Which camp do you fall in?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

It depends on the question being asked.

For example......
"intuition" would inform you that the flow of time is a constant, everywhere for everyone at all times.
But the evidence of reality informs us that it's connected to speed and gravity relative to an observer.

"intuition" would inform you that objects can't show up "here" while you measure them "there". But sub-atomic particles do exactly that.

when it comes to external reality, it seems "intuition" is a very unreliable way to discern reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How existence came to be will always be outside it's realm.

Why?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Empirical analysis is when we define these terms in reference to something real.

In reference to something "physical." Or maybe we could say a "genuine phenomenon." I mean, I get it. Physical things are there in a way that we can't really deny their being there. But certain invisible realities exist. Laws of nature for example. Do Newton's laws of motion count as physical things? And what exactly ARE laws of nature? Are they forces in their own right? Are they "realities" that compel the universe to behave in a certain way? OR are they simply things that have never been (and possibly will never be) observed to be otherwise. I don't know if it is even possible to settle this issue one way or the other, but I know one thing: the laws of nature are real. Whatever they are, they exist and every physical thing is (apparently) beholden to them.

I hope I'm explaining myself well here. The same reasons I have for being a moral anti-realist make me a mathematical anti-realist, and I think that comes down to how I approach logic as a whole. Nonetheless, I do think that logic can grant us knowledge about many things that are not real.

You are explaining yourself perfectly well. And I agree that the issue of mathematical realism vs. fictionalism is a natural place to take this debate. I find the debate on the subject fascinating. We have Plato's ideas that "numbers are just as real as physical things." Great idea, I think. But, I see why people have issues with it. Mathematical fictionalism is one of those ideas that is just "out there"... seems very implausible. But fictionalism has yet to be refuted and probably never will be.

@Polymath257 argues for a "middle theory" between these two. And I forget exactly how it goes. But I find it to be a highly practical and plausible theory. I used to know the theory and what its merits and objections were, but it's been a while since I've thought about it. But when I was thinking a lot about philosophy of mathematics I was stuck between Platonism and Polymath's favorite theory. Fictionalism, while intriguing, just seems too implausible on account of math describing things so accurately. Even incredibly useful fictions usually aren't THAT useful.

 

[Ella S.]

In reference to something "physical." Or maybe we could say a "genuine phenomenon." I mean, I get it. Physical things are there in a way that we can't really deny their being there. But certain invisible realities exist. Laws of nature for example. Do Newton's laws of motion count as physical things? And what exactly ARE laws of nature? Are they forces in their own right? Are they "realities" that compel the universe to behave in a certain way? OR are they simply things that have never been (and possibly will never be) observed to be otherwise. I don't know if it is even possible to settle this issue one way or the other, but I know one thing: the laws of nature are real. Whatever they are, they exist and every physical thing is (apparently) beholden to them.



You are explaining yourself perfectly well. And I agree that the issue of mathematical realism vs. fictionalism is a natural place to take this debate. I find the debate on the subject fascinating. We have Plato's ideas that "numbers are just as real as physical things." Great idea, I think. But, I see why people have issues with it. Mathematical fictionalism is one of those ideas that is just "out there"... seems very implausible. But fictionalism has yet to be refuted and probably never will be.

@Polymath257 argues for a "middle theory" between these two. And I forget exactly how it goes. But I find it to be a highly practical and plausible theory. I used to know the theory and what its merits and objections were, but it's been a while since I've thought about it. But when I was thinking a lot about philosophy of mathematics I was stuck between Platonism and Polymath's favorite theory. Fictionalism, while intriguing, just seems too implausible on account of math describing things so accurately. Even incredibly useful fictions usually aren't THAT useful.

Language in general is useful for describing reality, not just formalized mathematical language. I don't think that makes words "real." At least not as real as physical objects.

I also disagree that the laws of physics are real. They're models we created regarding real things. There's a chance that we could falsify some of the laws in the future.

I think treating these abstraction as real in-and-of themselves commits the fallacy of mistaking the map for the territory, personally. Then again, I think this partially comes down to the semantic issue of what I'm willing to call "real." Even if we were to demonstrate that math is "real" in some formal sense of the term, I will continue to refer to it as if it were more of a useful fiction that we defined into existence with language, because as far as I'm concerned that's what it is.

I don't think it's surprising that such a rigid and self-coherent system of language is so effective at describing and predicting reality. That's kind of what we designed it for.

 

[Heyo]

We have Plato's ideas that "numbers are just as real as physical things." Great idea, I think. But, I see why people have issues with it. Mathematical fictionalism is one of those ideas that is just "out there"... seems very implausible. But fictionalism has yet to be refuted and probably never will be.

Great idea but wrong. Imo.
Plato thought about mathematical entities like numbers and forms as "ideals". I agree with him. (5 Planes of Existence) But after differentiating between real and ideal things, he just puts them together in one box (real things), non-the-less.
I would agree that numbers are objectively existing, i.e. mathematics is discovered, not invented. (You may call that mathematical realism, I don't.) If I have understood @Polymath257 correctly, he doesn't think of maths as objectively existing but as construct, i.e. maths is invented, not discovered.

 

[Willamena]

Empiricism does. You have experienced these spices or can taste them in the kitchen and have empirical knowledge of how they make you feel. And as you cook, you taste, and decide that maybe a little more of this or that is needed.

Right. Philosophy.

 

[Willamena]

So, to you, neuroscientist Mary will gain new knowledge outside of the black and white world?

Just so.

The arguments against have been insubstantial.

 

[Willamena]

"Sense's" not "senses'".

Depends on if you think there's more than one.

 

[Alien826]

Depends on if you think there's more than one.

Yes. And you said "a senses' ". The "a" makes it singular.

BTW, I only nit pick people's grammar or spelling where I see a nit picker making a mistake themselves.

 

[Willamena]

Yes. And you said "a senses' ". The "a" makes it singular.

BTW, I only nit pick people's grammar or spelling where I see a nit picker making a mistake themselves.

Thanks.

 

[osgart]

Doesn't math have to be internally self consistent and reflect true and false accurately to be of use? That seems to me that math is discovered.

And as I understand language it's the meanings that have reality, and the words just symbolize those meanings. Those meanings are not fictions.

 

[syo]

what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is

HAHAHAHAHAHA...........................................................................................

 

[idea]

It depends on the question being asked.

For example......
"intuition" would inform you that the flow of time is a constant, everywhere for everyone at all times.
But the evidence of reality informs us that it's connected to speed and gravity relative to an observer.

"intuition" would inform you that objects can't show up "here" while you measure them "there". But sub-atomic particles do exactly that.

when it comes to external reality, it seems "intuition" is a very unreliable way to discern reality.

I agree, intuition is quite often wrong.

My own intuition has been wrong on many occasions - what direction to take, what person to trust, what person to blame.

so many innocent people wrongly accused, and guilty which go free from incorrect biased "intuition"

I agree, subjective opinions/experiences - intangible, non-material entities exist, for such there seems to be no quantitative experimental tool.