Hello! Don't confuse "truths" and "realities" with...

[SittingBull]

logical systems. Logical constructs are based upon a given #of premises that may or may not be "truths".
Some logical systems can "explain" certain "truths",but fall apart when attempting to explain other "truths".
Hence,the system itself is not completely "real". If it were,it would be able to explain all "truths". At best,these "good" systems enable us to see a distorted vision of "reality".
Both Newton and Einstein's theories have distorted views of the universe. However,Newton's theories present a more distorted view than Einstain's.
/images/graemlins/frown.gifSittingBull

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Hence,the system itself is not completely "real". If it were,it would be able to explain all "truths".

[/ QUOTE ]

What does incompleteness have to do with whether or not a system of deduction is "real?"

Philosophical realism or Platonism is a actually a serious view in mathematics and set theory; you should go and research this stuff a bit before you make such dogmatic conclusions.

-----------

Ok, I am surprised to see that you are trained in mathematics, so there's no need for me to tell you to study more. I really don't see any arguments for or against the position you are taking in your post. Care to explain a little more?

[Bodhi]

Why do you put everything in quotes? Do you really mean to just mention a word by putting it in quotes instead of using the word in a sentence?

[SittingBull]

Sorry if it confuses u. I wish to mention the words in quotes. Sometimes I do this for emphasis.
SittingBull

[Scotch78]

FWIW, in discussions with a metahpysical and/or linguistic subject matter (like yours), the general consensus is to reserve quotes for metalanguage and use italics for emphasis.

Scott

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
What does incompleteness have to do with whether or not a system of deduction is "real?"

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears you need to do some research as well. Here's the Cliff's Notes though . . . unless you are willing to admit that reality is incomplete (a claim which will have enormous side effects), then any incomplete theoretical construct (be it logic, economics, physics, whatever), cannot be "real" in the sense that SittingBull meant.

Scott

[SittingBull]

I have very little formal logical training and NO set theory background.
Hence,I'm not surprised that I'm waaaaaay off base in this discussion. However,
any system that attempts to explain the complete universe is intrinsically faulty. Although the system might come close,it will always be incomplete. The complete physics of the universe can never be fully explained.
SittingBull

[SittingBull]

clarifying this for me.
SittingBull

[SittingBull]

perception of reality will remain incomplete.
SittingBull

[Bodhi]

You could tell which sense of "real" sitting bull meant?

I really do need to go back to schoool I guess! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
You could tell which sense of "real" sitting bull meant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I studied philosophy for seven years, so I have certain advantages /images/graemlins/cool.gif.

Scott

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
perception of reality will remain incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really want to dive in, ask yourself why perception is necessarily incomplete.

Scott

[Bodhi]

I studied philosophy too, and that has a lot to do with why it was unclear to me. I don't even think he knows which sense of real he was using.

You and I are very different philosophically:
[ QUOTE ]
If you really want to dive in, ask yourself why perception is necessarily incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

The completeness or incompleteness of perception is an empirical matter, unless I'm misunderstaning "complete" this time.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
The completeness or incompleteness of perception is an empirical matter

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I vote for it being an analytic truth. Give me some definitions of perception and I should be able to show how each one is necessarily incomplete.

Scott

[Bodhi]

We don't decide what perception is by giving definitions and analysis. That would be kind of silly, don't you think?

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't decide what perception is by giving definitions and analysis. That would be kind of silly, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you said that you have "studied" philosophy, exactly what did you mean? You've missed some very basic distinctions in this discussion that no serious student should.

Scott

[Little Fishy]

what "very basic distinctions in this discussion " did he miss??


and are you guys basically talking about Godel's and Gentzen's theorems applied outside of the worl of numbers? I'm refering to the idea that no consistant system can be used to define itself. so therefore if you are withing a consistant construct you can either show your system as both consistent and complete. at the same time however to prove that you can't prove your own system as such you must be outside the system... so if our world were a system of numbers than we'd be stuck in inconsistancy, not being able to prove our system complete nor consistant, nor being able to prove that it's impossible to prove these things...

at the same time however I don't see how you can say that because true statements contradict eachother ti makes either less real or true

so what, light is both a particle and a wave this doesn't phase* me

and what are the different types of real that we're talking about??

*pun intended

ps. sorry for the rant

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
ps. sorry for the rant

[/ QUOTE ]

'Twasn't a rant, and I'll give you a fuller response when I'm sober enough to do so.

Scott

[Bodhi]

I meant that I did my undergraduate major in Philosophy at UC Berkeley. I did basic history of philosophy, theoretical and practical, and wrote my honors thesis on Self-Deception. I even took a graduate seminar titled (ironically) "Perception and Judgement," taught by Hannah Ginsburg. We spent a lot of time on Sellars, McDowell, Davidson, Brandom, and less time on a few others, but we didn't spend 5 minutes worrying about definitions of perception. What we did spend time doing was analyzing the pragmatic role of "perception" in a community of speakers--sort of through the lens of the different authors mentioned above.

I understand that different departments instruct their students in very different ways, which may explain your pedantic and pedagogical disdain for my views.