ON FINITISM, PLATONISM, MEASUREMENT, SCIENCE (I have been working for the past f

ON FINITISM, PLATONISM, MEASUREMENT, SCIENCE

(I have been working for the past few weeks on the problem of what I see as platonism in libertarian theory, and am trying to correct that by basing political theory on science instead. This post from another group illustrates the direction I’m going.)

Steven:

Thank you for helping me with this.

“But this wouldn’t entail anything about the infinity or non-infinity of reality, or of theories understood in the sense of Popper’s ‘objective knowledge’…”

Of WHAT in reality? What measurement could I take in reality that was not finite in a finite period of time? Given change, the idea of infinity is not logical, since at any point state (a) vs state (b) no longer has any non-arbitrary meaning.

As far as we know, any reality in which we can take action is geometric on actionable time scale.

As far as we know, language, like mathematics can describe both the real and unreal, and given its ability to expand, it can indeed construct infinite names, descriptions, and statements. But likewise, as far as we know, this does not apply to measurements, which must meet the criteria of observability – hence bounded by time. What ‘real’ phenomenon can be expressed as a measurement that is infinite? I can’t think of any. And as far as I know, this applies forward and backward in time. If it didn’t physics wouldn’t be possible. Micro-scale actions, even in n-dimensional space, still equilibrate at any observable, measurable unit-size.

Logic and mathematics also address this position in the FINITIST movement, and even Aristotle was, to some degree a Finitist. (I’ve read that Wittgenstein also was, but I haven’t spent enough time on him to judge for myself.)

As far as I know, and as far as I can prove anyone knows, reality and measurement are ARITHMETIC, NOT MATHEMATIC.

As far as I know, Mathematical and Logical constructs are platonic, while arithmetic are real.

As far as I know there is very little that cannot be expressed in very basic real numbers. And that which can be is also platonic. And as far as I know, there is no measurable activity that cannot be expressed in Finitist terms.

The problem of relative relations requires ratios (calculus) whenever we cannot produce a mechanical measurement (a complex fluid system for example), but the problem of geometric measures requires only natural numbers.

My problem is not philosophy. The problem is mathematics. I just don’t know the field at this level although it’s pretty much intuitive to me. Philosophy departments are overwhelmingly platonic. It gives them something to do. Otherwise they’d have to focus on empirical problems like economists and physicists. 🙂

But this position ties in with Matt’s statement on Koertge:

why did popper have to invent this theory anyway? Because of morality of his time. Popper had to destroy certitude, not just in mathematics, but in politics, in order to undermine what was thought to be scientific socialism.

From my perspective, mathematical platonism, physics as mysticism, and postmodernism, are all political biases that have invaded academia with marxist and freudian mysticism.

Like Freidrich Hayek, I am fairly sure that this era will have been considered a new era of magianism ushered in by Marx and Freud, and the einsteinan revolution used by every possible academic department to claim psychological legitimacy by making relativistic claims. And in particular by liberal arts departments, envious of their replacement by physics and economics, as means to promote the secular religion of Postmodernism, which makes use of all of these platonic and magical properties.

This may cross a bit too many different disciplines for this forum but I am fairly sure it is a correct analysis.

As I’ve stated in another post, I think CR / Falsification is a defense against cognitive bias, and an attack on relativism, but I am not sure that it is in fact a statement about reality.

Probably one of the more profound things discussed on FB today, I’m sure. 🙂

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to test my thoughts by articulating them.

Curt