"Art is a lie that tells the truth" -- Pablo Picasso

[mdsimpson92]

Perhaps I would say that it is self-evident. But that isn't satisfactory isn't it.

Sure it's satisfactory, but what is this "it" that is self evident? That sounds descriptive.

I don't think you end up in an infinite regress if you recognize that some things are necessarily true.

I guess that 2+2=4 if we want to stay at that point (though actually with some reading I found out that Quantum physicists would disagree with that fact apparently.)
Does math really explain anything in the real worlds, if not then I can't really call it descriptive since it in of itself does not describe the world.

On avoiding infinite regress, would those things that are necessarily be true be self evident? How do we know these things to be necessarily true? Reminds me of foundationalism, but then it just brings me to that brain in a vat scenario doesn't it.

[fleetmouse]

I guess that 2+2=4 if we want to stay at that point (though actually with some reading I found out that Quantum physicists would disagree with that fact apparently.)

No need to even get that esoteric. I like HRG's example of one drop of mercury plus one drop of mercury equals one drop of mercury.

But numbers are not modeled against specific physical objects or scenarios - if you have two hamburgers and eat them both, "twoness" does not disappear or alter.

Does math really explain anything in the real worlds, if not then I can't really call it descriptive since it in of itself does not describe the world.

dude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreas ... l_Sciences

On avoiding infinite regress, would those things that are necessarily be true be self evident?

That's an acute observation! Are currently unknown necessary truths merely an extension of the necessary truths we already know?

How do we know these things to be necessarily true?

They're invariant in any scenario we can possibly imagine. They're transcendent. Even if two people schlurped together into one person if they got close enough - that is, even if the behavior of the world changed - twoness and fourness would remain the same and two people walking into a room containing two people (with a suitable distance between all people involved to prevent schlurping) would still result in four people. edit: more importantly, the concepts of twoness, fourness, and the relationship between them would remain the same even if they were less useful in the "real world".

Reminds me of foundationalism, but then it just brings me to that brain in a vat scenario doesn't it.

Yeah, it is very similar to foundationalism.

[mdsimpson92]

Does math really explain anything in the real worlds, if not then I can't really call it descriptive since it in of itself does not describe the world.

dude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreas ... l_Sciences

Ok, point taken.

[mdsimpson92]

They're invariant in any scenario we can possibly imagine. They're transcendent. Even if two people schlurped together into one person if they got close enough - that is, even if the behavior of the world changed - twoness and fourness would remain the same and two people walking into a room containing two people (with a suitable distance between all people involved to prevent schlurping) would still result in four people. edit: more importantly, the concepts of twoness, fourness, and the relationship between them would remain the same even if they were less useful in the "real world".

So, they are what you might call the absolute? Well, maybe not, because that lends to the Panentheistic view of reality. Probably shouldn't bring that in here for now.

I thought you were a nominalist, this idea of oneness and twoness sounds vaguely platonic. Careful, soon we will be talking about cupness. Of course that could be true and it is merely a language barrier.

[met]

"Truth is a lie for for the sake of art"

[fleetmouse]

So, they are what you might call the absolute?

How do you get from some things being absolute to there being something called the absolute? Is that a category or an entity?

[tinythinker]

So, they are what you might call the absolute?

How do you get from some things being absolute to there being something called the absolute? Is that a category or an entity?

It's a viiiiiiibe man, a viiiiiiibe... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyDMrxZL ... re=related

[mdsimpson92]

So, they are what you might call the absolute?

How do you get from some things being absolute to there being something called the absolute? Is that a category or an entity?

You're right, shouldn't have even gone there. For things like 2+2=4 would work as a category, but I guess "necessarily true covers that doesn't it.

[fleetmouse]

No, dammit! Don't agree with me, fight for it!

Come at me!

[fleetmouse]

So, they are what you might call the absolute?

How do you get from some things being absolute to there being something called the absolute? Is that a category or an entity?

It's a viiiiiiibe man, a viiiiiiibe... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyDMrxZL ... re=related

I'll see your flylo and raise you an AEED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euks5IEfTmc