Mindscape 178 | Jody Azzouni on What Is and Isn't Real
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 01. 2022
- Patreon: / seanmcarroll
Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
Are numbers real? What does that even mean? You can’t kick a number. But you can talk about numbers in useful ways, and we use numbers to talk about the real world. There’s surely a kind of reality there. On the other hand, Luke Skywalker isn’t a real person, but we talk about him all the time. Maybe we can talk about unreal things in useful ways. Jody Azzouni is one of the leading contemporary advocates of nominalism, the view that abstract objects are not “things,” they are merely labels we use in talking about things. A deeply philosophical issue, but one that has implications for how we think about physics and the laws of nature.
Jody Azzouni received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the City University of New York. He is currently a professor of philosophy at Tufts University. In addition to his philosophical work, he is an active writer of fiction and poetry.
Mindscape Podcast playlist: • Mindscape Podcast
Sean Carroll channel: / seancarroll
#podcast #ideas #science #philosophy #culture - Věda a technologie
I feel like this was an hour and 15 minutes of arguing about definitions of words.
Welcome to philosophy!
Amazingly talented interviewer. You would never guess it's not his day job!
Interviewing all of reality itself is his job. This is the part of it he shares most publicly.
16:00 Sean nails it with "levels of existence".
I'm very grateful for Sean Carroll and his clarity of thought.
Just as I was beginning to feel a part of the community... 35:05
This really hurts man.
Now I'm going deeper into the woods. Don't try to find me.
Imagine trying to win an argument with Jody Azzouni. Would he say my position was a construct? We my never know since arguments aren't real.(I think)
This was great!! Thank you
18:00 you can't avoid the issue by saying that this is a "linguistic issue". If your theory is supposed to account for reality, it needs to explain why our language has these structures in the first place
Thanks Carroll
Just totally really unreal. I really, really mean it.
I wish I was this educated
Lacan: ‘Mirror Stage’
very enjoyable
If a tree falls and there is no ear to hear, does it make a noise?
Summary: It's turtles all the way up! ... Unexpectedly, one of my favorite interviews.
If you believe A, you respond differently than if you believe B. That means that what you believe has influence on your response, which has influence in the material causal chain, and thus exists as such. But then you indeed have the problem that, since you can imagine anything, anything exists. Good point.
I don't know if this guy got better later? "You know?" "Right?" "You know?" "You know," is not a good argument point.
I smell circularity…
I wish they would define their terms before getting into a discussion about what is or is not real, what does or does not exist.
It seems like the whole discussion is about defining what “real” (or “exist”) means. If it were easy to define, there would be no reason to spend an hour talking about it.
Physicists better take philosophy more seriously, at least it's get more fun talking to physicists
What do you mean? Why do you think it's important to take philosophy serious? Also which is more fun to talk to physicist or philosophers , I would have thought philosophers would actually be more interesting but physicists would be more pragmatic
@@origins7298 both have a role. For example, Popper may have had one of the largest influence on modern scientific investigation, but that contribution was philosophical.
Just don't confuse the two, thats where we end up with conspiracy theories. Philosophy doesn't tell us what is real, but it does give us best practices in managing abstractions. (Hard) science gives us information about what is real, but not the abstraction of what those discoveries mean.
So in that way, we can think of science as limiting philosophy, and philosophy expands possibilities for science to investigate.
We need both.
existence is a continuum from the concrete to the abstract as described through the filter of the language we use that "exists" at any given time. Languages evolve over time. Think modern english vs middle english vs German vs Sanskrit. I doubt we could the reality of life with Sumerians from 5000 years ago.
Certain questions are so fundamental to reasoning that assumptions have to be taken on to make any progress. In this sense certain concepts have the philosophical high ground, such as skepticism and solipsism. We don’t accept those concepts because it cuts off the dialogue before it gets interesting; if we re assume they’re not right, then we get to do science and philosophy. It seems reasonable to reject the “brain in a vat” problem but we can’t really “prove” it. The same is true for the concept “real in the world”.
Skepticism is the foundation of modern science, we don't reject it at all. What?
@@matthewfyson3695 I’m referring to Hard Skepticism which denies reality can be known to exist. This is distinct from being generally skeptical about particular claims and requiring evidence. Hard Skepticism is explicitly rejected when engaging the project of determining what reality is as it is assumed to be there.
@@matthewfyson3695 czcams.com/video/clHN2ZBkGJI/video.html as an example
One underlying assumption here, which is not discussed, is if we even possess the ability to discern what's real. And like others have said, what do we mean by that word, do we mean (to use Seans favorite character) are we seeing what Maxwell's demon would see? Do we mean an objective reality in which there is no other way for it to be viewed? It seems it depends on where you draw your line in the sand. It seems like to me, that the question is a black hole for the intellect.
In the immortal words of Patsy the squire, "It's only a model." Never not relevant.
That’s what makes the navel gazing fun…it’s an insatiable diversion
Speed might not be real but the ticket a real cop could give you for exceeding its limit in a vehicle on the road would be, even though the money you’d need to pay for said ticket isn’t. Easy.
Did anyone else picture Ned Ryerson speaking?
Excellent podcast. First the word "exist" is used in many different ways. So it depends on which definition is used.
Equilateral Triangle*s* (plural) are instances of notion of Equilateral Triangle (class). Similarly the concept of count of 1 (without any units) is a class and this use "1 apple" is an instance of that concept. I think this kind of distinction is important in these kinds of discussions. This also is important in the discussion about weather math is invented or discovered. IMO (concepts in) Maths are discovered. In other words the fact of e^pi*i + 1 = 0 existed before it passed thru a sentient entity's thought process. Euler arrived at it (discovered it) by thinking about it over time. If it is thought to be invented and noting that a *thought* is not a instantaneous process - at what instant it became invented?
I think humanity needs to stop being sollipsistic and give too much centrality to itself and it's consciousness.
The limit is not the eNd, the Dformation of the finitely Real doesn't make false the eternal isomorphic monoidal structure of d5, nore does it ignore the infinity entered into by d6. I have finite faith that A (body) E (emotional) O (earth) U (mind) are Propositionally real . I have Eternal Trust that I (Spirit) is Propositionally real and that H enters into an infinity beyond S (Self) that is propositionally real but not fully determinable and only partly rastionalisable .
•X h(s i R(AE)I(OU)r i S)H Y•
@@_ARCATEC_ Sorry, did not understand anything.
I agree with your general sentiment but I think he would have actually done well to consider consciousness more centrally actually. I think his biggest mistake is this; he creates a separation between what is real and unreal without realizing the full implications of doing so.
You can say these things are real and those things aren't, they are abstractions, and that's fine as far as it goes but there's one thing that *must* be real in order for you to do this and that is abstraction itself. It's one thing to say that Sherlock Holmes isn't real, that countries aren't real, that human ideas aren't real, but if you are going to deny reality to the very process by which those concepts were ever generated and say that's OK because semantics, it's actually you who are making the clear semantic mistake.
Human minds exist, they are doing something objectively "real" for us to even have discussions on these subjects. Cognitive science has come far enough that it pretty clear the brain is a Turing machine of some sort. The abstract ideas our brains are coming up with are generated by a *real* physical process built into the possibility of reality that we evolved to make use of because it helps us survive and reproduce. It is *necessarily* predates us and is *not* a human invention.
Sure it is proper to draw a line between what our brains come up with and what is outside of it but no, not between what is real and the process which our brain is using to come up with the ideas, aka logical abstraction itself.
Basically the only way for this guy's perspective to make sense is to go full blown metaphysical dualist claiming human thoughts come from "elsewhere" and just need not be accounted for and I didn't get anything like that kind of vibe from him. His perspective insists the "hard" problem consciousness is both real and intractable pretty much.
Two nice persons 😉😁
Is it not strange that meaning is not extracted from language, but that language is extracted from meaning? The fact that we could argue the meaning of a word for hours, in my view illustrates this, before language there was still meaning present, the language being a tool of passing along that meaning. Perhaps this is obvious to others, I don't know, however a more interesting question is where does meaning come from? How can something such as meaning be inherent?
From intersubjectivity. Hence the Private Language argument
The meaning itself may be a mental construct or it could correspond to something “real”. This is the central question of epistemology. To assume a position is begging the question. I think we have to make some assumptions for practical reasons of getting on with life but can’t really “know” in the fundamental sense.
Im afraid nothing is real except consciousness.
what is or it real: this question in self very huge as far as I understand? and the explanation it's not very complicated in a simple way but?
The matrix has you
very insightful
If Bigfoot is not real and it has an effect on reality how do we deal with that? My child is afraid of Bigfoot and can't sleep meaning I am late etc? How do you deal with unreal having an effect on the real? Does unreal plus real equal or not equal real?
✨
Hercule Poirot and John Smith 😁
What is the difference between the Microsoft Corporation and the Tyrell Corporation? What is the difference between China and Gondor? The differences there sure feel like the differences between Sean Carroll and Sherlock Holmes.
While it does seem weird to say "China is 'sad'" when you know people in China who are not sad, is that really difference between saying "Sean Carroll" is said despite the sentence "Sean Carroll's foot is sad" feeling like a completely ridiculous thing to consider?
I feel like at the root of it the discussion of what is "real" and what "exists" have more to do with what definitions we, as English speakers, have decided to give to those words. And since language is arrived at from consensus, we may not all agree, and thus, in the end, these types of discussions are not really about "what is real" but rather "how should we as English speakers define the word 'real'".
In that sense, "exists" and "real" have less concrete meaning than some of these other concepts, like "Microsoft" and "China". "Real" and "Exists" are not real. The whole notion of "real" and "existence" are just human constructs we use to make sense of the world, and thus how we defined them is entirely a pragmatic question.
I'm not sure how you missed it but he does specifically address what you are saying. In fact it is the whole point of everything he is saying; to remove humans from the concept of what is real. If something's realness relies on humans thinking it is real rather than it just intrinsically being so then it isn't by his definition.
Personally I think he got a little hand wavy about why this doesn't just apply to arguably everything, especially when speaking to a "mad dog" Everettian wavefunction realist.
I like some of this. I have always respected the usefulness of mathematics but been suspicious of its realness.
What are these "blahs" they keep talking about??
So he is saying that reality is the universe. So Sherlock Holmes is as real as houses and tables and chairs.... They exist just as abstract objects invented by humans. Mathematical ideas are made up of physical traces that we decide have meaning. Sherlock Holmes exists as physical traces in the universe ( in brains and on paper) that we decide has meaning...
An idea, like micky mouse, is real in the same sense that any pattern such as a chair or table is real. That is to say, micky mouse is a pattern of neuronal activity that shows up in many peoples' brains, just like chairs are a pattern of molecules that show up in peoples' dining rooms.
No, a chair is actually also "a pattern of neuronal activity", it's just that it is one correlated with a collection of molecules outside of us that tend to be in people's dining rooms, while the other is an abstract fictional cartoon mouse without actual physicality, apart from merchandising and people in costumes at theme parks.
@@jyjjy7 while I agree, it can’t be simply asserted. There’s a deep epistemological issue to the Correspondence Theory, which is a base assumption for science. I rely on it but can’t prove we have access to some objective world “out there”.
@@chemquests Well, sure, this distinction only matters in so much as you afford some meaningful reality to human perception of collections of molecules like chairs and dining rooms.
@@jyjjy7 it’s a key distinction whether “real” is defined as “corresponding to something external to our minds”. If you take that definition, then neuronal network states aren’t external (I’m assuming here that mental states are reducible in this way, but being physical doesn’t change the issue of whether it represents something “real out there”).
@@chemquests I guess that might depend on what flavor of dualist you are actually
Try to use these fancy denials that a bank exists, next time the debt collector is at your door. Let us all know about how real or not the reaction of the debt collector is
Pretty sure 2020/2021 wasn't real
I did not pay too much attention to this one, but is he saying that what is real is just what is physically real? If that is the claim then it is just a waste of a concept, we already have a concept of material or physical for that... For me what is real are things that can interact with reality and describe it, like a chair, the stock market or quantum mechanics, it is a concept of reality that many people use and recognise, and for what I know that is how we attach meaning to concepts, the general use by the population over time...
Is economics a religion? Printing new money the loaves and fishes? Politics just different sects of the whole?
✌🏻
I see no reason to believe that a human being is any more real than the attitudes of china. Either they are both """real""" or neither are. I think he fails to analyze things he considers """real""" deeply enough, if one did, one would find that everything eventually fades away.
Is a wrist watch real (imagine I am pointing at one particular wrist watch, not the concept of wrist watches)? I dont see how you can consider a wrist watch to be more real than microsoft, for instance.
Then art isnt real. Dinner isnt real. When we create something it is real imo. Sherlock Holmes is real up to the points built around him. Just not a real human. I love this discussion. Its real.
It's real, but abstract. They only exist because humans exist. Art and dinner are in the same category as money, government, borders, corporations, relationships, math, etc.
@@ahad2k11 But we can take what we define as real and point out many reasons why it isnt. To the point of this all being a simulation. I just find trying to define what is real and what isnt as very subjective and not sure what the point is other than the obsession to have yes or no answers. Thank you for the reply
You could claim mathematical systems are incomplete, but you could also claim mathematics is TOO powerful (making itself incomplete).
There are fundamental particles and their inherent properties. That's it.
what about the relationship between those particles? is sugar real or just the more fundamental constituents? and what of emergent phenomenon which cannot be determined by its lower level makeup?
and finally, why are you so sure the causation flows from smaller components to larger objects? is it just as equally plausible that the higher level determines what its lower level make up is?
How can you be sure about that? I doubt even that Newton's 3rd law is written anywhere in the fundamental structure of the universe. It is a good formula for us though.
@@judgeomega The inherent properties interact with other particles' inherent properties and cause the emergence of other phenomena, like sugar.
@@sorinstroe6156 Higher level phenomena emerge from lower level interactions.
@@OBGynKenobi So... sounds like there's fundamental particles, their properties and now their relationships. Sure their isn't anything else you forgot?
Nominalism in regards to mathematics is an offense to reason.
I still don’t understand what Jody takes as real 🤔 Why is he privileging materialIty for example when he, correctly, didn’t want to privilege the smallest components of something being more real? Did anyone get what he is using to define something as real? To me all that can be talked about is real and it is a matter of talking about its ontic status. A fictional character is real and manifests through human consciousness and action (think Spider-Man in Comic-Con). Is it real like a chair? No, but it is real non the less.
I found that aspect unsatisfactorily vague but maybe I missed something. I wish examples like Bee Hives and Bird Flocks has been brought up or quantum measurement. It does feel to me that "realness" is a matter of degree.
Does Godzilla exist? Not physically, but the concept of Godzilla does. Same with words and numbers.
So there's domains of what "exists."
Humans have an incredible capacity for abstract inventions and relations. Mathematics is the ultimate realm of abstract invention that approaches existence in that the universe itself seems to obey mathematical laws when they are discovered to be correct via experiment.
We're talking about the human concept of existence.
Does Microsoft "exist" is dog world, or in insect world?
Real =Reality&Abstract ..Isn't Real = which we couldn't thought.
I would be really interested to have you discuss these with John Hawthorne, a philosopher of metaphysics.
it's a simple distinction between that which "exists" and that which "is real". Superman, harry potter, god, etc......exist, but are not real. The sun and the starts are real.
there's no way you watched the whole thing yet. It was uploaded 40 min ago and your comment is 20 min old. The video is 1h 15 min long.
@@Walter5850 no, didn't watch the whole video, my comment was more in response to the title.
I don't get why the pandemic is a downer, are you also claiming it's a downer than we need to eat or drink or that we die of old age?
Now someone choosing to shoot someone else or drive drunk and harm others that is a downer, but you can't "live" if you claim going to the toilet/pandemic/eating is a downer. If anything the way the pandemic medication was created, should mean we should be celebrating that our medical standard is at a level where we can enjoy living, something that would have been the black death in another time.
I get what you're throwing, but it's also a very new experience for today's humans and I don't think we've really been prepared for the information that pandemics are a part of all life on earth every so often
So baseball is not real but a chair is? Silly goose.
This comment is real
@@spindoctor6385 they do now
@@spindoctor6385 interesting - I gave myself a thumbs down - I guess CZcams doesn't let other people know what you think about yourself (I'm my own worse critic).
No - not for me - interesting - maybe only YT can see it?
@@spindoctor6385 so as not to hurt your feely weelings? personally I think a WTF?! button would be more useful
You are literally changing the real world when you put ink on paper. It is as easy as that. Even thoughts in the mind of the writer are physical effects leaving physical changes. Are statutes not real? They can be changed by any hand... What is the "true" statue? Just because abstract ideas are easier to change, there is memory, cultural references, that do present a physical process that keeps the abstract object true to its original "true" form... A house is just as made up as Sherlock Holmes... A house is no more real than Sherlock Holmes. A house exists no more or less than the idea of Sherlock Holmes...
This conversation feels very pedantic.
yaaaaaaaas the gays love Sean Carroll
His voice is unbearable and ear-piercing. I simply couldn't finish this episode because it felt like he was absolutely yelling in my ear the entire time.