snatchbalance

Bookman,

Thanks, I'll try to find it.

SB

snatchbalance

Never mind

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Tharmas

Let me jump in late here Sotzo with my two cents.

This has turned into a fruitful and fascinating discussion, but I find myself frustrated because nobody has pointed out the first obvious problem with your question, namely, that it’s based on a false analogy.

You’re comparing apples to oranges.

Here’s what I mean. You point out that if we all agreed that “water” should be instead “ret” we could all still communicate. That’s true.

Then you say, but we can’t change the axioms of mathematics. False analogy. A better analogy would be to change the name of a mathematical token. Let’s say that we call the word for the symbol 1 “quack” instead of “one.” Now when we see '1 plus 1' we read it as “quack plus quack.” Well, now “quack plus quack equals two.” No problem. Everything still works fine in math, just like “ret” for “water” in English. Thirty-quack times two equals sixty-two. Have a nice day.

Now let’s be fair and change the axioms of English and see what happens. By “axioms of English” I mean the fundamental laws of grammar. Let’s say that now subject and object are equivalent. This is a fairly close analogy to your repeal of the commutative law of mathematics. Now “Ahab hunts the whale” and “The whale hunts Ahab” mean the same thing. Even simple communication becomes impossible. As you can see, English immediately turns into nonsense, just as mathematics did with no commutative law.

In other words, IMHO I don’t believe that properly considered you are pointing out any property of mathematics that grants it any special truth value over any other language.

owleye

Walrus...

Am I to understand that your opening post on this topic no longer represents what it is that you wanted to say?

That is, is it the case that you no longer wish us to consider a distinction between subjective truth and objective truth?

I say this because it seems to me you did not take the time to respond to my query directed to you about what you meant by "subjective truth."

Alternatively, I should conclude that you didn't see my short post in the middle of more lengthy ones. If so, perhaps you will notice this one and be so kind as to respond to it.

owleye

snatchbalance

WJ

By my reading of Ziniewicz's piece on SK:

1. An ojective thinker may tend to think of the function as a sort of an eternal or abstract, stand alone, truth; but of course such a thinker will have forgotten that all knowledge is based on experience. (1 apple & 1 apple is 2 apple; came before 1 + 1 = 2, IMHO)

2. The archetype subjectivist will use it as need be. It's truth will be self evident within it's utility.

3. I think, but I'm not a mathematician, that the problem of the non terminating decimal(0.9999999...), is due to limitations inherant to to way we express rational numbers in decimal form. When measuring or assessing "things", a standard of precision is normaly adopted. Measurments are then carried out to that standard.

4. SK's ideas of looking inward to find god are very prosaic, and can be very inspiring.

5. By my way of thinking(subjective according to SK), one must adopt an objective(per SK) viewpoint to engage in such fantasic speculation.

SB

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

sotzo

Greetings James!

Regarding that famous Socratic premise regarding bacehlors, you said:

What would it mean to falsify this sentence? I don't think that question makes sense. Should I take a survey of unmarried men and ask them if they are not bachelors, looking for a counter-example that might render the proposition false? We all know that would be absurd. I cannot falsify it because it is tautological by definition just like the associative property of numbers. But it seems to me that we wouldn't say that the reason unmarried men are bachelors is because there is an objective truth that makes it so. We would say that our logic in using the word "bachelor" makes it true that all such men are unmarried.

I agree that it is tautological. But the word bachelor is conventional in the sense that we can change it, load it with the same semantic content and not lead ourselves into nonsense.

In the second post of this thread, Devil made a statement along the lines that mathematical axioms were true in this same conventional sense - that is, they are true because we define them as true.

But a mathematical axiom such as the associative property seems to me to be different in the sense that you cannot change its structure and come away with a sensical statement. Yes, you could change symbols in the way you changed the word bachelors (ie, perhaps change "+" to "\"). However, the abstract relationships between the symbols are not negotiable. It, therefore, seems to me that this means there exist objective truths which are invariant and discovered, rather than conventional and devised by man.

Thanks for putting up with this non-mathematician! I don't claim to understand these relationships as well as Bookman and others, but I'm trying to learn more...so thanks!

cheers,
jkb

WJ

owl/snatch!

It sure is interesting trying to use certain forms of logic to explain the true nature of reality, isn't it. There is much too much to think about as I hope to post some more thoughts from this peplexing metaphor. To that end, one other point has emerged, I think. Since we know that FL closest's analogy is math, to 'change' an apriori statement of a truth as such either renders it; true, false, or incoherent. Those seem to be the only choices. If it is incoherent, the 'computer' mindset crashes. The objective thinker seemingly becomes limited with questions about the nature of existence. It does not compute, and is therefore meaningless. Or is it?


Perhaps an easy example about what subjective means in this sense, is by making the distinction between a person who would not care to experience a percieved truth from his own inwardness. Conclusive reasoning from deduction would be far more attractive for the objective thinker, yet the rub is that it still does not provide for a complete picture of reality. (A common example is when a person says 'white men can't jump' yet has never personally experienced the feeling of the limitations of jumping. Or if someone says Elvis sucks yet has never learned to play music themselves. Or a person who says MJ is not that good yet never played basketball.)

To answer your question, in one way, what it could mean to be a subjective thinker might be that personal meaning itself is the difference between the percieved truth-value's. If the statement does not impart a meaning (that goes beyond a mathematical formula) it's *really* meaning-less and has little value in solving the deeper questions of existence. Nothing new is learned. The mathematical-objective thinker simply moves the words around to satisfy a need for yes/no answers to the same questions (about his existence). His truth value is placed in the apriori.

But getting back, assuming the 'essences' behind the nature of reality cannot be known thru logic, what follows? It seems like synthetic apriori's are necessary to provide for any newness/meaning to take place in the mindset of the objective thinker.

Are there any necessary synthetic apriori's to the objective mindset? What would they be?

Walrus

snatchbalance

WJ,

1. Ultimatly, being onlt human, the "essences" of or behind reality, can only be reliaby revealed through logical inference. In other words, we must have some "givens" to work with.

2. Like I indicated in my previous post, I don't particularly like the concept of apriori knowledge, synthetic or otherwise. I think it is a mistaken notion.

3. From my very brief introduction to the thoughts of SK, the archtype ojective thinker would be someone like, say Aquinas, or Augustine(City of God and all that). His thoughts may or may not be grounded. He may or may not be spinning webs of illusion for himself.

4. This is not to say that synthesis of thought is not possible. I think it is not only possible, but is probably the apex of human possibilities. But it depends on derived knowledge. In my mind, as indicated previously, even mathematics has been derived(ala John Locke).

5. In a certain sense, I guess, any and all unconfirmed, untested, unsubstantiated hypotheses, if they are eventually substantiated, can be considered sythetic aprior.

By this I mean that it is a "new" or more complete understanding that was not there prior to a unique mental synthesis.

Also, I would say, it is nothing but speculation prior to independent confirmation.

SB

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

James Still

Actually, I would put Aquinas and Augustine firmly in the tradition of Aristotle who argued that a priori knowledge was both inductive and based on the essences of material things rather than transcendental objects.

I'd look to Plato, Malebranche, and Descartes for notions of a priori knowledge being accessible through the truths of reason. Descartes Meditations is an excellent example of this sort of approach. After completely discarding the entire material world of our experience, he builds a foundational knowledge on pure reason alone.

snatchbalance

James,

Yes, but these two came to mind because, I believe, they invested a large proportion of thier energies to "products of mind". Thier efforts had few practicle applications.

SB