Wouldn’t that be more aligned to my argument than your own?

Well quantum physics would suggest that absent an observer, there is no reality at all

I’m curious, yes… though a black hole that becomes more irresistible the deeper I go, until there’s no going back, sounds like something inconvenient to my life atm haha

From a pragmatic persepctive.

Our democracies hinge on the quality of the national debate/conversation. The quality is degraded to breaking point when people have alternative facts, there's no chance of resolving two arguements based on alternative facts.

Pre-'the internet' our facts were in a sense curated, because all media outlets (TV news / News papers) were responsible and liable for what they said. This meant that a fact was something that could be proven legally.

Obviously that wasn't a perfect situation, certainly not in a philosophical sense but it was a much higher bar than that set in online communities these days.

The legal and political instutions which set and applied liaible law were trusted. In Britain they've guided the national conversation for nearly 200 years in close to their current form. In which time living standards and freedoms have been protected and enhanced (compared to themselves in the 1820's).

I fear for next 200 years if the current alternative fact blizzard of whitlessness is allowed to continue unabated

Just an observation.

I've read up a little on Platonism before so I understand where you're coming from.

To me it's more language, so you know where I'm going: black hooole...ahhh!

If you don't want to be in a black hole, avoid readings on Cantor and Gödel since you've gotten a bit into Wittgenstein already (but that probably peaked your curiosity, huh? I'm sorry).

You've been warned!! But if you do go in and come out, please let me know, and probably the world too. Humanity needs to push it's boundaries without going insane.

Edit: Schopenhauer might be the cure though, just in case.

There would be no one to observe pi. There would be no differentiation between any concepts at all, there wouldn’t be concepts. You need an observer for things to be observed.

Then you need to take an official logic course or buy a book on it.

If the universe collapsed in on itself and was reborn in a new big bang which resulted in a universe with laws of physics completely different than they are in ours.. the value of π would still be the same. Even there’s no intelligent agent that ever calculates it

If humans didn’t exist, would gravity exist? Of course. If another species came along would they conceptualise gravity how we have? Unknown. It’s the same with maths. We have our ways of looking at the world, and decide how we are going to look at numbers (like what base we use), but this sadly kinda goes back to the whole “if a tree falls” side of things.

What use does maths have if there is no-one to observe the maths, to discover it? What use does gravity have if the universe became lifeless? It would be, but it would also be meaningless.

How we perceive maths, how we perceive gravity, the effects it has on us, is useful.

The concepts of maths only exist because we exist. Would the forces of the universe react differently if we didn’t exist? Probably not (in before quantum physics I don’t understand), but there wouldn’t be any concepts. There wouldn’t be any sense of a difference between a rock, a planet, gravity, light, colour, sound.

I don’t hate the idea of thinking of God as being one and the same as Math. Kind of elegant really

Math doesn’t exist in the same way as anything else exist

Here, this can probably explain what I mean way smarter than I can:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/#ObjMatPla

To me, that's conceptually equivalent to the understanding that God doesn't need us (the conceptual/philosophical God. Not the religious one).

Without proof or evidence of Mathematics, can we really call it Truth? I think we can really only call it reliable then make the assertion that this reliability is evidence of Math's existence (in the Math-Realist way) but then I can't help but think this is a philosophical claim and that's Truth.

The closest I feel like we could get to Truth (without going philosophical, if that's even possible) is evidence. To me that's more true than Math as Math is used as evidence for factual claims (Like Algebra and Calculus is a subset of Math, Math is a subset of evidence) but then we run into "Facts", so it's not reliable anymore.

...stupid black hole keeps spinning me right round.

Sure thing.

They should also recognise that it's failings were largely due to it being oversubscribed. No service can work efficiently when overwhelmed.

The difference is that philosophy only exists because humans exists. Math doesn’t need us

Language is tricky, yeah. It’s how we think so how can we think about language objectively

I don’t know.

But if you need something to ground yourself, consider that the only way we’re able to have this conversation with each other right now is because mathematical truth is so rigid and unambiguous that we are able to build computers. Just by alternating high and low voltages in a circuit. 0’s and 1’s

>The Guardian also has a bit of a reputation for transphobia

You know what, the word "transphobia" has completely loss all meaning with the way it's just basely thrown about.

It's like the boy who called wolf.

You just activated my trap card!

Then Philosophy is Truth. Not Mathematics.

I mean, Math-Realist would agree with you in a Platonists kind of way, but then we're using Philosophy to justify Mathematics and that's Truth (or at least a subset of Truth).

But now I'm being sucked into the blackhole where Philosophy and Mathematics are within language (because I'm not Math-Realist), so Language is Truth, but that doesn't feel grammatically right.

This is why I love/hate Wittgenstein. It's kinda liberating to concentrate on the language games and place conversations like these as misunderstandings, but at the same time it leaves me without something to ground myself to and I just have to go about my day.

Interesting take, although i would say this applies more to the soft sciences than hard sciences. Hard science can use instruments that meassure generally on a materialist basis while social sciences put out logical systems of ideas based on social phenomena; meaning that innovation from a capitalist view in relation to a wellbeing and health from a socialist point of view is a matter of prioritization in the tribe u belong to - and therefor u trust a political "fact" based on the tribe (or blockchain) u belong to.

[removed]

>Odd. I provided a direct link to the actual report, yet you seem to be quoting from a BBC news piece here...and after I named how suspicious it was the Zizek did the very same.

If the article is quoting directly from the person who wrote the report or from the report itself I don't see the issue.

Anyway here is a similar quote directly from the report you linked.

​

>Primary and secondary care staff
>
>have told us that they feel under pressure
>
>to adopt an unquestioning affirmative
>
>approach and that this is at odds with the
>
>standard process of clinical assessment
>
>and diagnosis that they have been trained
>
>to undertake in all other clinical encounters
>
>https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/

​

>I'd encourage everyone to read the report for themselves.

Sure, if people believe the BBC is lying they can also do something similar and look up those points from the report itself.

Edit: The interim report clearly mentions failings. Anyone who actually reads it should be in no doubt that Tavistock was shut down partially for it's failings rather than solely because it was oversubscribed.

All of those are only ways we’ve come up with to help better describe abstract mathematical concepts.

But if I’m picking one - well, if there’s any book that talks about truth more than my Discreet Mathematics textbook from college ..well I can’t imagine it lol, literally describing truth with spreadsheets

edit: I just noticed that truth tables were invented by Wittgenstein lol. I never even heard of him until this blog post

That begs the question: which mathematics are you referring to? Algebra? Calculus? Base10?

Mathematics isn't Truth at the highest levels (the fundamental levels?) but it's definitely reliable! Then again if we don't need proof for Truth then you're right, but that feels weird to say.

There is one language we speak that we know for a certainty describes Truth accurately and unadulterated: that’s mathematics

Even an all-powerful God wouldn’t have the power to make math untrue

As with the other person who commented, I find it a little odd that you would choose to reference a mainstream media piece rather than the actual report - that I shared a direct link to...

The Guardian also has a bit of a reputation for transphobia and Dr Bell is a dubious source, as he employs a psychoanalytic viewpoint - which is quite, to put it mildly, out of date.

As with my other response, I encourage everyone to read the actual report.

Odd. I provided a direct link to the actual report, yet you seem to be quoting from a BBC news piece here...and after I named how suspicious it was the Zizek did the very same.

The actual report spells out the concerns re: how overwhelmed the service was, how frustrated many young people accessing the service were with this and how certain professionals within the service felt their voices weren't being heard. It's clear that the first of these is the most important in the service not being able to meet demand and expectation.

I'd encourage everyone to read the report for themselves.

fucking libs