’t you quote the first message in this thread? Can I say that you agree with everything in the first message of this thread because you quoted it?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I guess I don’t follow what you’re trying to get at… Could you elaborate on what aspect of this you wish to discuss?

 

[PseuTonym]

I guess I don’t follow what you’re trying to get at… Could you elaborate on what aspect of this you wish to discuss?

If you agree that …

“The truths of number theory are an intangible part of objective reality.”

… then we could discuss ideologies that motivate people to deny that.

I could ask you the same question that you asked me. Something motivated you to reply to this thread. The original post is big enough for you to have many alternatives for selecting one small part of it. In quoting some small part, you will be indicating what aspect of it you wish to discuss.

 

[Tomdstone]

I looked and saw that I asked a question: “Do the following two statements mean anything to you?”

Obviously, I had to then provide two statements in order to complete the question. If I had refrained from supplying two statements, then surely you would tell me that I failed to ask a complete, clear, coherent question.

Didn’t you quote the first message in this thread? Can I say that you agree with everything in the first message of this thread because you quoted it?

Here’s the quote:
"Do the following two statements mean anything to you?

1. “Nine is not prime” is not necessarily true because it wouldn’t apply in any world where three is not a whole number.
2. “Five is prime” is not necessarily true because it wouldn’t apply in any world where two and a half is a whole number."

 

[PseuTonym]

Here’s the quote:

If you wish to discuss that, then please post in that other thread. I don’t want two threads to terminate with something that distracts attention away from the thread title and that distracts attention away from the original post in the thread.

 

[Tomdstone]

If you wish to discuss that, then please post in that other thread. I don’t want two threads to terminate with something that distracts attention away from the thread title and that distracts attention away from the original post in the thread.

You posted here the link to the other thread. It was you who referred to that thread and discussion in that thread. I was commenting on the link that you had posted. BTW, I don’t see the sense of posting in the other thread because you did not comment on what I had written there.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If you agree that …

“The truths of number theory are an intangible part of objective reality.”

… then we could discuss ideologies that motivate people to deny that.

I could ask you the same question that you asked me. Something motivated you to reply to this thread. The original post is big enough for you to have many alternatives for selecting one small part of it. In quoting some small part, you will be indicating what aspect of it you wish to discuss.

I guess that I’m just used to the people making the post to define the subject of discussion.

The truths of number theory are intangible truths. As for people who deny it, I personally feel that they’re grasping at straws trying to reject the notion of objective truth…

 

[PseuTonym]

The truths of number theory are intangible truths. As for people who deny it, I personally feel that they’re grasping at straws trying to reject the notion of objective truth…

Some of them are trying to reject the notion of objective truth, but some of them are materialists or physicalists who want physicists to discover equations for morality. Until those equations are discovered, they reserve the right to describe people who disagree with them on moral questions as being not merely wrong, but incoherent and motivated purely by emotions. To them, justice is a superstitious concept. They occasionally use the word “justice” as a tool in “verbal behavior” designed to help them achieve their goals. However, they consider it to be crude and, if used sincerely, embarrassing.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Halves might be somewhat thinkable as smaller units, but the main thing about them is that, if there are already units, they are fractions and not units.

If talk about units is to be consistent, either big units and small units are equally units, hence 9 and a half = 10, therefore it must be called 10, or if there are already units the smaller piece is not a unit but only part.

Maths and physics are lenses and spectrums for looking at objective reality from some angles.

That’s why the stance of the people you have described in your post 10 stinks. Mathematicians and physicists have (italics) discovered some things about morality.

Within the philosophy section find my posts on the subjects of spectrum, complex numbers, waves, Trinity (room for the Other Other), dimensions, approximations to infinity, and the like.

Unit = whole = individual = personhood.

Solomon offered to cut the child up.

If you ask for a pound of apples does the greengrocer give you a few then chop some off the last and give you two-thirds of it to make up the pound?

If fractions are expressed as decimals not recurring (bold), they express units but with the dot along the string of numbers and not at the end. I call these digital quantities (I don’t know if that is the official name). Likewise fractions expressed as old-fashioned fractions can be thought of as a quantity in units with the meaning “unit” being given the quaint name of the denomination.

Once we are recurring (apparent infinity) or “to so many places” (approximation to infinity), we go into what I call analogue quantities.

(If we express “one-seventeenth” in both formats what is really the former gets to look like the latter, like a photograph expressed digitally especially as seen in the old-fashioned dots on the press, versus a razor-sharp cellulose and darkroom job.)

“Analogue” quantities are suited to commodities like cheese which don’t have individual personalities (however tasty! )

The absolute can be both absolutely and relatively absolute, and the relative can be relatively and absolutely relative.

Individual personhood is an absolute absolute.

Boldly go!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

The Wiles-Fermat thing though I am unfamiliar with the details is probably a matter of the band on the spectrum phenomenon. Did Godel say that there are “bands” where something tends to hold and outside which it does less so?

That doesn’t prove absolute relativism, it just reflects on a partial view of part of nature.

The ideologists you quote are very nearly saying sound is the only waves, not radio, light, gravity and the like.

They are in every consulting room: the patient reports (gives testimony of) sensitivity to such-and-such substance or phenomena and the doctor’s textbook tells him all such patients are confabulating. (People do vary in their sensing of spectrums - diversity is what makes the human race strong! When we team up with dogs, canaries etc with their gifts, we are even stronger!)

Justice has relied on testimony.

 

[Tomdstone]

Some of them are trying to reject the notion of objective truth, but some of them are materialists or physicalists who want physicists to discover equations for morality. Until those equations are discovered, they reserve the right to describe people who disagree with them on moral questions as being not merely wrong, but incoherent and motivated purely by emotions. To them, justice is a superstitious concept. They occasionally use the word “justice” as a tool in “verbal behavior” designed to help them achieve their goals. However, they consider it to be crude and, if used sincerely, embarrassing.

We look for mathematical equations for various forces and activities, but that does not mean that they actually exist. For example, what is the mathematical equation that will tell us what dream we will have tomorrow night? I don’t think you are going to find it.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

The ideologists you quote are very nearly saying sound is the only waves, not radio, light, gravity and the like.

…

Though personal indivduality can be observed they are also saying that though they consider themselves persons, they are not willing to accord you that dignity.