The Objectivity of Structure Outside our Concepts

The world outside our mind is actually glued together; relations are mind-independent; and patterns are objectively real.
Article here: stevepatterson...

[@quigleyfox]

Legend is back

[@tako6396]

King Patterson 6'4 karate truth welding crusader. All he's missing is a son and church.

[@nikbl4k]

I show ur videos to everyone, as you use great descriptive language, and have good ideas. You also have an interesting speaking voice that emphasizes certain sounds in a unique way; Like, you put an elegant twang to specific words, but not in a rigid way, more so, its like a flowy language of your own.... *(e.g. i think you pronounced difficulty, like "divviculty" once)* -hmm I'm like, "hmm, interesting i might have to borrow that" ...stuff like that.

[@ryam4632]

Platonism will assert that the structure of the ship is not only mind-independent, but is also ship-independent, that a disembodied shipness exists above and beyond the structure instantiated by the actual ship. It is a fanciful and untenable position that actually weakens the case for the objectivity of concepts.

[@AntimaterieGame]

What is an "abstract concept in the world" supposed to be? Abstraction is a process done by the mind to reduce complexity. Without a mind to determine what is a useful object there is no way to draw a boundary in a cloud of atoms. I think you are trying to use the fact that some atoms bond to each other more than others to construct a concept of objects. This doesn't work: What about a barnacle stuck to the hull, is it part of the ship? Which atoms belong to it and which to the ship?

[@GeorgWilde]

But this pattern you talk about doesn't solve the problem of which is the original ship. The one which is outcome of replacing old pieces one by one for new pieces, or the assembled from all the old pieces? I think we are left open with the subjective conceptualization still. You either go for continuity - that is the changing one piece for new is doesn't change whether it is the same ship and the ship continuously exist in time and space. Or you go for "the original material and shape = the original ship" - which violates continuity of objects existence in time and shape, but permits your ship to get broken and then fixed agian. The "form" of the ship isn't really at all emobied in on or other ship or it's "arrangement". It's embodied in the process of producing a copy of the ship. So it actually is embodied in this thought experiment too. You either have a ship which you are able to copy or you have plants to build entirely new one.

[@leafpoptb]

I like how you lay out each perspective for us, and I can see the value in each of these. However, in my view, all 3 are incomplete. I believe a much more logically sound model assumes that there are actually no discrete objects whatsoever. Even atoms and subatomic particles are merely concepts. In actuality, an electron does not exist, it is a collection of probabilities. But nowhere in the universe is the probability ever zero, so nowhere in the universe is outside any given electron. This is true for all subatomic particles. Therefor, if there is no outside, then there is no inside. All matter is all of the universe, and vice versa. Nothing is separate.

[@Self-Duality]

What you're describing is a convergent generalization of the properties of "discreteness" and "continuity" such that the (unitary) universe is capable internally infinitary (i.e., dynamically unbounded) substitutions. The logical distinction between discrete objects and continuous functions converges on the (self)-duality between unitarity and infinitarity.

[@tomsh1398]

Talk to Donald Hoffman at the soonest possible date Steve! The world demands it 🍿

[@kwsmith2]

Whats made it really difficult for me to avoid some type of Platonic reality is autocatalytic networks. Here we have life like sustaining reaction but not because there is a living being but because the relationship between these various distinct catalysts is such that the entire network grows reproduces itself. It's hard not to believe that it is the structure or the form that is doing the work here. Especially since catalysts can not only be swapped atom for atom, but even the spefic atomic components in each catalyst can be altered so long as the core relationship amongst the catalysts remains.

[@real_pattern]

when that sweet sweet r e a l p a t t e r n s structural realism hits, ahh.. dennett & ladyman smile.

[@dougmathews609]

But are patterns (and atoms/fields/simples or whatever) not just conceptualizations too? The pattern literally disappears when theres nobody around to generate it in the mind. Either there are no really, real patterns.... or there is every possible pattern which invokes infinity.

[@drednaught608]

Patterns are only made knowable by their expression, but the pattern itself is always invisible. The world manifests material phenomena according to those patterns but that doesn't mean that the patterns don't exist before you perceive the world. (even if the material expression may not exist before perception) The patterns are not what disappears since they are always invisible, but the expressions of those patterns do.

[@ColeB-jy3mh]

Could you do a video on the existences of the immaterial?

[@tako6396]

He already has videos/podcasts on that subject

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

This is WAY off - though, I’m open to hearing otherwise, and would love to talk to you about these ideas (I’ve been watching your videos and have much respect for you :) )

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

I’ll read that article you referenced. Care to discuss video FaceTime for a few mins to see if you’d be interested in a full interview?

[@PhysicsWithoutMagic]

Also, I’ve got a project (money making and educational) that you might be a good collaborator for

[@theflamingsword]

We will make a set theorist of you yet.

[@UmaROMC]

Why would you use the word platonism for realism? Plato, as I understand it, was a IDEALIST, with his idead of pure forms and all that. Also he was an authoritarian wannabe ruler, like many modern folk of his ilk. I understand your point for realism, but I will resist using the name of Plato as anything but an insult