Let’s illustrate using the concepts of emergence and reductionism. Whatever emerges must be able to be reduced to the sum of its parts.
If the irrational comes from the mind and the mind is produced by the brain and the brain is produced from matter and we can explain the matter in a logical manner using science…
…then it is not unreasonable to infer that philosophy can integrate the irrational through explanation - creating knowledge of the irrational. What I am more concerned about is the value of the irrational…
…as in, does irrational thinking have much value?
Our explanation of all that exists is also still incomplete. Metaphysics on the other hand offers us a doorway into the unknown - allows us to have insight into answering questions that science is still struggling with…
I’m still trying to see if there is a logical contradiction proof that pi is irrational. The standard proof (using an infinite series) is deductive but I feel like there should be a better way.
Simply put, my answer is yes “the irrational” as GA states in the OP can be integrated into a rational system such as philosophy(well, what I hope it to be) - I have proven this already with a computer model and it goes both ways - I can make the irrational rational and the rational irrational - but why would we want to teach anybody to be irrational - it makes no sense - teach people to stub their toes: like, huh? I said before we should acknowledge the irrational - accept or admit the existence or truth of(Google). I don’t think it should be integrated into philosophy - we can think about it, there is no issue with that. Dealing with the irrational is different to the integration of it.
Man, I want to keep going but I will pull up here for a moment.
Hmm, I also remember writing a lexer once and the language I was using did not make the lexer do what I wanted(actually, needed) it to do and I had to do something irrational(not logical) in the code to get the lexer working…
…so I guess there is that.
Mind you the language was written by a French guy, so there is also that.
My thoughts exactly. No discussion can take place unless the word “irrational” is properly understood by all parties involved. To ensure that such is the case, the meaning of the word must be properly explained – one way or another. A definition such as “that which cannot be grasped by reason” is not good enough. A good definition must use terms that are familiar to all parties involved. Moreover, every perception of contradictory information must be resolved. If you say something, and then later on you say something else that seems to contradict what you said earlier, that has to be resolved too. All of this is assuming that you care about people who surround you – and not merely about people who aren’t here but who might someday be here.
I think there’s a legitimate problem with (\sqrt 2) (not to mention things such as (\sqrt {-1})) but pinpointing exactly what that is is a bit difficult. (Note that I am not claiming that (\sqrt 2) and (\sqrt {-1}) are useless mathematical constructs, merely that there is some kind of problem surrounding them.)
As far as sociology goes, I share the opposite view. Those who argued that (\sqrt 2) is nonsense were “conservatives” (since they worked with existing definitions) whereas those who ignored the issue and who swept it under the carpet were “liberals”. Older generations that resisted the notion eventually died out while new generations fell under the influence of what was promoted at the time. So what was once perceived as strange was no longer perceived as strange – all because of the triumph of the irrational (precisely the opposite of what they claim to have taken place.)
And again, to resolve this conundrum, we have to define our terms.
The key term here is “square root”. What does that term mean?
I think we’ll both agree that a square root of a number (x) is a number (y) such that (y \times y = x).
If that’s the case, we have to ask ourselves: what is the square root of (2)? What number can be multiplied by itself such that the resulting number is (2)?
It appears to me that you’re saying that such a number exists but that there is no symbol to represent it other than (\sqrt 2) itself. Is that correct?
Or perhaps you’re saying, if I’m to interpret you literally, that a magnitude corresponding to (\sqrt 2) exists but that no number representing that magnitude does? If that’s the case, then that would be a contradiction: a square root of a number is defined as a number – not a magnitude.
The problematic part seems to be the word “number”. Originally, it meant one thing but over time its meaning changed to such an extent that it became a monstrosity of a term that noone can define – an undefinable term, in a sense.
Well observed, observer, Gödel’s theorem applies to mathematics, proving its limited scope, thus it can’t exist without mathematics. But that is obvious.
Where we are is that it’s been proven that the arts of reason have a limited scope in what they can define. They have been proven - by their own employment of course - to not be able to define all of reality. One thus has to venture into the irrational to claim that reason can account for all of existence.
This contradiction is a good picture of the mess that is modern theoretical mathematics.
You seem to have been entertained by the thread, nonetheless. Perhaps in both senses of the word as provided by Google:
provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment.
give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).
I know that it has provided me with some amusement as it has progressed(as in, specifically - move forward or onward in space or time.(and again, thanks Google))
I didn’t see the opposition in what we each wrote. I agree that it is the liberal who challenges the establishment (in this case the Pythagoreans). The Pythagoreans insisted on a reality that was not logically true. But if the establishment is insisting on a reality that is logically true - the liberal challenges it with irrationality or bad logic (such as what is going on today - e.g. “male=female=male - just because we say so”). So “liberal” might be wrong or right depending on what is being challenged or “conserved”.
No. I am saying -
Yes except as you point out -
What I said was that there is no expression using numbers alone(as in the counting or natural numbers) that can ever exactly describe (\sqrt 2). I was referring to the establishment language = “natural numbers only”.
I would have easily believed that if I had never been observing James. But James seems to have done exactly what you are saying is proven impossible. I have seen James’ proof(s) but I have not seen a rational proof that reality is irrational. I can no longer doubt that reality is perfectly rational - and apparently even understand why.
See above.
To define = to unambiguously explain using different words.
So which of these possible definitions for “irrational” should we expect GA to be referring to in the OP? -
We’ll need a context of course. In regard to, for example, words like “freedom” and “justice”. In regard to, for example, the abortion wars.
How, in your view, would Saint unambiguously differentiate “the explanation using different words” in regard to mathematics and philosophy given what is said to be irrational with respect to conflicting moral and political assessments.
And then there’s still the part about your understanding of James S. Saint’s understanding of determinism in regard to exchanges of this sort. The discussion you seem to be avoiding on peacegirl’s determinism thread.
Or will you simply accuse me of “hijacking the thread” here instead?
You just gave 3 contexts. And yes this is sidetracking this thread.
Seeing how he and I think so much alike - I would guess that he would say - "What? "
The only thing I have avoided is injecting undue challenge to peacegirl’s intent and bubble of belief. Why would I do that? She already has 5-6 people challenging her. I wouldn’t be “adding to the entertainment”.
I suspect that it is the inner awareness of a person’s guilt that causes them to project an accusation upon others - protecting their bubble.
The two-valued logic is also not suitable for the treatment of propositions about future events, because it implies a false determinism and leaves no space for the freedom of man.
If A is a proposition about future events, then the statement “A is true” can be more accurately described by the statement “There are (that is: present) causes that force the occurrence of A in the future”, and the statement “A is false” can be more accurately described by the statement “There are causes that force the occurrence of non-A in the future”.
A sentence like “Bill will be home tomorrow” will not usually be true or false in this sense, because there are usually no compelling causes that determine Bill’s behavior. Thus, to deal with such cases, one must introduce a third truth value, which can be assigned the property “unknown” or the property “not yet” (cf. the arrows in my diagram), which a proposition A about future things takes on precisely when there are no compelling causes for A or not-A to occur.
A roughly similar argument is already found in Aristotle (the famous example of tomorrow’s sea battle).
Not that I would wish the following case, but: Maybe the “physics of psychology” must already be unnamed in “psychology of physics”.
Almost everything is about to turn around, so that it can also be said that irrationality wrests more and more fields from rationality, although it should be the other way round, if one looks at it from the age of enlightenment (rationalistic optimism).
Perhaps today one, who wants to carry out a physical experiment, must first go through a “psychotherapy” or/and must present a “certificate” at the “Institute for social therapy” (in the context of the “critical theory” of the Frankfurt school), before he is allowed to carry out such an experiment.
Physics is not only a rational matter. It never was. But it had times when the irrational parts were very small. Today, the irrational parts within physics are growing enormously. So we have again an example where both occur at the same time: rational and irrational. Physics consists of experiment, theory and people (mostly called “physicists”) who influence both the experiments and the theories (cf. Heisenberg’s indeterminacy resp. uncertainty principle). The epistemology or philosophy of science can be indifferent from its results (findings, knowledge) whether it is humans or machines (artificial intelligence) who deliver the findings, the knowledge.
Physics has the potential to be a rational matter if only it can solve one problem. Science would remain rational if people would stop messing/fiddling with definitions - I personally prefer: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding|from Merriam-Webster or as Google more simply puts it: ARCHAIC - knowledge of any kind.| Knowledge being the stuff that we actually know. Which all things considered I have no problem with knowledge being: true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion - I go via the undefeated justified true belief route. What physics can prove can be considered knowledge and what it can not is still waiting to be proved as opposed to being knowledge.
I also treat the unknown in a particular way that makes it useful, however, we can not believe in that which we do not know and it would be unjustified to call that which we do not know truth.
It is not irrational to acknowledge(as in: think about and begin to deal with (an issue or problem)) and deal with the unknown(and/or the irrational) but it would be irrational(unreasonable) to assume that we can 1. integrate the unknown or 2. integrate that which can still be easily defeated.
Rationality should have some strength about it - knowledge should have some strength about it - both have proven to be valuable whereas the irrational and unknown innately fail to prove their worth.
Physicists can possibly be irrational (quite often it seems). Physics itself is never irrational - else it isn’t actual physics (the tools of predicting physical behavior). Physics either works or it doesn’t. If an effort only sometimes works - it is accepted that the physics was not real - or was misapplied - or perhaps simply unknown for that situation.
It works to produce the result (“true physics” - rational)
It doesn’t work to produce the result (“false physics” - irrational)
It isn’t applicable (outside of the physics domain - inapplicable physics rationale)
And “two-state logic” has limited application (“This statement is false”).
I still think that it is only irrational language use that is going on (here and elsewhere). There is nothing irrational about reality - only the language and choices people make.
It is about the people involved - not reality itself.
Yes…and as I will/would often say/have said, it is about the alignment of internal states(or patterns(even processes)) among people in the group as opposed to the group being aligned to the lie.
Sorry - got a little carried away there - as we all do at times with those things we value.
I concur. I was tempted to give a binary solution before but I could not be arsed.
I think that if a person sees an event and believes that it - the event itself - is irrational - then that person should know that there is something irrational in his mind - his presumptions - his understanding - or maybe his eyes. That is the opposite of current irrational wokism. Wokism is a power-grab - “Don’t believe your lying eyes. Reality is what we tell you it is. We WILL dictate what reality is, Damnit!” - “Godwannabe”.
Too many isms it is creating schisms. I can not comment on all of this because apparently I have been living under a rock(figure of speech).
The “reality” part(bit toward the end) and “the event itself”(yup, bit more toward the beginning) part resonates(as in: (of an idea or action) meet with someone’s agreement.) with me.
I particularly like the segment: “Don’t believe your lying eyes”
And due to the apparent nature of me living under a rock(figure of speech - FFS) and what that entails, the world is a very peculiar(as in: strange or odd; unusual.) place compared to the last time I checked it.
As a good example - James’ qualms with the “Quantum Magi”.
QM advocates claimed that if something that could be potential true or false is present then it is both true and false at the same time (dictating reality). They claimed that if two people had data on a disc and took it home not knowing whether the data showed something to be positive or negative - once either of them look at the data - the data on both discs instantly changed to whatever the person saw - even though the discs were separated. That was then “QM proof” of instantaneous affect at a distance. Another example was of data that instantly reversed time to change a prior data set into revealing what a person saw - “QM proof of time travel”.
In all such cases the QM people are trying to dictate reality by whatever people see rather than accept that what they see is the result of immutable reality. That (I assume) is why he called them “Magi” - promoting magic. They are the Godwannabes within the physics realm.
It is a political/cultural/socialist subversive effort - a power-grab to gain the authority and freedom to command the world.
