An Incomprehensible Connection Between the Abstract and the Physical?

Problem: Is 17 an even number or an odd number?
Every prime number greater than two is an odd number.
17 is a prime number and 17 is greater than two.
Therefore, 17 is an odd number.

Physical Event: Socrates died.
Every man eventually dies.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore, Socrates died or will die.

I don't hope to demonstrate anything. From among the things that we ordinarily call "reliable information", we can select two pieces of information. I selected them, but I didn't arbitrarily decide what to believe. Furthermore, there is a pattern associating the two pieces of information. What is very bizarre is that the common pattern associates an abstract symbolic problem with an issue of whether or not one particular physical event is an eventual actuality. Can anyone explain this bizarre coincidence?

Go get a Ph.D. in philosophy, and we'll talk about some of the more interesting attempts.

I'm not claiming that if you declare that one cluster of information is "about the abstract" and another cluster of information is "about the physical", then you are automatically correct in assuming that they have nothing in common and that anyone who identifies a common pattern is wrong.

What if we insist that a variable representing a set has to be either specified in advance as being of finite size or specified in advance as being of infinite size? What if we declare that finite sets are concrete, infinite sets are abstract, and that there can be no general truths encompassing both the finite and the infinite?

{2, 3, 4} is a subset of {1, 2, 3, 4}
{1, 2, 3, 4} is a subset of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
Therefore, {2, 3, 4} is a subset of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}

The set of positive whole numbers that are multiples of four is a subset of the set of even whole numbers.
The set of even whole numbers is a subset of the set of whole numbers.
Therefore, the set of positive whole numbers that are multiples of four is a subset of the set of whole numbers.

I'm concerned. Did Euclid have a degree? I don't want to study anything that's the product of an unschooled, unqualified mind.

All of which is beside the point, of course. What is to the point is that a significant mathematical education would cure you of silly mathematical manifestos such as the one you gave.


EDIT: In fairness, it didn't cure Kronecker, etc. of their silly manifestos, but one can still always hope.

...when posting in this forum is "idiotically tortured concept(s)".

The agenda seems to be to justify religious faith by trying to show that everything in the conceptual and physical world is slippery and weird and strange, evidence isn't really evidence, that it must be a "leap of faith" to work around this strangeness, so all you damn skeptics have just as much "faith" as religious people, etc. Or something like that. There's a lot of unseen hand-waving going on, and he/she seems loathe to actually come out and state clearly what all of these bizarre posts are, if anything, supposed to be leading up to.

My bad for taking the post at face-value.

*mumbles incomprehensibly* ....

It is coincidence.

You provided your own answer.

Sure. You've abstracted the physical in the second case.

"What is very bizarre is that the common pattern associates an abstract symbolic problem with an issue of whether or not one particular physical event is an eventual actuality. Can anyone explain this bizarre coincidence?"

Yes.

The logical construction you used to tackle one was general enough to tackle another.

In fact, it seems kinda cooked that it's apparently a "bizarre co-incidence".

For instance, I can use group theory in geometry and chemistry. Both of those situations involve at least one symmetry element, so it group theory (which deals with symmetries) applies to both.

However, you can make it look like some cosmic spooky co-incidence with "oooooh, what a bizarre co-incidence that you can deal with both something as abstract as geometry and concrete as chemistry!" when you are really saying "oooh, look, something that deals with symmetry deals with symmetry!"

The first one is in fact an abstract construct. That is it is an observation about a set of rules that we created. The second statement is a misapplied observation of reality. It is in fact a theory. An educated guess about what may or may not be the nature of things. From experience we have learned that men do tend to die. So it is not inappropriate to assume that Socrates did/will die. There are further evidential problems with the statement as well but they run to the same issue of presuming observation to be absolute. But we cannot assume the answer as absolute as we can that of an abstract construct such as one provided by a mathematical proof.

Any association of the two as being the same is the result of ignorance. It may be understandable ignorance. But it is a lack of understanding of the fundamental differences. It also seems to be the main theme of your posts and objections here in R&T. Namely that you continuously try to entangle abstract constructs with observations of reality. Abstract constructs are useful for understanding reality. But it must always be remembered that you cannot absolutely do so. Once you form a theory from an abstract model of reality you must put it to the test in reality. You cannot presume an answer simply because your model looks good in your imagination.

You sound very confident of your claims, but your claims also seem to conflict with Random_Australian's point of view.

Honestly. I would like to hear what you are getting at. No more dancing around.

He says "given both of these situations, you need to perform different testing methods"
I said   "given both of those as pieces of information (ie. absolute things), the same logical operations can be used on both, provided those operations are general enough to apply to both"

Whee!

And if you want to know how I feel about a debate thread - I'd say a thread with some actual debate, rather than hidden point bullshit, would be good.

Do you object to the following reasoning?

Any association of an abstract construct and an observation of reality is the result of ignorance.
The Original Post associates an abstract construct and an observation of reality.
Therefore, the Original Post is a result of ignorance.

The ignorance is in presuming that an abstract construct necessarily correlates to an objective truth. Just because we can model something in our imagination and apply rules we create within our imagination does not mean we can automatically apply them to the universe. We must still test any model we create using abstract methods. Our imagination, no matter how thoroughly checked within its own machinations must be checked against reality to the best of our ability.

want to be guilty of misplacing the focus?

The least you could do is get a bit creative and declare that "is the following reasoning valid ... " is an "invalid" kind of question. That's how followers of Ayn Rand (aka "Objectivists") enable themselves to engage in rampant evasion.

And I am not a follower of Rand. The problem may simply be that I am not sure what you are driving at so I cannot properly answer the question as you see it. I base my understanding of your questions on what I have to imagine the intent of them is as you intend them. But as you are not clear as to your purpose I cannot be certain as to what you are getting at. Perhaps if you stated it clearly a proper dialog could be had (and would certainly be edifying). But until then we are going to dance about quite often in semantic circles as we try to pin down what exactly the other is referring to.