Guest Denies Math

Added: 2026-05-09

[00:00:08]possible world where there's only one thing. Well, I mean, it's kind of hard to say yes. You know, like it I Well, I could argue yes or no.

[00:00:20]Like for example, before the like the naked universe before uh inflation or whatever, maybe just like a singular thing or like some some uh physicists say the wave function is actually the only thing that really exists. Everything else is just a whatever like they take a nominalist approach to it or whatever. Um but at the same time for me I think well if that if that singular existing thing has properties then I mean saying properties exist is is doesn't actually really work with my worldview all that much. But in order for there to just be one thing and one thing only I kind of feel like well is it allowed to have properties?

[00:01:08]because if it does have properties then that would necessitate that that thing has multiple characteristics. So even though it's the like could I just say the universe is the only thing that exists and now I've satisfied that.

[00:01:25]Well, I think Well, it just depends what you mean because I think the universe is just like the set of existing things, right? So, if if by the universe you mean like the one thing that exists and Sure.

[00:01:36]>> Yeah. But I don't I don't know how you could possibly boil it down to, well, if I removed all of the kitty cats from the universe, the universe still exists, and now I'm going to eliminate all the planets, and now I'm going to eliminate all the hydrogen, and now I'm going to eliminate all the space, and now I'm going It's like, wait, wait. So, there's actually a point where we can keep doing this until we only have one thing and one thing only. That doesn't really make any sense to me.

[00:02:03]>> Do you at least think it's logically possible?

[00:02:08]Um, in a way, no. And I don't have a I don't have a super great way of articulating this because I just think it would kind of be incoherent because what's really funny about this is I actually got down this pathway through somebody that runs this tag argument in a in a very stupid way. So, like he argues there's no such thing as a true tornado.

[00:02:34]Um, and >> confused >> like obviously like objects don't have like truth predicates. It's only like >> exactly.

[00:02:43]Yeah, it it kind of it's kind of convoluted like you have to eventually get there. But what you just said is is the case. So like I can agree that there's no such thing really as a true tornado because an object has to have a predicate in order to have a truth value. But if you're going to argue that um there has to be like God's mind has to be the eternally existing thing or whatever, that can't ground truth because there's no such thing as a true God's mind either. Um and existence isn't a predicate. So it comes with no um epistemic value or anything. So it just kind of become starts to all just be totally meaningless to me.

[00:03:24]Uh, do you think quirks are do you think quirks have properties?

[00:03:29]>> Well, if they're fundament Well, yeah, they do. They have spin. Um, so yeah, they're fundamental, but they differ from each other. So, yeah, that we we do know that quirks have spin >> or properties.

[00:03:41]>> Like you unironically mean like spin like spin in a circle or something else.

[00:03:44]>> I don't actually know what particle physicists mean by spin. There are I've watched YouTube videos by by scientists before that explain it and it all went in one hole and then violently out the other. So, but >> okay.

[00:04:01]>> But I do know that spin is a property that quirks have.

[00:04:06]>> Okay. I mean we wait >> they have mass too. So >> all right. Yeah. But we just do like this approach. But so I think the issue with correspondence theory is just either a you have to be committed to like three horns. It's either um mathematical realism which is obviously false. Uh like mathematical nihilism as in like all mathematical statements are false which is obviously false or you just have to think math is something like super trivial. Not going to explain further if you want.

[00:04:35]>> Yeah. I don't know what you mean by that. I mean I I think math is real in the sense that things have mathematical properties but we math is something we formalized it's invented but things really do have mathematical properties but does that mean that math has an onlogical status? No. So like I I a good analogy I use for this is temperature.

[00:04:57]Like if if I have a container and it's got like gas in it or whatever it has a temperature, right? But if I remove all the particles, the temperature there is no temperature anymore. So temperature is a real thing that we describe. It's like a property, but it doesn't have its own like onlogical status or whatever.

[00:05:20]>> So do you think when you say like mathematical property, do you think temperature is a mathematical property or no?

[00:05:26]>> No. temperature is I mean it can be quantified mathematically but it's really just uh energy.

[00:05:35]>> So yes I think the issue just when we say like 1 plus 1 equals 2 is true. Well it seems that there's not actually these like robust objects like one or two like we would obviously have like queerness issues with that right. So it just seems correspondency just can't account for mathematical statements.

[00:05:52]Uh, well, I mean, I'm not going to like really argue because this isn't like something that I do. I've read zero philosophy books. But if I say that it it is true that if you have a quantity of one thing and a quantity of one thing, you have a quantity of two things. And math is just how we formalize that. Um, how is that not I mean, >> yeah. So, so I I don't think like oneness or twess is like a real feature of these objects. Like if I have like one rock, well, one isn't like a real property of this rock. So, you're still not really describing anything to the rock.

[00:06:35]Um, yeah. I mean, the rock exists, therefore there's one rock. But if there's two rocks, how do you how like how are you supposed to understand how many like it's it's so hard to do this without just being circular and just talking about math. But how am I supposed to understand how many rocks I have without formalizing it with numbers?

[00:06:58]>> No, no, no one's denying you can formalize it. We just want to say like um the properties of a rock or like being hard or being made of like mineral X and mineral Y, but like one isn't like a real feature of this rock. So it's obviously just like how we want to describe it, right? So it's like a useful.

[00:07:14]>> I mean, but isn't mass a property of rocks?

[00:07:19]>> It depends what you mean by mass, I guess.

[00:07:22]>> Uh the resistance to like it it it's a way to quantify inertia. That's I think technically what mass is. But yeah, bigger rocks have more mass than others.

[00:07:34]But that's just obviously mathematical to me.

[00:07:41]>> Yeah, that that that would just mean like like genuine mass isn't like a real property. But we can also say there's more properties of rock A than rock B because rock A is like bigger overall.

[00:07:50]Like maybe it just weighs more or something.

[00:07:53]>> Yeah, I just I mean that just sounds like that just sounds like math to me or numbers to me. Again, I'm not saying now and now now I'm confused as to where we're at. I'm not saying that the numbers are real.

[00:08:04]That's the issue that >> but but there is a corres I think there is a correspondence here even even if I say that >> even if I'm not a mathematical platonist um I still feel like I can use numbers to correspond things to reality because I'm describing the things >> not a property that the like I don't think I don't think >> I don't know how to say this I don't think numerical exactly is a property that things have But like for a rock, I mean mass in order to describe that the property of its mass that's going to differ um in a mathematical sense between rocks. So I don't know. I I feel like I can correspond to that.

[00:08:48]>> No. So So no one no one's denying that like we can use math in a useful way.

[00:08:52]Like obviously it's like nearly indispensable for our best scientical theories. But since he said that numbers aren't real and then correspondence theory says like for any proposition P P is true if it like accurately describes the state of affairs and this state of affairs just like things that actually exist. Well, that would just mean it doesn't technically describe math cuz math doesn't exist. So you'd have to be committed to a V that 1 plus 1 equals 2 is false. Yeah, >> I just Yeah, I don't I don't feel that way because words don't exist either. We we we make up all which means which means logic is absolutely done because logic is >> mean by words.

[00:09:33]>> If by words you mean the sound waves that exists technically but if if by words you mean in the abstract sense then yeah that doesn't exist.

[00:09:40]>> Well now logic is cooked.

[00:09:42]>> No. Well obviously logic >> because P because P doesn't exist. Like if you like if you take your syllogism P what is P? P is that which is stored in the balls. Uh therefore Q or whatever.

[00:09:54]Um but but if numbers but if numbers don't exist then words certainly don't exist. But if we're going to say that therefore uh mathematical statements aren't true then logical statements aren't true either.

[00:10:07]>> No no that's only true under I'm not a correspond I can account for those but I'm just saying if your correspondence serious you can't. That's >> Oh, so it's not a problem for you. It's a problem for me.

[00:10:17]>> I'm just saying if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

[00:10:22]You can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. The Big Bang violates the second law of thermodynamics.

[00:10:27]>> Everything that's created requires a creator. Show me curvature. There are no missing links. Evolution has never been observed. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[00:10:39]Heat.

[00:10:52]Heat.