What is 'Real'?

[Treasure Hunter]

Open Questions:

Is the vision of a better world ‘real’ by your definition?

Do you desire a better world?

Is it possible to desire what is not real?

 

[LuisDantas]

Open Questions:

Is the vision of a better world ‘real’ by your definition?

If we are talking about meaningful change of what currently exists, then I suppose not.

It could be real if we were talking about something that is already presumed or known to exist and that just happens to be inaccessible for some reason.

Do you desire a better world?

Sure.

Is it possible to desire what is not real?

Definitely. It is way too easy.

 

[MikeF]

But do they [abstractions] exist?

Abstractions exist (are real) in many forms, for example in neurophysiological form inside a human brain, or as spoken words or written language in all its varieties, or images, and these abstractions are understood or have meaning to a human mind when evaluated within an abstract system that sets the boundaries and rules for the interpretation of abstractions in that system. Of course the meaning and value of abstractions are lost (are no longer real) if there are no minds to evaluate the abstractions within their intended abstract system.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

If we are talking about meaningful change of what currently exists, then I suppose not.

It could be real if we were talking about something that is already presumed or known to exist and that just happens to be inaccessible for some reason.



Sure.



Definitely. It is way too easy.

Do you agree that desire has aim? If so, can you aim at the non-existent?

 

[Rival]

Abstractions exist (are real) in many forms, for example in neurophysiological form inside a human brain, or as spoken words or written language in all its varieties, or images, and these abstractions are understood or have meaning to a human mind when evaluated within an abstract system that sets the boundaries and rules for abstractions in that system. Of course the meaning and value of abstractions are lost (are no longer real) if there are no minds to evaluate the abstractions within their intended abstract system.

So 4x4 =/= 16 without a human mind to think it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you agree that desire has aim?

It can have aim. It doesn't always.

If so, can you aim at the non-existent?

Definitely.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I can have aim. It doesn't always.



Definitely.

Sir, you cannot aim at nothingness.

 

[MikeF]

So 4x4 =/= 16 without a human mind to think it?

The physical representation, if written down let's say, will exist as long as it continues to physically exist. That the symbol abstraction 4 means what it means is dependent on the abstract system used to interpret it. If you are asking whether the abstraction refers to an independently existing event or phenomenon, it would depend on context usage and the abstract system in which we are interpreting the use of that abstraction.

For example, the word 'chair' can be used in a strictly abstract way to refer to the abstract conception of chairs generally, or I can use it to refer to a specific chair that exists in the real world.

4 is simply part of an abstract system used to describe relative quantity and outside of pure mathematics is highly context dependent. 4 sheep are not the same as 4 oak trees. Even though each of the sheep are assigned the same numerical value of 1 (sheep), each of the sheep are not identical although the abstract construct of a value of 'one' is the same for each sheep.

The concept of 1 or 4 is meaningless and does not exist unless there is a mind to create and use the abstract representation of relative quantity.

 

[LuisDantas]

So 4x4 =/= 16 without a human mind to think it?

Pretty good question.

Mathematical concepts are perhaps a bit more controversial when it comes to matters of reality than most other entities.

They are explicitly human creations, but they are also widely used to represent matters of an entirely different level of reality.

So I for one don't know wheter they remain true when no mind is considering them. I would think that they do, because their properties have been established already and there is no further need of an observer to test them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sir, you cannot aim at nothingness.

Try and stop me! I dare you!

Or something.

I all seriousness, "nothingness" is quite a different thing quality from "non-existent". Although I stand unconvinced that it is impossible to aim at nothingness either.

Besides, as already said, I do not see why aiming would be required in the first place.

Maybe you are talking about something unlike what I consider to be desire? Same word, different conceptions?

 

[Polymath257]

The issue of numbers has been brought up. Now, there is a category of numbers called 'real numbers', but that is a terminological thing and not directly related to the issue of the existence of mathematical objects.

Before I would address the issue of numbers, though, I might ask if the game of chess is 'real'. Does it exist? The reason I ask is that it seems to me (as a mathematical formalist) that the existence of numbers is *exactly* like the existence of the game of chess.

In another line, is the *idea* of a unicorn 'real'?

What I would say is that the real/unreal distinction is primarily made to separate out those things that exist mainly because we think about them as opposed to things, like chairs, that exist whether we are thinking about them or not.

So, in this sense, the game of chess isn't 'real' because it primarily exists because we think about it. Similarly for unicorns. The *idea* of unicorns might exist if we can detect what is going on in the brain of someone who is thinking it. Electrons are real (yes, even in the double slit experiment) because it isn't primarily because of our thinking about them that they exist. They exist outside of anyone's consciousness. Abstractions are not 'real' in this sense either: it is our classification and our thoughts that determine whether and how they exist.

And no, I would also not say that numbers are 'real' (although, again, there are 'real numbers') in the most relevant sense.

 

[Polymath257]

So 4x4 =/= 16 without a human mind to think it?

I'm not sure a *human* mind is required, but none of 4, times, equality, nor 16 are defined without the intervention of a mind.

Now, the formal system required to define these concepts isn't very extensive (although the use of decimal notation causes some issues), but as far as I can see, even talking about these requires a mind.

 

[Kfox]

But do they exist?

Numbers are do not exist, they are representative tokens used to represent things that do exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Pretty good question.

Mathematical concepts are perhaps a bit more controversial when it comes to matters of reality than most other entities.

They are explicitly human creations, but they are also widely used to represent matters of an entirely different level of reality.

So I for one don't know wheter they remain true when no mind is considering them. I would think that they do, because their properties have been established already and there is no further need of an observer to test them.

The way I see it, mathematics is a curious combination of a game and a language. Mathematicians prove things using certain assumptions (initial positions in the game) and certain rules of deductions (moves in the game). Hence, math is like a game of chess.

On the other hand, physicists and others use mathematics as a language to help them describe and predict observations. Asking if numbers are real is like asking if the word 'cat' is real. it is a part of a language that can be useful for describing and discussing some real things, but the word itself is a mental construct with no 'real' correlate (although sounds, written symbols, etc can arguably be brought in).

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Try and stop me! I dare you!

Or something.

I all seriousness, "nothingness" is quite a different thing quality from "non-existent". Although I stand unconvinced that it is impossible to aim at nothingness either.

Besides, as already said, I do not see why aiming would be required in the first place.

Maybe you are talking about something unlike what I consider to be desire? Same word, different conceptions?

You seem to be using three categories:

(1) That which exists in the world
(2) That which exists in non-existence
(3) Nothingness

I reject category 2. Existence in non- existence is irreconcilable for me.

 

[Rival]

I'm not sure a *human* mind is required, but none of 4, times, equality, nor 16 are defined without the intervention of a mind.

Now, the formal system required to define these concepts isn't very extensive (although the use of decimal notation causes some issues), but as far as I can see, even talking about these requires a mind.

But do they need to be defined in order to exist?

Did we discover mathematics?

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course, if we accept that numbers and games that are used everyday with a lot of significance are not real, there is some question to follow on whether "unreality" is much of a hindrance. At first glance, it would appear that it is not.

 

[Polymath257]

But do they need to be defined in order to exist?

Did we discover mathematics?

I think we invented the rules and discover their consequences. Inventing the rules is what defines the structure.

As an example, I think that everyone would say that we invented the game of chess. But, if I give you a specific chess problem (mate in 4 moves from a particular position), you can discover the solution.

Math is both invented and discovered. We invent it, often, when we try to use it as a language to describe things that are real. We discover it after we select the rules and are trying to understand their consequences.

Unlike a tree, which exists whether or not anyone is thinking about it, numbers are part of a language and only exist as part of our 'ways of speaking'.

At least, that is the conclusion I have come to after thinking about math for the last 45+ years.

 

[LuisDantas]

You seem to be using three categories:

(1) That which exists in the world
(2) That which exists in non-existence
(3) Nothingness

I reject category 2. Existence in non- existence is irreconcilable for me.

I just don't understand what you are talking about.

It does not much resemble anything that I am acquaintanced with.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Open Questions:

Is the vision of a better world ‘real’ by your definition?

Do you desire a better world?

Is it possible to desire what is not real?

It’s important to understand that desire is associated with reality so you know that you can use desire as a guide toward ultimate reality. Then, it’s a faith question: Is ultimate reality associated with life or is it associated with death? If you decide it’s the former, then desire is something to more deeply engage.