Post: #151

Icarus, your post is in itself a good succinct statement of the dominant metaphysics of our age. That is not surprising since the things one believes most deeply strike one as self-evident truths to be taken for granted.

But there are real problems with it. A very big problem is that "atoms" are in fact every bit as much of a human construction as "meaning". It is important that nihilism with respect to meaning -- the conviction that there is no objective meaning to be found, and any claim to find one is nothing more than a species of subjective or emotional chatter -- always goes hand in hand with the most shrugging Platonism with respect to mathematical objects.

The picture is one of a universe necessarily disconnected from human meaning or purpose, governed by objective mathematical laws that exist independently of the human mind, and that we may only discover through mathematical science. These laws, because they exist "out there", independent of human cognition, have the privileged status of objectivity; all other assertions cannot aspire to this status and are merely "subjective".

The trouble is that mathematical Platonism is an almost self-evidently ludicrous idea if you really examine it for a second. There is no "pi in the sky"; there are no mathematical objects that magically exist outside of human cognition. What are these objects exactly? The quite obvious reality is that we invented all these mathematical objects, just as we invented everything else. "But they work!" Yes -- we invented them so that they would work. That is their point.

Once it becomes clear that there is no privileged domain of objective Platonic truth that is necessarily disconnected from human sentience, one can also see the confusion in the idea that statements about meaning are necessarily invalid merely because we "just make them up" -- as if there were statements of any other kind! Once the idea of a sacralized mathematical domain of the only "objective reality" is removed, one observes that we proceed in life at all times as if all sorts of statements are objectively true, as if there is very much such a thing as objective reality and we deal with it, more or less successfully, at every instant. It is only when we try to do philosophy that we are so mesmerized by the notion of some impossibly hard and perfect truth that we dismiss perfectly valid ways of thinking about the world as somehow secondary and inferior to that chimeric vision.

I believe that a good starting point for thinking about the meaning of the world is to realize that there are two different things: human sentience, and the materials that surround it and of which it is made. It is not easy to understand the nature of that difference, but everyone is aware of it and acknowledges it. It does no good to deny this difference by describing us as machines governed by some external mathematical laws -- since it is we, human sentience, that invented those laws and mathematics itself in the first place.

Once this difference between sentience and materials is seen, it becomes clear that the most fundamental activity that sentience is engaged in is attempting to gain increasing control of materials. The cumulative scientific and technological progress of mankind over time is the outcome of this relentless struggle of sentience to manipulate non-sentient matter and bend it to its will. That activity can be taken as almost the definition of meaning and purpose. Thus, the most basic occupation of sentience is one that involves it with meaning and purpose at all times -- whether or not this is consciously realized.

It was unfortunate but inevitable that while dismissing the kinds of Platonism involved in religious faith, we overlooked the very similar confusions inherent in mathematical Platonism and were led to the current dominant metaphysics of nihilism. I think that this situation will eventually be rectified once the brute force consequences of technological progress -- our ability to affect the physical circumstances related to our own bodies and brains in truly game-changing ways -- begin to show people the real point of progress, and give them an instinctive understanding of how sentience proceeds vis-a-vis materials; all while increasing our raw intelligence, which will make these conclusions easier to arrive at. At some point, Wittgenstein's work in the Philosophical Investigations will also be rediscovered and it will be seen that it laid the foundations for seeing through the confusions inherent in Platonism of every variety.

Post: #152

(04-18-2014 12:17 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  I believe that a good starting point for thinking about the meaning of the world is to realize that there are two different things: human sentience, and the materials that surround it and of which it is made. It is not easy to understand the nature of that difference, but everyone is aware of it and acknowledges it. It does no good to deny this difference by describing us as machines governed by some external mathematical laws -- since it is we, human sentience, that invented those laws and mathematics itself in the first place.

I get the impression that you never devoted much thought to philosophy of science, especially the philosophy of physics. How can you admire Feynman and call him a "man of substance", if you don't even understand the foundations of his field?

Physical laws were "invented" by Nature, and humans merely discovered them, wrote them down using human mathematical notation, and named the mathematical equations after humans. Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial civilization has the obligation to have discovered Newtonian Mechanics and Electromagnetism. In fact, one could define "sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial civilization" as "extraterrestrial civilization that has discovered as many physical laws as humans did discover until the end of the 19th century".

Mathematical symbols and equations exist in a platonist's heaven, of course. How is that a deep realization? The point is not whether they exist or not, but that physical laws can be described mathematically, and that such mathematical descriptions have explanatory and predictive power. How can you doubt this assertion when most technology is the living proof of this? Man can tame Nature because physical laws are very well understood.

No one expects to touch wavefunctions and the like. The whole point is that these mathematical objects allow one to perform computation and make predictions that are validated by experiment. It's not the mathematical objects and equations that make physics, but the fact that mathematically described physical laws are validated by experiment, as demanded by the scientific method.

Perhaps all human constructions are born equal, but they don't develop equally. Those that are subjected to experiment and pass this strict test are worth something. Game is the scientific method applied to picking up women. Come up with hypotheses on the nature of women, test them in hundreds of women, and derive "laws" that compress all the information that one acquired from empirical experience. However, since human realities change over time, and since humans are constantly under selective pressures, what works today may not work 10,000 years from now. I.e., Roosh's work is not as eternal as Newton's or Einstein's. Roosh re-discovered laws of human nature, not laws of non-human nature. Newton's laws will still be valid within their domain of applicability after the Sun explodes and the Earth is incinerated.

Post: #153

The problem is at the end of the day we stay at the point where Socrates was " We know nothing". We guys could be in a dream like existence and we wouldn´t know it. Even if science was somekind of objective we would be products of causality and without free will. In the bigger picture it´s totally meaningless. That´s why so many cultures give a shit about scientifical development. I am with cardguy life is totally meaningless. Life is brainwashing and there no absolute truth in life.

We are just some funny machines doing funny things and people are talking about great men. That´s funny.

And Cardguy should get a girlfriend ASAP because that would be funny.

Post: #154

(04-18-2014 01:53 PM)Icarus Wrote:  I get the impression that you never devoted much thought to philosophy of science, especially the philosophy of physics. How can you admire Feynman and call him a "man of substance", if you don't even understand the foundations of his field?

Your impression might be a little inaccurate . In any case Feynman himself, or virtually any mathematician or scientist for that matter, never devoted much thought to the "foundations" of his field and they all did just fine. They simply did their work. And whatever natural language chatter scientists and mathematicians occasionally produced about "foundations" contributed less than zero insight of any kind and only served to sow confusion.

In your post, you merely repeat the hardest line mathematical Platonist position -- not that I expect any different, since you, along with almost everyone else, take it to be self-evidently true. And your only argument (even though you clearly feel that the self-evident truths you state do not really require an argument) is the one I already referred to in my previous post -- math and science work; therefore, it cannot be that we "just make them up".

So let me ask you, since you blithely assert that "mathematical symbols and equations exist in a platonist's heaven, of course". Where is this heaven located? How is it that we gain access to it? How do the eternal Platonic mathematical objects make themselves known to mere human minds? Where in the sky does pi live?

It does no good to evade these questions with weasel constructions such as "oh, of course we don't need to touch the wave function, it's just that its existence (in some realm necessarily distinct from the human mind!) enables us to discover laws that are then confirmed by experiment, etc". Can you see how this is no different at all -- again, what is this realm, distinct from the human mind, in which such "objects" exist? Where is the Wavefunction (with a capital W, as it were) located, and how do we know that it's out there?

"But these things work -- we make scientific predictions in a mathematical language, and they are confirmed by experiment!" -- quite true. "Therefore, we can't just be making them up!". No -- we don't "just" make them up. We make them up so that they work.

Post: #155

(04-18-2014 02:24 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  So let me ask you, since you blithely assert that "mathematical symbols and equations exist in a platonist's heaven, of course". Where is this heaven located? How is it that we gain access to it? How do the eternal Platonic mathematical objects make themselves known to mere human minds? Where in the sky does pi live?

When you declare a function in C or C++, where does this function live? It lives in silico, and it returns outputs when fed with inputs. The mathematical symbols live on sheets of paper and in the brains of those manipulating them.

(04-18-2014 02:24 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  "But these things work -- we make scientific predictions in a mathematical language, and they are confirmed by experiment!" -- quite true. "Therefore, we can't just be making them up!". No -- we don't "just" make them up. We make them up so that they work.

Sure, we make them up so that they work! And do you think that is not an achievement? Of course electrons are not perfect spheres like they are depicted on high-school textbooks. Those are human constructions, like the mathematical constructions used to describe physical laws.

The purpose of physics is to come up with approximations of physical reality that are mathematically tractable and as invariant as possible. The models are developed so that they can compress knowledge about the physical world. It's all about compression. The success of physics is that with very few axioms and physical laws one can describe and predict an enormous number of physical phenomena.

The prime example would be high-school mechanics: one starts by studying special cases, say, the ball moving at a constant speed, or moving under constant acceleration, and then one gets equations of motions for each special case. Later, one learns differential equations, and can compress all special cases into Newton's equation plus other data. From then on, you only need to know integral calculus to perform decompression. The purpose of compression is to replace lots of raw data with algorithms that generate lots of raw data from only a little data. Differential equations are humans' representation of Nature's compression algorithms.

Of course, experiments in physics tend to be extremely simple. Just because one knows Maxwell's equations, it does not mean that one knows the values of permittivity and permeability in all points in space, and it does not mean that one knows the initial conditions with exquisite detail. But studying toy problems one acquires enough intuition to predict physical phenomena whose mathematical descriptions are intractable. It's really hard to model a bicycle mathematically, but human infants can learn how to ride them, as their brains develop via trial and error the control algorithms required to maintain equilibrium.

Sure, it was possible for 13th century European architects to build cathedrals without knowing anything about statics. I am not claiming that empirical knowledge is of no value, and that only mathematical descriptions of physical reality are of any use (which is clearly false).

Post: #156

(04-18-2014 02:43 PM)Icarus Wrote:  The mathematical symbols live on sheets of paper and in the brains of those manipulating them.

I'm glad you've just abandoned mathematical Platonism wholesale! Even though the above statement is not quite accurate as well -- but it's much better than the magical Platonist heaven.

In other words, you agree that there is no Platonic realm distinct from the human mind in which these objects live. In other words, we make them up.

(04-18-2014 02:43 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 02:24 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  "But these things work -- we make scientific predictions in a mathematical language, and they are confirmed by experiment!" -- quite true. "Therefore, we can't just be making them up!". No -- we don't "just" make them up. We make them up so that they work.

Sure, we make them up so that they work! And do you think that is not an achievement?

As I've made explicitly clear in a previous post, I think that it is in fact the signal achievement of mankind -- indeed, the most direct expression of its meaning and purpose.

(04-18-2014 02:43 PM)Icarus Wrote:  Of course electrons are not perfect spheres like they are depicted on high-school textbooks. Those are human constructions, like the mathematical constructions used to describe physical laws.

The purpose of physics is to come up with approximations of physical reality that are mathematically tractable. The models are developed so that they can compress knowledge about the physical world. It's all about compression. The success of physics is that with very few axioms and physical laws one can describe and predict an enormous number of physical phenomena.

Of course, experiments in physics tend to be extremely simple. Just because one knows Maxwell's equations, it does not mean that one knows the values of permittivity and permeability in all points in space, and it does not mean that one knows the initial conditions with exquisite detail. But studying toy problems one acquires enough intuition to predict physical phenomena whose mathematical descriptions are intractable.

Sure, it was possible for architects to build cathedrals without knowing anything about statics. I am not claiming that empirical knowledge is of no value, and that only mathematical descriptions of physical reality are of any use (which is clearly false).

That is all beside the point. There is no difference in kind between Newtonian mechanics, or String theory, or everything in between. These details, while of great interest to the working scientist, are of no relevance to the basic points being discussed here. And I am not in any way denying the importance of mathematics and quantification -- quite the contrary! Their importance cannot be exaggerated. Mathematics is the way we make progress in mastering the material world.

The point, again, is that there is no privileged domain, distinct and outside of the human mind, in which mathematical objects and mathematical truths dwell. We make them up, just as we do everything else. The fact that they are extraordinarily useful does not confer on them a privileged metaphysical status.

To anyone seriously interested in these matters, I suggest that they read Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" and secondarily, "Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics". In my opinion, there is no philosophical text that compares to these in importance.

Post: #157

(04-18-2014 03:09 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  In other words, you agree that there is no Platonic realm distinct from the human mind in which these objects live. In other words, we make them up.

Mathematical objects are ideas. Ideas are software. Software requires hardware to exist. "Information is physical", said Rolf Landauer himself.

However, an hypothetical extraterrestrial civilization that is capable of developing technology to measure lengths can manufacture wheels, then measure the radius and the perimeter of the wheels, divide the latter by the former and obtain something close to 2*Pi. OK, perhaps these extra-terrestrials have 7 fingers in each hand and count in base 14, meaning that their Pi is not 3.14... but rather the expansion of Pi in base 14. Yet, numbers are not the same as their decimal or binary expansions.

The linear relation between the radius and the perimeter of a circle is an example of data compression. You don't need to measure both. You can measure one, and then obtain the other via multiplication or division by 2*Pi. This will be true if humans go extinct, but no one will be around to use it. Yet, extra-terrestrials could use it, even if their computers use base 14. There is no Pi in the sky, but the compressibility is present in the aforementioned example. Is that a mathematical truth? Perhaps it is a geometric truth, at least in reasonably flat spaces. What is a flat space? One where the perimeter of a circle is 2*Pi times its circle?

This is philosophically dangerous territory.

Post: #158

These are indeed philosophically complex matters, Icarus, and I've enjoyed our discussion a great deal -- however we have gotten a long way from cardguy's lack of a girlfriend.

Post: #159

Gonna read this thread later, but ive only had a handful. I would like one but get annoyed easily with girls. Plus, I'd compare them to about 70 other girls so I probably won't ever truly be happy with one

Post: #160

(04-15-2014 01:55 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I'm 32 and have never had a girlfriend.

Is that weird?

Is anyone else on the forum the same way - or know anyone the same way?

I don't think I have ever met anyone in my situation.

Cardguy is long gone but maybe this thread could use some reviving. I'm in the same boat.

Post: #161

What would you say is the threshold for a girl becoming a girlfriend?

Post: #162

Isn't it a girl you hang out with regularly, do activities with, and have sex with?

Post: #163

People are often surprised to learn I've never had a girlfriend. The topic of me never having sex comes up far less often, so...

Post: #164

(09-23-2016 02:38 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Isn't it a girl you hang out with regularly, do activities with, and have sex with?

There should also be some component of emotional attachment, with pleasure arising in her company, stress arising when you are away from her too long, and loss aversion to ending the relationship.

That's not to say you can't break up with a girlfriend, but breaking up with a girlfriend is hard and it hurts, even if it's the best thing to do.

Post: #165

(09-23-2016 01:33 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  What would you say is the threshold for a girl becoming a girlfriend?

I've heard the 10 dates / 3 month mark mentioned elsewhere as being the transition between dating and relationship.

Post: #166

I've never had a real "girlfriend", just messed around with a handful of women - finding a girl who's even girlfriend material isn't that easy.

And the few who were attractive enough that I would've wanted to continue dating usually ended up admitting they had boyfriends or husbands and were cheating with me.

Where I live finding an attractive woman who isn't a single mother or isn't already in a relationship isn't all that easy - I'd probably have to join a church for my best luck at that.

Post: #167

What you never went to a high school?
Wow!
I had a girlfriend named Jenny, that lived next door when I was two.
My parents still have pictures of us kissing and taking baths together.

Post: #168

I think I went on one date in high school. Two if you count the prom.

Post: #169

When I was in high school you kind of had to "go steady" with a girl if you wanted pussy. There were far fewer girls that just fucking anybody and who wants to smash the local cum-dumpster.

Post: #170

(09-24-2016 01:11 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  What you never went to a high school?
Wow!
I had a girlfriend named Jenny, that lived next door when I was two.
My parents still have pictures of us kissing and taking baths together.

Not sure who this was in reply to, but I went to a conservative Christian school and anything other than 'courtship' style dating was frowned upon.

Even at that age I more or less noticed a bunch of idealistic young guys think they'd be 'happily ever after' with their GF, then feeling hurt when they broke up.

Around my junior year or so I met cute girl at a local Walmart who was a senior in a public school - invited me over to a party with alcohol where I messed around with her and one of her friends.

Got more action than most of the guys at that school who actually had girlfriends (not that that's saying a whole lot).

Post: #171

Maybe Cardguy is schzoid.

Post: #172

I just got out of a relationship that lasted two years.

Not sure how much I care about it yet.

I definitely feel a void but I've been through a lot worse.

Post: #173

I'm in the same boat.

Haven't had a girlfriend since freshman year of high school.

Post: #174

It is normal for humans to form pair bonds. Some women have that siren-like attraction that makes you want to GF or wife-up. I don't recommend marriage but I do recommend pair bonding at some point. You might find a woman that actually compliments you and your lifestyle. Pre-selection is a powerful motivator for women, they want what other women have not what any woman can have. It is possible to have women that do what you tell them and handle your affairs keep your home in order, etc. Women that are truly there to serve you. The problem is that these women are always sixes and sevens at best. Beautiful girls have more options and rarely date down. Almost all cultures have a saying about not marrying a beautiful woman if you want a comfortable life. At some point you are going to have to choose whether you are going to deal with the problems of dating an elite level beauty or deal with a more common, plain-Jane that is there to serve you. I prefer to be seen in public with only good-looking, thin women. I would be embarassed to be seen with anything else, but a plain woman at home is an asset.

Post: #175

Bullshit. Plain women are just as much hassle, they bring a whole other pile of problems and drain your resources and time just as much. They've also taken in the feminist brainwashing and it is always a power struggle with them.

I think cardguy (and that song he posted) was right.