David Chalmers - How is Mathematics Truth and Beauty?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- When mathematicians speak about their craft, why do they use terms of philosophy and art? What is it about mathematics that can penetrate trivial truth and reveal fundamental “Truth?” What are the characteristics of fundamental truth? What is it about mathematics that can elicit the description “beautiful”? Mathematical beauty is not always simple, not always symmetrical - but it is always revelatory.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
David Chalmers is a philosopher at New York University and the Australian National University. He is Professor of Philosophy and co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU, and also Professor of Philosophy at ANU.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I see 'David Chalmers', I click it.
The nice thing about being conscious is discovering that I am at the center of everything. Reality is whatever I want it to be. Truth is whatever I decide :)
That's what I think
That mentality is what is destroying the United States right now- everyone thinking they can have their own reality, their own personal truths. It means no one can even agree on the problems, much less the solutions. It leads to ppl believing insane, extreme things which drive them to insane, extreme actions- something we've seen a lot of in this country lately.
You have to hand it to David Chalmers. He’s made a career of espousing dualism in modern times.
The simulation view does *not* undermine the fundamentality of consciousness….
We’d still need to talk about the exact same issues Chalmers raises - problems the idea consciousness arising from pure non-consciousness, which can’t be addressed by any neuroscience or any version of simulation hypothesis
A fun chat about mereology (the study of parts and the wholes they form.). They ignore that all assumptions about a fundamental "upper ontology" rely on reality being finite, with a orderly flow of time/information/causality/etc. In an infinite reality where everything exists (including nothing), there is no fundamental upper ontology to be discovered.
Wow, this is good stuff!
What ignites the equations? The will to power.
if we're in a simulation, why would that rule out fundamental consciousness for this worlds? Robert is applying his knowledge of simulations at present when we can't imagine what that tech could do
What about feelings?
Good question. I'd argue that even though feelings are "sensed" in and by the body, they don't necessarily fall under the category of "consciousness". The heart has it's own kind of "intelligence" (for lack of a better word) and feelings, emotions, moods, intuitions etc. are all equally valid forms of information and perceptual experience in the same way that rational thought is regarded in the world of academic. They are just simply not studied or well understood yet. Not enough credence is given to feelings in the academic world and I really hope this changes in the future.
Both of these cats look like Simpsons characters.
You look like a Simpsons character.
Chalmers: the definition of looking with a jaundiced eye.
Is calculation and appropriation truth and beauty?
What about the Donald Hoffman's latest work, "The Case Against Reality," where he talks about how we a wired for fitness and not reality.
Bottom line is that nature has hidden realty from us.
Does he think that the theory he proposes is real?
consciousness is maths as well ..
ask Bernardo Kastrup, you will get interesting response
numbers are not just numbers they themselves are geometry at the same time as a force that creates. but just a tool.
Math is a tool for counting, that's all, no fantasy , no obscure or hidden nature, is just like a wrench that help us loose bolts we can't work with bare hands.
So our brain needs a kind of abacus to deal with relations betwen things we can't asume with a glance.
Obtain the "meaning of life" through the scientific methodology: faith with any hypothesis precedes the discovery phase. Faith exists with any hypothesis precedes the discovery phase. Faith is the basis of epistemological knowledge.
And what exactly are you counting? Maths can't do without zero, for instance -- but zero doesn't exist at all in your crude material world (if you have two apples and eat them, you have 'no apples' - which is not the same as zero). Or take negative numbers... Or take geometrical forms: A perfect circle doesn't exist in the world of appearances but can easily be defined...
@@walterbraun3731 Does this mean that you are not a believer?
You completely fail to grasp the subject. COLOR is a tool our brain uses to understand the world... Math is not. The universe has to compulsion to conform to anything in the human mind, yet it conforms to math in every conceivable test. It's not just about counting... Math extends far, FAR beyond what you hopefully learned as a toddler.
@@sanders555 In I do not mind stealing information that the question answers because it stands against you as a justification for asking why?
You are in trouble because I am fine
A campfire, a pipe, and talking with David Chalmers would be great.. BUT I'm confident time will prove him wrong on the nature of consciousness... Naturalism will once again dispel mysticism.. Great interview!
What do you mean by 'once again'? :D
@@GS-wz9np Well..... Has not science banished MANY mystical beliefs through time?
@@billnorris1264 Yes, but science = naturalism? I don't think so.
@@GS-wz9np Yes .look up philosophical naturalism. Thank you for your response friend.
@@GS-wz9np yes indeed.. All scientific laws are natural laws, and nothing but.. Darwin's theory of evolution is a naturalistic Theory, as are all scientific theories.. what did you think they were? Supernatural theories?? I don't think so..
In my view, in which God creates and sustains at the ground of reality using algorithms, mathematics holds the ultimate truth because the design of reality is a string of binary numbers. The secret of how this is possible can be found in the the obvious conclusion of Zeno's paradoxes.
Deity is Law, Law is Deity
Obtain the "meaning of life" through the scientific methodology: faith with any hypothesis precedes the discovery phase. Faith exists with any hypothesis precedes the discovery phase. Faith is the basis of epistemological knowledge.
I didn't know Julian Assange is a mathematician.
Why is mathematics considered important? Because by it we find a reliable means to predict phenomena? How is the ability to predict become so eminent?
Predictability in the natural world makes one prey. I assume there are certain prey subjects in science conducive to mathematical modeling. That shouldn't make them the envy of science that should make them fodder. The real hunt for scientists should be the predators. The hunt for the unpredictable, the cunning, wary and deadly subjects that aren't so easily trapped by math.
Mathematics communicates from God divine being to subconscious mind to physical reality to human consciousness.
Spare me.
Sprite then
Is Chalmers a computer simulation?
Instead of wasting time on unanswerable questions, how about accepting science and its findings and work to make our reality better for humanity?
Mind Begs the Question:
Things cant be seen or heard,like Atoms,
We set a standard to Determine,
Creator cant be seen or heard,
What standard we've set to Determine?
Mind Begs the Question:
Scientists admit - "We know very little."
Can assert Creator doesnt exist?
Obtain the "meaning of life" through the scientific methodology: faith with any hypothesis precedes the discovery phase. Faith exists with any hypothesis precedes the discovery phase. Faith is the basis of epistemological knowledge.
We know a lot. Rational people just don't bother believing in things for which there's no evidence. That being said, there's no peer-reviewed paper ever that's asserted there is or that there is not a creator. So I don't really know what you're talking about.
@@sanders555 I am talking about the methodology of acquiring knowledge, faith and trust as the basis of epistemological knowledge. If you cannot see faith on the map that leads you inside the forest, then invoking lack of vision is a reasonable cause.
@@mustafaelbahi7979 You don't need to have faith or trust in anything except the world you live in and the rules under which it operates. Invoking superstition or supernatural agents buys you nothing, especially when many of them are demonstrably false. There's probably something more to it all, but the last place I'd ever go for that knowledge is an outdated religious institution who has ideas about God that are not only contradictory, but completely asinine. If there's something beyond this universe, it's far more spectacular, weird, and amazing than anything that mainstream modern religions purport to exist - and certainly not some petty god who has nothing better to do than stalk human beings like a cosmic creeper only to send them to hell for eternity because of what they did with their genitals.
@@sanders555 You do not need to contradict your dat: the universe is older than the heavenly books. Note that you study the past and refuse to study the Qur’an, because your ignorance of the Qur'an does not justify its rejection, but justifies your belief in ignorance and ignorance of faith.
It would be nice, in my view, if the 8 billion chattering locusts would step back for a moment from all their specific concerns, and realize that they are destroying the one and only home they will ever have. Is there anything more fundamental than that?
Only in your imagination. We all know that there is much more to reality than this shitty life in a decaying body on a boring planet. It is not even sure if that is something worth saving even fundamentally. Bc there is just so much wrong and unjust about it all to begin with. I look at it more as sort of a basic level bootcamp to evaluate souls potentials for more elaborate tasks. But if this crap here is ALL there is then may god have mercy bc we are fcuked...
Obtain the "meaning of life" through the scientific methodology: faith with any hypothesis precedes the discovery phase. Faith exists with any hypothesis precedes the discovery phase. Faith is the basis of epistemological knowledge.