Gentlemen, Your Attention Please

[Belly Bob]

3 hours ago, rockinl said:

Where's he watching you from? A cloud? Asking for a friend.

He's located everywhere at the same time in respect of his power and his knowledge.

But he has no spatial properties. In that regard, he's like numbers or sets, the abstract objects you need to posit in order make sense of mathematics and the physical sciences which cannot operate without mathematical objects. 

[rockinl]

16 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

He's located everywhere at the same time in respect of his power and his knowledge.

But he has no spatial properties. In that regard, he's like numbers or sets, the abstract objects you need to posit in order make sense of mathematics and the physical sciences which cannot operate without mathematical objects. 

 

It is widely supposed that every entity falls into one of two categories: Some are concrete; the rest abstract. The distinction is supposed to be of fundamental significance for metaphysics and epistemology.

The challenge is to say what underlies this dichotomy, either by defining the terms explicitly, or by embedding them in a theory that makes their connections to other important categories more explicit. In the absence of such an account, the philosophical significance of the contrast remains uncertain. We may know how to classify things as abstract or concrete by appeal to intuition. But in the absence of theoretical articulation, it will be hard to know what (if anything) hangs on the classification.

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, rockinl said:

 

It is widely supposed that every entity falls into one of two categories: Some are concrete; the rest abstract. The distinction is supposed to be of fundamental significance for metaphysics and epistemology.

The challenge is to say what underlies this dichotomy, either by defining the terms explicitly, or by embedding them in a theory that makes their connections to other important categories more explicit. In the absence of such an account, the philosophical significance of the contrast remains uncertain. We may know how to classify things as abstract or concrete by appeal to intuition. But in the absence of theoretical articulation, it will be hard to know what (if anything) hangs on the classification.

Are you a plagiarist too?

This doesn't sound like the rocklinl I know.

The reality of numbers and the foundations of mathematics hang on the classification -- unless you want to be a non-realist about numbers and truth in mathematics. 

People in the humanities like that sort of thing, since they're non-realists about everything. Truth, reality, and everything else is socially constructed by their lights.

But that stuff doesn't fly in mathematics and physics departments.

So you pick: either the distinction between abstract objects and concrete ones is tenable, or else numbers aren't really real and truth in mathematics is a kind of fiction.

I'm guessing that mathematicians make discoveries for a living; they don't write fiction. 

[noonereal]

18 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

He's located everywhere at the same time in respect of his power and his knowledge.

to ansewer

 

13 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

But that stuff doesn't fly in mathematics and physics departments.

 

[Belly Bob]

15 minutes ago, noonereal said:

to ansewer

 

 

NOR, are you pretending to know stuff again?

There is a long tradition that continues to this very day of mathematicians articulating and defending a proof of the existence of God.

Descartes (17th century), Leibniz (18th century), Godel (20th century), and Pruss (21st century) have all done so. 

 

 

[noonereal]

3 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

There is a long tradition that continues to this very day of mathematicians articulating and defending a proof of the existence of God.

Yes, I know how you have bastardized science in the name of God previous. 

God Bless. 

 

[Belly Bob]

3 minutes ago, noonereal said:

Yes, I know how you have bastardized science in the name of God previous. 

God Bless. 

 

Science or math? 

I think you want to say that I'm bastardizing math now. 

But it might be more interesting if you said how. 

[noonereal]

1 minute ago, Belly Bob said:

Science or math? 

I think you want to say that I'm bastardizing math now. 

But it might be more interesting if said how. 

I went thought this once with you, you refused to admit the obvious, I have no desire to waste more time.

People justify anything and everything that fits their wants

Like I said, God Bless, you go girl! 

(said in jest not to be insulting) 

[Belly Bob]

1 minute ago, noonereal said:

I went thought this once with you, you refused to admit the obvious, I have no desire to waste more time.

People justify anything and everything that fits their wants

Like I said, God Bless, you go girl! 

(said in jest not to be insulting) 

For old time's sake, what was the obvious I refused to admit?

[World Citizen]

18 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

NOR, are you pretending to know stuff again?

There is a long tradition that continues to this very day of mathematicians articulating and defending a proof of the existence of God.

Descartes (17th century), Leibniz (18th century), Godel (20th century), and Pruss (21st century) have all done so. 

 

 

And BellyBob (21st century) has done so.  

[Belly Bob]

9 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

And BellyBob (21st century) has done so.  

Well, I wish I could claim analytic geometry, the calculus, and the incompleteness theorems, but those all belong to the guys on the list -- the guys who NOR tells us bastardize science and math and who justify anything and everything to fit their wants.

That's always a good rhetorical move: if you can't figure out what's wrong with an argument, just accuse the person who gives it of being irrational.