These threads both frustrate and fascinate me. Frustrate because I don’t have either the background or education in math to follow the exchanges with any real degree of understanding. Fascinate because many of the posters here certainly appear to possess at least that. And yet even though mathematics would seem to be the mother of all the either/or worlds, they still get into these at times scathing exchanges as to whether it’s either my answer or your answer that reflects the one true objective reality.
No dasein, no moral prejudices, no political economy here.
In the exchange between FJ and MD here – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=197969 – I [subjectively of course] sense the way both [at times] seem barely able to contain themselves in wanting to push the exchange into a more confrontational joust.
That’s what intrigues me the most. They both seem to construe the mathematics here given different sets of assumptions…not unlike the confrontations that often erupt over conflicting goods in the is/ought world.
But, unlike in the world of conflicting value judgments, not much is really at stake in terms of consequences. Yet both posters seem [again to me] to get really, really irked when the other doesn’t see the truth about the eggs as they do.
As opposed to, say, the arguments between those in Peta and those who chomp down on animals [eggs and all] three meals a day.
So, I surmise, it must be more than just the subject of the discussion itself. It must also be about…other things in their lives?
Yes, well… any topic can be reduced to that.
Not everyone is actually interested in what best reflects “reality” but rather their own perception of their place in it… and so even under the best conditions an agreement could never be reached.
What’s lovely about math and science is that the procedure and language is quite rigorous and precise, so you can more easily tell who’s participating in the conversation, and who is just posturing.
Assuming you’re familiar, that is… I suppose from the outside it might look like there are no clear answers merely because there are those who choose to disagree with the answers.
Just out of curiosity, what is the status of moderation here at ILP?
There’s Carleas, hovering mysteriously in the background. He used to participate actively in the exchanges. Now weeks can go by with nothing: Last visited: Thu May 19, 2022 11:50 am.
Then Dan.
Then Flannel Jesus?
Did he lock the thread? After he got in the last word? After the exchange had devolved from mathematics into attacks on each other?
And, perhaps, MD’s rendition of the same accusation?
Whatever the “whole truth” behind it, it certainly seems entirely unfair for FJ to lock the thread only after he gets in the last word.
If, in fact, FJ locked it.
Who the hell really knows what’s going on behind the curtains here these days.
I chose to lock it and I said in the very first post the conditions under which I would lock it. Perhaps it was unfair of me to get in a last post before locking it, I can see why some would hold that opinion and I may even have held that opinion myself as an outside observer.
I’m willing to have an open conversation with you about exactly when, how and why I judged that the good faith was broken. I’d actually rather have that discussion live, verbally, perhaps on a discord call or some other digital meeting place. Would that interest you?
The concept of infinity is that there is no end, that it is not finite, and that it is continuous.
So how can you divide some continuous concept into 3 equal parts? You can’t!
Imagine a line extending from you outward that is infinite, and then claiming that you can divide the length of the line into 3 equal parts.
There is no length of the line, so what will you be dividing into 3 equal parts? The line does not have a finite length so you can’t divide it into 3 finite parts.
That is like me asking you what divided by 3 equals. There is no finite number to be divided by 3, so it can’t be done.
Math tries to make claims that there are limits to infinity. That is like saying infinite=finite. You see how idiotic that is?
1 divided by 3 means the answer to the division is .33333…
There is no end so the division is never complete. The fact that it keeps going is proof that there is always some part left over that remains to be divided, and that is called the remainder.
So at any point in the division, if you stop and look, there are 4 parts. 3 parts that are equal to each other and 1 part that is the remainder that remains to be divided equally by 3, which it can never be.
If you sweep the remainder under the rug and add up the 3 parts of .333… you end up with .999…, which is less than 1.0. You know why it is less than 1.0, right? Because the remaining part (the 4th part) is under the rug, and was never added to the other 3 parts to equal the 1.0.
Then math tries to claim that .999… = 1.0. You see how idiotic that is? That is like saying 99 pennies = 100 pennies, or that 99.9 pennies = 100 pennies, or that 99.99 pennies = 100 pennies, and on and on.
It will NEVER equal 1.0 because there is a part under the rug! It’s called the remainder!
Well, sure, in the Society, Government, and Economics forum, it happens all the time. Why? Because in regard to conflicting assessments of value judgments, there appears to be nothing in the way of objective mathematical solutions. Sans God, in other words.
And, again, when there are conflicting value judgments, the social, political and economic consequences of that can be devastating. And it’s not like we can send in the mathematicians and scientists to finally pin down the while truth in regard to the abortion wars or the war in Ukraine.
But math doesn’t revolve around the = sign for nothing.
Nope, in my view, the anger [even outrage] that unfolds in these mathematical exchanges here seems to indicate [to me] mental states that go beyond math.
Something more in the vicinity of this:
This, however, was in reference to Polish Youth and his ilk here…the fulminating fanatics who can go berserk when others dare to disagree with them about their political prejudices.
Again, in regard abortion or vaccinations or animal rights or guns.
Again, given that I myself possess nothing in the way of a sophisticated grasp of the mathematics involved in exchanges of this sort, what would I know about good faith or bad faith in following them? Let alone in evaluating or judging them.
No, instead, my own interest in philosophy revolves basically around what would constitute either “good faith” or “bad faith” in discussions pertaining to this:
“How ought one to behave in a world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency chance and change?”
And then:
“How does one connect the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it?”
In either a God or a No God world. Given the arguments I make in the OPs here:
And then going all the way out on the metaphysical limb…connecting these dots to the conundrum that revolves around free will in what may or may not be a wholly determined universe. Then, finally, the profound mystery that must exist given the gap between what “I” think about these things here and now and all that can be known about the existence of existence itself. The “Rummy’s Rule” Syndrome.
Again, I don’t possess a sophistication in math that would enable me to respond intelligently to this.
No, instead, my “thing” here at ILP revolves more around those who embrace any point of view either as an objectivist i.e. “my way or the highway”, or as a subjectivist i.e. “I’m right from my side, you’re right from your side.”
It’s just that with mathematics and science those distinctions don’t often come up. Only out on the end of the reality limb where the really Big Questions reside…
Why something instead of nothing?
Why this something and not something else?
Where does the human condition fit in the whole understanding of existence itself?
What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds alternate Matrix worlds, etc.?
Does God exist?
…do conflicting conclusions derived from conflicting sets of premises [assumptkions] come to our attention in exchanges here.
Do you agree that 2 + 2 = 4 is a “my way or the highway” righteousness? …or do you think 2 + 2 = 3 can be “I’m right from my side, you’re right from your side.”
I want to make it clear that the discussion I’m proposing with you, Mr biguous, is completely unrelated to whether any particular claim about numbers is true to false. That’s completely orthogonal to what I want to talk about.
Okay, note a context in which this discussion of yours might unfold. A set of circumstances in which some think this while others think that.
Thus, setting up an exchange in which attempts are made to decide if there is an optimal way in which to construe the context. Or even the only rational manner in which to understand it at of all. A universal truth applicable to all of us.
In other words, back to a “my way or the highway” exchange or a “you’re right from your side, I’m right from mine” exchange.
In either the either/or world or the is/ought world.
Come on, that’s not what I am talking about at all here. Discussions that revolve around “1 divided by 3, Decimal Places Of Pi, Is 1 = 0.999… ?” are hardly the same as discussions that revolve around 2 eggs + 2 eggs = 4 eggs.
No, my own interest here revolves more around…
John: “Jim ate two eggs for breakfast, then two more eggs for lunch. How many eggs did Jim eat altogether?”
Jane: “Four. But in fact it is immoral to eat any eggs at all because it is immoral to consume animals in any way at all!”
I don’t really know what you mean. I just want to have a call with you to see if we can find any common ground on the issue I presented above. The issue at hand is not the truth or falsehood of any mathematical claim, but about the nature of the conversation itself.
If you’re interested in that conversation with me, I’ll pm you my discord. I’ll be available in about 2 or 2.5 hours for a call. If you’re not interested, let me know.
If you get what I mean. Though clearly, it seems, you do not.
Or, sure, we could have a discussion that revolves more around this:
Look, now that I’m anchored more firmly at the PN forum, I just don’t do the “bits” with the objectivists here as I once did. PN, while far from what I had hoped it would be, is still much closer to ILP when I first joined. And I’ve been “banned for life” from The Philosophy Forum and other sites.
