New answers tagged

0

Helmuth Plessner developed a philosophy of nature with input from biology, most explicitly laid out in his book The Levels of the Organic and the Human (1928). One could say that our universe, which he would call "world", can be defined as The sum of interactions with our living processes (both within and outside of our physical body) that are ...


-1

"The most that can be expected from any model is that it can supply a useful approximation to reality: All models are wrong; some models are useful". ~ George E. P. Box By this argument it doesn't matter, whether the constructs exist or not, since what's meaningful is, whether they're useful. One can convey that all mathematics is models. Natural ...


-1

There is an extremely popular notion that mathematical platonism (every mathematical object has a platonic existence) is well-defined. To bad that's false. Due to the incompleteness theorem, we know that any reasonable foundation for mathematics is either inconsistent (useless) or incomplete (does not prove every true sentence about natural numbers), and so ...


-1

Some people don't believe that mathematical objects exist at all. We might call these people mathematical fictionalists. Those who believe they exist, generally believe they are one of three things: physical objects (such as symbols or brain states), mental states, or abstract objects. The position that mathematical objects are physical things has been ...


1

Obviously nothing is not a thing that can exist, and what does exist is nature (Gk: Physis) -- existence that "changes form" as you write, or "goes back into itself even as it unfolds" as Heidegger interprets Aristotle as he defines nature, (Sheehan 1998). From section V. Even theories like quantum fluctuation and universal heat death do ...


1

You are asking about the validity of the permanence of existence. So you can confirm at least your existence from your question even though nothing exists except you. If you still deny your existence, there must be a cause (another existence) that controls you. And it can never be a non-existent thing even if it changed its form. As in the case of existence, ...


1

MUH does sound exactly like what you're looking for in your OP. Regarding your remaining concern: Tegmark they didn't write anything about substances and abstract/concrete objects, his arguments are mostly from a scientific perspective. First of all MUH is entirely math based thus it describes anything from a fully scientific perspective, not even mostly. ...


1

Tegmark really does go as far as claiming reality is ontologically only a set of abstract entities with relations between them. These entities have no intrinsic qualities. He believes physics and eventually biology and neuroscience will eventually have equivalent "baggageless" descriptions of reality and subjective experience that will live purely ...


Top 50 recent answers are included