🔒 Locked

Discussion: philosophy, us and the Universe

Started by irreversible Apr 27, 2010 at 3:51 AM 39 replies 7.7k views

Original Post

Apr 27, 2010 at 3:51 AM

This is just a philosophical discussion - nothing new, really. I ended up in a fairly weird conversation the other day with a friend of mine. We were discussing some random stuff and he pulled the good old does-a-tree-falling-in-a-forest-make-a-sound-if-no-one's-there-to-hear-it example and I ended up countering it with something that just occurred to me then and there: do numbers and enumeration (something that we know as mathematical counting) exist without intelligent life? I've been pondering over it for a few days now and this actually seems like a fairly interesting question. To me, if I have to decide on an answer to the tree conundrum, then my standpoint would be a definite "no" as the (not strictly physical) definition of sound* literally excludes the possibility of replying yes to this. However - thinking of numbers and enumeration (the latter of which is actually a form of addition), I can't quite pinpoint an answer that would make absolute sense: for instance, let's take the Universe some 100 million years after the Big Bang (not its "creation" - just to be on the same page). Gas is cooling down, lumps of matter are forming, no life exists yet. There's a bunch of rocks flying around that crash in a forming planet. Does it make a difference how many of them actually hit the planet? Because if it doesn't, then the concept of determining their number, in many ways, becomes irrelevant. It might become relevant in the future, however, when "someone counts them". On the other hand - the impacts are distinct and each of them has a specific effect on the target, making the number of impacts (and therefore the number of objects) relevant. Or does it? :D Another thing that occurred to me was the (operational) definition of time:

Quote:
The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured.

Even though the traditionally held belief in physics is that the smallest temporal "unit of time" is the Planck time, time is fundamentally both perceived and thought of as something that "flows" (eg is continous). If time is subject to such lack of inherent quantization and it is something that we, an appreantly intelligent form of life, have come up with (temporal quantization that allows us to measure time in a discrete numeric form), then it is not entirely impossible that it is also our doing that spatial enumeration (I'm not talking about Planck length, but literal counting of objects) is nothing more than discretization by us for our own sake. I'm not too familiar with the latest developments of String theory, but on such a fundamental level the discretization actually seems to break down as one can consider everyhing as consisting of a discrete number of strings (for the sake of discretization, let's call them fundamental particles) or, well, none - assuming the fabric of space itself, regardless of locality, is a host for strings - which String theory maintains to be the case (strings being the driving force behind the existence of the fabric of space itself; eg space could literally not exist without the existence of strings everywhere). In other words - as a crude generalization: if it weren't for the fact that a snowball made of snow hurts you and a "fictional" snowball made of air does not, the the concept of counting snowballs would actually become moot. Or... would it? What's your take on this? Mind you that this is still a philosophical discussion - physics is just a tool to sway the argument one way or the other. * The defintion of sound, which defines a listener as a prerequisite for the existence of sound:

Quote:
Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.

PS - thanks to a mod for deleting the other one - GD was acting up :) edit: typos [Edited by - irreversible on April 27, 2010 4:17:22 AM]

way2lazy2care

Apr 27, 2010 at 4:45 AM

I'd say it's highly suggestive.

As these concepts are derived from factual observations (if we are to ignore existential arguments for those observations and assume that things we observe do exist. Arguing that makes this whole discussion kind of trivial) then we could say that they are a description of things that exist.

It really comes down to whether you'd say the description of something depends on the existence of a describer or the existence of the object itself.

pulling an all nighter, so I hope that made sense.

szecs

Apr 27, 2010 at 5:00 AM

I say these questions are meaningless/useless. Just like the question of fate/God/beginning/whatever. We can explain things with or without them. This is just empty talk. There are things that are impossible do explain/understand. Why can't we just accept this? Why do need faith, if we don't understand something? We cannot understand lots of things, live with it.

"does-a-tree-falling-in-a-forest-make-a-sound-if-no-one's-there-to-hear-it?"
Who cares? If there's nobody to hear it, then it doesn't matter at all.

marumaru

Apr 27, 2010 at 5:29 AM

IMHO: that questions like this even appear to be confusing is due to reckless misuse of terms like "exist", trying to make them apply to things that they can't meaningfully apply to.

The word exist has a few different meanings. For instance there's a mathematical one (there exists an integer between 1 and 3), which applies basically to logical statements. There's also a kind of physical one, i.e. I exist on this planet, which means that I'm physically located here and physically interact with objects here.

Based on these entirely reasonable usages of the word "exist" people develop a vague intuitive notion of what it means to exist "in general", as if that's a real thing. But there are clearly some things that certain concepts simply don't apply to... do numbers "exist"? What does that even mean? What definition of exist are you using? Might as well ask what numbers taste like while you're at it.

szecs

Apr 27, 2010 at 5:46 AM

Quote:
Original post by shavi
IMHO: that questions like this even appear to be confusing is due to reckless misuse of terms like "exist", trying to make them apply to things that they can't meaningfully apply to.

The word exist has a few different meanings. For instance there's a mathematical one (there exists an integer between 1 and 3), which applies basically to logical statements. There's also a kind of physical one, i.e. I exist on this planet, which means that I'm physically located here and physically interact with objects here.

Based on these entirely reasonable usages of the word "exist" people develop a vague intuitive notion of what it means to exist "in general", as if that's a real thing. But there are clearly some things that certain concepts simply don't apply to... do numbers "exist"? What does that even mean? What definition of exist are you using? Might as well ask what numbers taste like while you're at it.

There is a very important thing in your post.
Talk. Words. People think like talking. People talk with each other. The resolution of language is very poor itself, plus the fact that the meaning of words are different for different people. Okay, these stuff are obvious, but people tend to forget about them anyway.

irreversible

Apr 27, 2010 at 6:08 AM

I'll throw some oil in the fire.

Szecs, you said "I say these questions are meaningless/useless" - I won't judge your point of view; however, the fact that you replied (twice) gives out a vibe that even though you may think the question itself is meaningless, you care (or maybe you're bored - whichever, really :D). Additionally, I should point out that I did put this in the title and both the first and last sentence of my post that the topic is "philosophical". In addition to the fact that I didn't claim any absolute truth exists as far as the topic goes, this also creates pretty powerful connotations to your sentence as to what your attitude towards philosophy is. However, let's not go into that.

I did, however, want to ask about the "resolution of words" in this particular case: where exactly does it fall short? It's also noteworthy that you're quite free to create the neccessary resolution through analogy or by simply creating a new word if it's required to convey your point. Heck, people do it all the time.

>> It really comes down to whether you'd say the description of something depends on the existence of a describer or the existence of the object itself.

In a sense, this is what I was asking your opinion on, actually. :)

>> that questions like this even appear to be confusing is due to reckless misuse of terms like "exist"

TBH I really don't wish to turn this into a debate over linguistics - however I am slightly curious what you would describe as a "non-reckless" use of the word 'exist'. I mean, the word, after all, has a meaning. If one thinks the meaning is ambiguous, one can always look it up in a dictionary - after all, the whole idea of a dictionary is to create determinism in chaos.

marumaru

Apr 27, 2010 at 6:19 AM

Quote:
Original post by irreversible
TBH I really don't wish to turn this into a debate over linguistics - however I am slightly curious what you would describe as a "non-reckless" use of the word 'exist'. I mean, the word, after all, has a meaning. If one thinks the meaning is ambiguous, one can always look it up in a dictionary - after all, the whole idea of a dictionary is to create determinism in chaos.

Understood. Again, this is just my opinion but I think that the whole question is fundamentally about linguistic confusion. If we weren't using imprecise language, you and I would both see that there is no question here to be asked in the first place. Non-reckless usages of the word 'exist' include those I mentioned above. Exist does indeed have a definition (or several); my claim is that your original question is difficult only because you haven't specified which definition you're using. If you tell us precisely what you mean by exist, the answer to "Do numbers exist" is obvious. ("yes", "no", or "that question is nonsensical").

E.g. in your original post you suggested that existence may have something to do with "relevance to sentient beings alive at the time". Clearly if that's your definition, then numbers didn't exist then.

[Edited by - shavi on April 27, 2010 6:19:20 AM]

szecs

Apr 27, 2010 at 6:22 AM

You see: it's all about linguistics. It would take about 10 pages just to define and state the meanings of the words, so that we may understand each other. 'Exist' means one thing to you, and an other to me. Same as 'me', 'soul', 'see', 'sense', 'think', 'truth', 'reality'. Just some from the top of my head. These are very commonly used words in discussions like that, and I bet they all mean very different things to different people.

BTW I am bored. And what I want to say: there are much more important questions than those, which people are afraid to ask. But these are questions only to ourselves.

EDITED typos

[Edited by - szecs on April 28, 2010 2:22:12 AM]

owl

Apr 27, 2010 at 6:51 AM

Quote:
Original post by irreversible
This is just a philosophical discussion - nothing new, really. I ended up in a fairly weird conversation the other day with a friend of mine. We were discussing some random stuff and he pulled the good old does-a-tree-falling-in-a-forest-make-a-sound-if-no-one's-there-to-hear-it example and I ended up countering it with something that just occurred to me then and there: do numbers and enumeration (something that we know as mathematical counting) exist without intelligent life?

WTF to both of ya.

WTF!

superpig

Apr 27, 2010 at 7:28 PM

I'm with szecs. (And so is Paul Graham).

Quote:
Original post by irreversible
Szecs, you said "I say these questions are meaningless/useless" - I won't judge your point of view; however, the fact that you replied (twice) gives out a vibe that even though you may think the question itself is meaningless, you care (or maybe you're bored - whichever, really :D). Additionally, I should point out that I did put this in the title and both the first and last sentence of my post that the topic is "philosophical". In addition to the fact that I didn't claim any absolute truth exists as far as the topic goes, this also creates pretty powerful connotations to your sentence as to what your attitude towards philosophy is. However, let's not go into that.

The fact that you view this as a philosophical topic, but that you're not claiming that any truth even exists in this matter, creates pretty powerful connotations as to what your attitude towards philosophy is. [smile]

nilkn

Apr 27, 2010 at 9:47 PM

I've become convinced that category is the more basic abstraction that humans make and that the natural numbers arise from this.

See this article by Barry Mazur. In particular on Pg. 13 he defines the natural numbers as "an" initial object in a certain category of discrete dynamical systems. This, to me, couldn't be any more natural.

Prefect

Apr 28, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Quote:
Original post by superpig
I'm with szecs. (And so is Paul Graham).

This.

Whenever you have a question that seems mysteriously philosophical, most likely you don't understand the question, or haven't defined it properly.

In other words, the answer is 42.

irreversible

Apr 28, 2010 at 12:57 PM

@owl - haha! :)

@szecs, SuperPig & Perfect - I'm aware of this; which is why I used the wording I did in my OP: "What's your take on this?". This thread isn't about the or a truth - it's about individual opinions. Abstaining from having an opinion is also an opinion and I'm not going to debate it.

>> The fact that you view this as a philosophical topic, but that you're not claiming that any truth even exists in this matter, creates pretty powerful connotations as to what your attitude towards philosophy is. :P

A good counter, if not a wee bit qualificatory :). TBH I'm not a huge fan of philosophy and I share the sentiment from the link you posted to a large extent, but the older I get the more I'm beginning to appreciate the importance of its existence. It's like gardening - in a way.

szecs

Apr 28, 2010 at 1:24 PM

The older I am, the more I want to actually live and do, not just thinking about it.
The reason I replied (apart from being bored to death), is that it is important to think about which questions are important.

I hope that made sense, my English just sucks hard.

Bregma

Apr 28, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Quote:
Original post by irreversible
do numbers and enumeration (something that we know as mathematical counting) exist without intelligent life?

Are you asking if there are Platonic numbers? Hmmm, have you tried reading Plato?

irreversible

Apr 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Quote:
Original post by Bregma
Are you asking if there are Platonic numbers? Hmmm, have you tried reading Plato?

In highschool, but no, not recently. Perhaps I should refresh my memory.

szecs - I'm glad you edited your post; I was pretty much ready to sound the troll alert. For the sake of the argument: which questions are important to you?

AndreTheGiant

Apr 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Ive always thought the tree falling in the woods thing was extremely stupid. The first time I heard it I was very young, and even then I knew it was dumb question. But I figured maybe theres something deep and profound about it that I wouldnt understand until I was older. Nope. Its still stupid. It all depends on how you define sound. If you define sound as the disturbance/vibration of air (or other medium), then yes the tree makes a sound. If you define sound as the vibrating of an eardrum which sends signals to a brain (which is the wrong definition, but some poeple probably use it), then no it doesnt make a sound. What am I missing? Nothing, I suspect. A much more interesting question for me is: how are people possibly so fascinated by that stupid question?

The numbers question is very similar and equally dumb, although you took it off to quite a tangent there.

Contrary to what your 2nd grade teacher tells you, there are such things as stupid questions ;)

You cant just throw a bunch of random words into a sentance, put a question mark at the end, and call it a question. Why is purple hungry? You can ponder this question for decades and convince people you're a brilliant philosopher but I dont buy it. A question has to make sense!

Another one that bugs me is "What is the meaning of life?". People treat it like its the most profound and difficult question one could ask. The only reason its a 'difficult' question is because its not really a question. It could mean something different to every person. That question is equivalent to saying "Please ramble on about your personal beliefs and ambitions and anything else you want for 30 or so minutes". If you rephrase the question to something specific and meaningful then the answers are very simple.

way2lazy2care

Apr 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Quote:
Original post by AndreTheGiant
Ive always thought the tree falling in the woods thing was extremely stupid. The first time I heard it I was very young, and even then I knew it was dumb question. But I figured maybe theres something deep and profound about it that I wouldnt understand until I was older. Nope. Its still stupid. It all depends on how you define sound. If you define sound as the disturbance/vibration of air (or other medium), then yes the tree makes a sound. If you define sound as the vibrating of an eardrum which sends signals to a brain (which is the wrong definition, but some poeple probably use it), then no it doesnt make a sound. What am I missing? Nothing, I suspect. A much more interesting question for me is: how are people possibly so fascinated by that stupid question?

I think the tree is a metaphor examining existentialism not the definition of sound. A better question to understand the philosophy would be "if a tree is in the woods with no one around to see it, does it exist?" That is not a stupid question, it's just a question that can't be reasonably answered, which is why it's philosophy not science.

AndreTheGiant

Apr 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Quote:
Original post by way2lazy2care
Quote:
Original post by AndreTheGiant
Ive always thought the tree falling in the woods thing was extremely stupid. The first time I heard it I was very young, and even then I knew it was dumb question. But I figured maybe theres something deep and profound about it that I wouldnt understand until I was older. Nope. Its still stupid. It all depends on how you define sound. If you define sound as the disturbance/vibration of air (or other medium), then yes the tree makes a sound. If you define sound as the vibrating of an eardrum which sends signals to a brain (which is the wrong definition, but some poeple probably use it), then no it doesnt make a sound. What am I missing? Nothing, I suspect. A much more interesting question for me is: how are people possibly so fascinated by that stupid question?

I think the tree is a metaphor examining existentialism not the definition of sound. A better question to understand the philosophy would be "if a tree is in the woods with no one around to see it, does it exist?" That is not a stupid question, it's just a question that can't be reasonably answered, which is why it's philosophy not science.

I dont see how swapping sound for light changes anything the slightest. And yes it is still a stupid question. If anything, you've managed to make it even stoopider. You have already admitted the tree is in the woods, so of course it exists. Its like saying "I baked a cake. Did I bake a cake?" Its not philosophy, its moronic. I do have respect for actual philosophy, but this is utter nonesense.

Sorry for shitting all over this thread. If someone can come up with semi-enlightening reason why the tree in the woods thing is so interesting to a lot of people, I would be greatful.

Oberon_Command

Apr 28, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Fermat's last theorem/conjecture is known to us through Fermat's writings. Now, Fermat spoke of having discovered a proof for all n, but he never wrote it down on account of the margins being "too narrow to contain it". Now suppose Fermat hadn't bothered to write that note in the margins, or anything at all involving that particular conjecture. So, in that case, did Fermat come up with what is now called "Fermat's last theorem" at all? Even if he had, in truth, we would have no way of knowing unless he wrote it down. I think that's the essence of the "tree in the woods" thing. It's about what we perceive and know, not what actually happened.

If a tree with no relation to me other than us existing in the same universe falls in the woods, and I didn't see/hear/perceive it happening, does the tree falling matter to me/have any effect on either myself or what I know? Obviously, in the tree in the woods thing it falls apart because somebody familiar with the area could stumble upon the now-toppled tree and reason that, given that the tree in woods used to be standing and isn't any longer, the tree fell down. But that's beside the point of the saying, so perhaps that objection is too literal. In all honesty, though, I think there might be better ways of getting that point across.

[Edited by - Oberon_Command on April 28, 2010 8:53:13 PM]

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.