brian0918 Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Is it not possible to have a concept "universe"? If so, what does that mean in practice? As I understand measurement omission, you need at least two things to compare. The obvious problem is we supposedly have only one universe with which to work. If "universe" is a non-concept, would this mean that it is of no practical use, and if so, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Is it not possible to have a concept "universe"?You understand what "universe" refers to, right? -- "the totality of existence". You know what a concept is, right? "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition." So a concept of universe would be the unification of two different totalities of existence, which means that neither is a totality. Note that "George W. Bush" is not a concept either. Although it's true that he is of no practical use, proper names also exist. "The Universe" is a proper name, just like "The Solar System". Having said this, we can construct a mythical concept "universe" just like we can construct a mythical concept "unicorn" or "uncountably infinite set". In that case, the myth-universe concept subsumes nothing but abstractions just as the unicorn concept subsumes no real things but lots of imaginary unicorns. Science fiction thrives off of the ability to construct myth-concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Science fiction thrives off of the ability to construct myth-concepts. As does the fantasy genre. I mean dragons and magic aren't exactly real now are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted July 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Would any of the idealized objects of mathematics also come under the heading of "mythical concepts"? You can't exactly have a perfect triangle or sphere in real life, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McVey Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 magic aren't exactly real now are they? Clarke's Third Law. JJM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Clarke's Third Law. JJM Yes, I am aware of that law. I strongly disagree with the wording. Buty more importantly, that is clearly not wjat I meant. I clearly meant magic as in spells and the like. That isn't exactly real now is it? Also, please don't anyone be smart arse and point out that Komodo dragons and bearded dragons are real because that isn't what I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Would any of the idealized objects of mathematics also come under the heading of "mythical concepts"? You can't exactly have a perfect triangle or sphere in real life, after all. That's an interesting question. I'd say things like 'triangle' and 'sphere' are concepts and not just proper nouns, like 'The Universe'. They are in fact very good examples of concepts - they, are you say, 'perfect'. That is, all measurement is omitted and we just assume 'three angles' or... er, however you describe a sphere... Incidentally, if David Odden is equating 'The Solar System' with 'The Universe' though, I disagee with him, because the solar system is a real system we can observe, and we can differntiate other things (distant stars, planets, galaxies) from being a part of the solar system. If he just meant, 'THE solar system' though, as in our Solar System, then he's correct. But we can differentiate 'a solar system' from just other random junk floating in space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 If he just meant, 'THE solar system' though, as in our Solar SystemYup. That is the essential difference between the proper name "The Solar System" and a concept "Solar System". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) On the subject of our solar system it is our sun that is called Sol right? And not our solar system? Either way, the name, Sol is another good example of a proper name. Edited July 24, 2008 by DragonMaci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McVey Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 that is clearly not wjat I meant. I clearly meant magic as in spells and the like. That isn't exactly real now is it? Magic and the like do have basis in reality, they are real effects and observations with explanations exaggerated way out of proportion and extraneous nonsense mixed in. Magic is not made out of whole cloth, Kane: how would you, for instance, explain magnetic attraction and repulsion if you didn't have the benefit of the modern scientific mindset? Sympathetic vibration? Catalysis? Disinfection by heat and chemical? Modernity began when people started to think for themselves and examined the allegations made by magicians, alchemists, and astrologers. Some of them were themselves magicians, alchemists , and astrologers - men such as Galen, Geber, Kepler, and Newton. From their work, originating in analysis of the "magical", we now have physics, chemistry, medicine, astronomy, mathematics. Carl Sagan described Kepler as one of the first modern astronomers and last scientific astrologers, because he set the scene for the identification of astrology as bogus. What Clarke pointed out that some people's grips on reality may not be as strong as they should be and so these people regress to magical explanations when exposed to the sufficiently perplexing, being reverse-Kepleresque as it were - after all, that's how the idea of magic got started in the first place. JJM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtColville Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 Magic and the like do have basis in reality, they are real effects and observations with explanations exaggerated way out of proportion and extraneous nonsense mixed in. Magic is not made out of whole cloth, Kane: how would you, for instance, explain magnetic attraction and repulsion if you didn't have the benefit of the modern scientific mindset? Sympathetic vibration? Catalysis? Disinfection by heat and chemical? Modernity began when people started to think for themselves and examined the allegations made by magicians, alchemists, and astrologers. Some of them were themselves magicians, alchemists , and astrologers - men such as Galen, Geber, Kepler, and Newton. From their work, originating in analysis of the "magical", we now have physics, chemistry, medicine, astronomy, mathematics. Carl Sagan described Kepler as one of the first modern astronomers and last scientific astrologers, because he set the scene for the identification of astrology as bogus. What Clarke pointed out that some people's grips on reality may not be as strong as they should be and so these people regress to magical explanations when exposed to the sufficiently perplexing, being reverse-Kepleresque as it were - after all, that's how the idea of magic got started in the first place. JJM By definition, magic is the creation of an effect by supernatural means. The physical phenomena you name might be regarded as magic by savages, but it isn't magic, it's man harnessing the forces of nature. Similarly, if aliens landed and showed us unimaginably advanced technology, we would be wrong to label it "magic". Only a society that accepts the notion of the supernatural (and of man controlling the supernatural) accepts the notion of magic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted August 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) You understand what "universe" refers to, right? -- "the totality of existence". You know what a concept is, right? "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition." So a concept of universe would be the unification of two different totalities of existence, which means that neither is a totality. How about "truth"? Is this a concept? What are its component units? What characteristics of those units are unique to each individual unit, and what characteristics are common to all, thus defining the concept? Edited August 7, 2008 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) In many different instances, we categorize things as true or false. Two things that are true may be completely unrelated in other ways, but they're both true. The similarity between them is that they are both true. Edited August 7, 2008 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted August 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 In many different instances, we categorize things as true or false. Two things that are true may be completely unrelated in other ways, but they're both true. The similarity between them is that they are both true. So a concept need not be composed of existents? It can also be composed of statements, all bound together by their ability to be objectively confirmed to be in accordance with reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 How about "truth"?Truth is what results when a consciousness grasps reality. Examples would be "this plate is green", "my dog is yellow", "my car is yellow", "dinner is cooking" etc. Examples of non-truth are "my dog is pink", "my dinner is frozen", and "the sky is yellow" (they are examples of "falsehood"). There are potloads of propositions which are instances of "truth". Every unit subsumed under "truth" is a proposition held by a consciousness which "corresponds" to reality. So a concept need not be composed of existents? It can also be composed of statements, all bound together by their ability to be objectively confirmed to be in accordance with reality?Existents exist. *rimshot* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted August 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 Truth is what results when a consciousness grasps reality. Examples would be "this plate is green", "my dog is yellow", "my car is yellow", "dinner is cooking" etc. Examples of non-truth are "my dog is pink", "my dinner is frozen", and "the sky is yellow" (they are examples of "falsehood"). There are potloads of propositions which are instances of "truth". Every unit subsumed under "truth" is a proposition held by a consciousness which "corresponds" to reality. Existents exist. *rimshot* So are those examples that you give - those statements - considered "existents"? Maybe I'm trying to get a grasp on what it means to "exist". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 No, those statements are not existents themselves, but the things we identify are existents, and their existence is self-evident. But the concept of 'truth' cannot be formed, at least explicitly, until one has had enough experience of identification, of identifying things as true or false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted August 7, 2008 Report Share Posted August 7, 2008 So are those examples that you give - those statements - considered "existents"? Maybe I'm trying to get a grasp on what it means to "exist".Anything that exists is an existent. A concept exists; it is an existent. However, a concept is not an entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.