03 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAbout length, etc: Palynka covered it.
I think we are misunderstanding each other with regard to the word 'abstract' so I will await your example of something abstract first.
As for examples: I regard the purely abstract as a superstition, so I have no examples. Over to you.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaWould you use the word logic in relation to such string manipulation rules? Would you then agree with me that logic is independent of the actual world we live in?
2+2 = 4 is an example of the application of a certain string manipulation rules. It's truth value ONLY depends on the string manipulation rules that were defined for that particular game. There is nothing intrinsic about those rules and, in reduced form, will always be axiomatic. This is actually a consequence of their abstract nature. Up to here, their truth values are independent of the actual world we live in.
To recap, the truth-values within each system do not depend on real objects, but the choice of a system does. So 2+2=4 is true within the chosen model (regardless of the world) but the choice of model is dependent on the world.
But are some of the models available for choosing also dependent on the world? Or is it only your choice that is so dependent?
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaBut whether Dr. Manhattan likes the system or finds it useful does not affect whether the system exists for him. I am not convinced that causality is a universal rule in space time, I don't believe that any causality in logic is as a result of space time.
As to the objection regarding its prevalence, its simply due to the similar way we experience the world. Again, someone who experiences time-space in a completely different way (think Dr. Manhattan in the Watchmen) might prefer a different system. In formal logic, causality might seem completely inadequate for him yet for us it almost feels incontestable.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI am not convinced that imaginary angels are truly a part of this universe, yet I can count them.
It's pretty obvious that if angels do not exist in this universe (the only way they can be "independent" of it) then they are impossible to count (in the traditional sense of the word 😉).
04 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhere?
About length, etc: Palynka covered it.
Where does he say what time length exists in? Where does he say what it weighs?
Do you agree that length is orthogonal to weight?
As for examples: I regard the purely abstract as a superstition, so I have no examples. Over to you.
Well then we are using the word differently. For me, every noun that is not the name of a unique entity is abstract.
The word 'carpet' is abstract. An object can be a carpet regardless of where it is in spacetime. 'carpet' is orthogonal to spacetime.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I were telling you that the abstract ideas are not inherently existent because they arise dependently in relation to their causes and conditions of existence, would you agree?
But whether Dr. Manhattan likes the system or finds it useful does not affect whether the system exists for him. I am not convinced that causality is a universal rule in space time, I don't believe that any causality in logic is as a result of space time.
😵
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by black beetleI cant make out what you are saying. "not inherently existent" and "their causes and conditions of existence" seems to be contradictory.
If I were telling you that the abstract ideas are not inherently existent because they arise dependently in relation to their causes and conditions of existence, would you agree?
😵
04 Nov 09
I hope this will explain my understanding of 'abstract' vs 'physical instance'.
On my computer I have written this post. It is stored in bits in the computer memory. It is a physical instance of a particular pattern of atoms. The pattern only takes form because of space time and matter and energy.
When I send the post onto the internet, it goes through various stages and ends up on multiple computers all over the world.
What 'moves' and is 'copied' is information. That information that is contained in my post is the abstract form of my original post and is independent of any given instance of my post and cannot be said to be tied to a given point in space.
The informational content of my post is orthogonal to space-time.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI meant his general statement about the nature of logic.
Where? //
The word 'carpet' is abstract. An object can be a carpet regardless of where it is in spacetime. 'carpet' is orthogonal to spacetime.
'Carpet' is a word. Words are not abstract, unless you can talk without a tongue or think without a brain. For 'carpet' to have any meaning at all, there must once have been real carpets. Hence 'carpet' depends for its meaning on things that exist in space and time.
(Borges wrote a story, 'Averroes Search', in which the eminent Arab philosopher and Aristotle fan attempted to explain the meaning of 'tragedy' and 'comedy'. Since the words lacked equivalent cultural concepts in Arabic at the time, Averroes' search was doomed to failure -- just as Borges' attempt to understand Averroes' search.)
04 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is interesting and well put. I hope you get a good response. For now I'll just say that I'm not sure that logic = information.
I hope this will explain my understanding of 'abstract' vs 'physical instance'.
On my computer I have written this post. It is stored in bits in the computer memory. It is a physical instance of a particular pattern of atoms. The pattern only takes form because of space time and matter and energy.
When I send the post onto the internet, it goes through given point in space.
The informational content of my post is orthogonal to space-time.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAnd that is where our understanding of 'abstract' differs. I fully accept that an abstract form describes the instances it is an abstract of (though I disagree that it 'depends' on them). Even if it does depend on instances, it is still abstract - a general pattern that is common to all instances and not dependent on any given instance.
'Carpet' is a word. Words are not abstract, unless you can talk without a tongue or think without a brain. For 'carpet' to have any meaning at all, there must once have been real carpets. Hence 'carpet' depends for its meaning on things that exist in space and time.
And I was talking about 'carpet' the abstract concept and not 'carpet' the word.
And I can talk without a tongue. Words are abstract.
I realize that we have different definitions of the word, but I cant think of a better word to use when referring to my definition - and I can't see the benefit of maintaining your definition as you claim it is inapplicable to anything.
04 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadEven you agree that the system is abstract! So how can it "work for" anyone? It is a representation, that ceases to be abstract when you apply it to understand the world. It is NOT the world.
But whether Dr. Manhattan likes the system or finds it useful does not affect whether the system exists for him. I am not convinced that causality is a universal rule in space time, I don't believe that any causality in logic is as a result of space time.
04 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhat you are doing is defining your own vocabulary. words should not have diferent meaning for different people otherwise language fails its purpose: understanding each other.
And that is where our understanding of 'abstract' differs. I fully accept that an abstract form describes the instances it is an abstract of (though I disagree that it 'depends' on them). Even if it does depend on instances, it is still abstract - a general pattern that is common to all instances and not dependent on any given instance.
And I was talking ...[text shortened]... the benefit of maintaining your definition as you claim it is inapplicable to anything.
get a neutral source to define "abstract" for you, then you apply it in reasoning.
you cannot say that carpet the word is abstract and carpet the carpet is concrete(hope the spelling is right) and then go around to say that love the word is abstract and love the love is abstract. there are different kinds of abstract: why use the same word?
words are simply tools to name certain objects. they are useless without mapping them to those objects. sure you can say that carpet is abstract until you attach it to the thing you wipe your feet on but then again, i can say that until you do that it is just a string of letters and meaningless: what is its point?