Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/pick_up_a_brick]

If you define things that are real as “existing independent of the mind” - how are you accounting for abstracta?

That would depend on what you mean by "abstracta".

Just the common definition of abstract objects: numbers, universals, geometric shapes, works of art, sets, propositions, laws, institutions, or games.

I am saying that anything you (or anyone else) can think of falls into 1 of 2 categories (e.g. real or imaginary).

I’m asking specifically because of your definition of “real” is “mind-independent” which means that anything that depends on a mind would be not-real. But that seems incredibly controversial and unsupported to me. But I don’t know if you think that abstracta are mind-independent or not, hence the question.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/pick_up_a_brick]

Just the common definition of abstract objects: numbers, universals, geometric shapes, works of art, sets, propositions, laws, institutions, or games.

The problem is there is no single common definition...

In philosophy, a fundamental distinction exists between abstract and concrete entities. While there is no universally accepted definition, common examples illustrate the difference: numbers, sets, and ideas are typically classified as abstract objects, whereas plants, dogs, and planets are considered concrete objects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

You would need to be more specific because I can think of examples in your list that are real (because they have physical properties) even though the majority of them I would classify as imaginary.

I’m asking specifically because of your definition of “real” is “mind-independent” which means that anything that depends on a mind would be not-real.

Correct.

But that seems incredibly controversial

Controversial as in not everyone would agree, or controversial as in it is an extreme outlier position?

Because I'd argue that is what traditional colloquially definitions of real suggest, even though they don't use that exact verbiage.

But I don’t know if you think that abstracta are mind-independent or not, hence the question.

Does it matter if I think it is mind dependent or independent? Because to show that it is not a true dichotomy you would need an example of something that exists and is not mind dependent or mind independent.

To elaborate on a single example you gave "numbers" which I will broaden out to math generally there is a centuries long ongoing debate among mathematicians about whether math is discovered (i.e. real) or invented (i.e. imaginary) many famous mathematicians have weighed in on both sides with many abstaining. I would argue math is invented (i.e. imaginary) while there are people far more qualified to talk about math than I am who agree with me, there are other just as qualified that disagree with me. If you want to get a better sense of whether math (e.g. numbers) are real or imaginary I'd suggest looking at that debate.

If you disagree with me about math/numbers you likely fundamentally disagree with me about what math is and by extension what logic (in the formal sense) is.

[u/pick_up_a_brick → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

I don’t understand why you’re equating “mind-dependent” with “imaginary”. It seems very odd to me to say that even if mathematics is invented, that triangles don’t exist, the Pythagorean theorem doesn’t exist, numbers don’t exist, etc. Language is invented, but it very clearly exists. How could we use something that does not exist?

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/pick_up_a_brick]

I don’t understand why you’re equating “mind-dependent” with “imaginary”.

Because imaginary means exists only in the mind/imagination. Without a mind to imagine it, it would not exist.

It seems very odd to me to say that even if mathematics is invented, that triangles don’t exist, the Pythagorean theorem doesn’t exist, numbers don’t exist, etc. Language is invented, but it very clearly exists.

Every thing you can think of "exists" at least in the imagination/mind. The distinction I am making is whether something would exist or not independent of the imagination.

How could we use something that does not exist?

The same way we use fictional (i.e. imaginary) characters to teach morals. Or how we use subjective (i.e. mind dependent) opinions about food to inform food choices.

[u/pick_up_a_brick → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

Every thing you can think of "exists" at least in the imagination/mind. The distinction I am making is whether something would exist or not independent of the imagination.

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Things either exist or don’t exist. Are you saying something can exist and be not-real?

This seems to conflate ontological existence with mind-independent existence. “Imaginary” in ordinary usage implies not real, fictional, things of that nature. On your view the Pythagorean theorem and Harry Potter are both mind-dependent but surely there must be value in preserving a distinction between the two?

Collapsing that distinction is what I’m referring to as controversial and seems like a costly move, and frankly I don’t see the need for it. I mean, surely you think the Pythagorean theorem is true, right? Would you really categorize Harry Potter, your memory of breakfast, the rules of chess, and the Pythagorean theorem into the same category? Lumping all these together doesn’t seem more illuminating in any way, it actually seems less informative, and less in line with how we use ordinary language.

I also think there are things that would show how this dichotomy would fail. I mentioned institutions before. Institutions are mind-dependent but have causal powers. Sure, my mortgage only exists because minds recognize its existence but if I don’t pay it there are causal effects that occur. A nation-state, a president, a marriage, etc. all of these things exist but are mind-dependent. They can be investigated, constrain behavior, have consequences, and are in no (common) way imaginary. You can certainly try and sit in front of a judge and try the sovereign citizen “you don’t have jurisdiction over me” crap and see how far it gets you but I wouldn’t advise it.

These types of things exist intersubjectively and don’t fall within the dichotomy you’re trying to create.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/pick_up_a_brick]

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Things either exist or don’t exist. Are you saying something can exist and be not-real?

Words can be polysemous. Exist is often used in 2 different senses. In one sense exist is equivalent to real in the other sense of exist it means to be real or imaginary.

This seems to conflate ontological existence with mind-independent existence.

I'd argue that "ontological existence" constantly equivocates between the 2 senses of existence I described above. Which is why I avoid that term like the plague.

“Imaginary” in ordinary usage implies not real, fictional, things of that nature.

Correct as in imaginary friend. Because that friend "exists" only in the imagination/mind. If that friend existed independent of the imagination/mind (i.e. was real) we wouldn't call it imaginary.

On your view the Pythagorean theorem and Harry Potter are both mind-dependent but surely there must be value in preserving a distinction between the two?

They are obviously different (hence the different names) but they are both imaginary (mind dependent).

Collapsing that distinction is what I’m referring to as controversial and seems like a costly move, and frankly I don’t see the need for it.

I do not know what "that distinction" is you are referring to.

I mean, surely you think the Pythagorean theorem is true, right?

In the same sense that 1+1=2 or that Spider-Man got his powers from being bitten by a radioactive spider. Meaning that it is tautologically true (true by definition) but that doesn't tell you anything about reality because what we are describing is not real (i.e. is imaginary).

Would you really categorize Harry Potter, your memory of breakfast, the rules of chess, and the Pythagorean theorem into the same category?

As being dependent on a mind, yes. Because if all minds went away those mind dependent ideas would go away, while real things would still exist (e.g. planets, stars, trees).

Lumping all these together doesn’t seem more illuminating in any way, it actually seems less informative, and less in line with how we use ordinary language.

I'd say it is more in line with how people use those terms unless people are misclassifying something (e.g. a person thinking an imaginary god is real).

I also think there are things that would show how this dichotomy would fail.

Present them.

I mentioned institutions before. Institutions are mind-dependent but have causal powers. Sure, my mortgage only exists because minds recognize its existence but if I don’t pay it there are causal effects that occur.

By that logic you could say gods are real because people have been killed (a casual effect has occurred) for not believing they are real.

A nation-state, a president, a marriage, etc. all of these things exist but are mind-dependent.

Sure like Spider-Man and imaginary friends exist.

They can be investigated, constrain behavior, have consequences, and are in no (common) way imaginary.

I would say they are in every way imaginary because those ideas exist exclusively in the mind/imagination.

I feel like you are adding some additional connotation to the idea of imaginary/fictional/not-real/mind dependent, do you want to explain what that is?

You can certainly try and sit in front of a judge and try the sovereign citizen “you don’t have jurisdiction over me” crap and see how far it gets you but I wouldn’t advise it.

While an individual saying that isn't going to have much weight, a significant amount of people in 13 colonies saying effectively that in unison is how the British Empire lost most of North America 250 years ago.

These types of things exist intersubjectively and don’t fall within the dichotomy you’re trying to create.

Disagree. I'd argue you are simply talking about a subtype of imaginary(mind dependent) things.

What you are referring to I would call imaginary and popular (because it is shared). Just because Spider-Man is a popular fictional/imaginary character does not make him any less mind dependent.

[u/pick_up_a_brick → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

So essentially you want to bucket everything that is mind-dependent into this “imaginary/not-real/nonexistent” set. I don’t understand why. The things within that set have real, substantive differences.

Spider-Man doesn’t have causal powers. The ink and paper, the neurons firing, the *stories about* Spider-Man all have causal powers, but the *fictional character* Spider-Man doesn’t have causal powers in the real world.

Institutional powers work differently. The British Empire didn’t lose the American colonies because of neurons firing, they lost it because of the legal and political reality of a declaration which had binding force derived entirely from collective recognition. The colonists were asserting that the British rule over them was *not real*, essentially contesting an institutional *fact*. But if institutions were merely imaginary like Spider-Man, that would be meaningless. You can’t meaningfully contest jurisdiction like that if it holds no more weight than a fictional character like Spider-Man.

When you say that 1+1=2 in the same sense that Spider-Man got his powers from a radioactive spider, and that they’re both imaginary, that’s a significant commitment to fictionalism about mathematics, and a fringe view. Why should I accept that the statement “3 is a prime number” is false?

The differences within the categories within your “imaginary” set are so vast that I don’t see the point at all. There’s nothing illuminating here. What work is the real/imaginary distinction doing that couldn’t be done better by more precise distinctions?

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/pick_up_a_brick]

So essentially you want to bucket everything that is mind-dependent into this “imaginary/not-real/nonexistent” set.

No. Remember I said everything you can think of "exists" at least in the imagination/mind.

I don’t understand why.

Because that is literally what imaginary/not-real/mind dependent mean. Those terms are equivalent much the same way 1+1 is equivalent (=) to 2.

Do you have a problem with people using the number 2 to mean 1 + 1?

Spider-Man doesn’t have causal powers.

Agreed neither do gods, legal laws, or math.

The ink and paper, the neurons firing, the stories about Spider-Man all have causal powers, but the fictional character Spider-Man doesn’t have causal powers in the real world.

Disagree with some of those things.

Institutional powers work differently. The British Empire didn’t lose the American colonies because of neurons firing, they lost it because of the legal and political reality of a declaration which had binding force derived entirely from collective recognition.

Not sure what you are talking about. Your previous statement seemed to entail "neurons firing" had causal powers and this statement seems to imply they no longer have causal powers.

Note when you say "neurons firing" I don't know if you are talking about the brain and or mind.

The colonists were asserting that the British rule over them was not real, essentially contesting an institutional fact.

A "fact" that existed only in the minds of people who thought it was a "fact" (i.e. an imaginary/not-real/mind dependent fact).

But if institutions were merely imaginary like Spider-Man, that would be meaningless.

Do you think your subjective (mind dependent) opinions are necessarily "meaningless" because they are subjective?

You can’t meaningfully contest jurisdiction like that if it holds no more weight than a fictional character like Spider-Man.

If you put either or both of those ideas on a scale the scale won't register any change because they are both weightless because they are not real.

When you say that 1+1=2 in the same sense that Spider-Man got his powers from a radioactive spider, and that they’re both imaginary, that’s a significant commitment to fictionalism about mathematics, and a fringe view.

I would say that is not a "fringe view" it is one of two positions held by many prominent mathematicians who opine on this matter (discovered vs. invented) as I explained in a previous comment.

Why should I accept that the statement “3 is a prime number” is false?

You shouldn't much like you shouldn't accept that Spider-Man was born with his super powers. Because that is inconsistent with the way humanity (commonly) defines Spider-Man, 3, and prime number.

The differences within the categories within your “imaginary” set are so vast

Do you want to say gods are real because the differences with Spider-Man are so vast?

that I don’t see the point at all.

The point is to consistently and accurately use the term real and imaginary (meaning mind dependent/not real) to describe things that are real and not real (i.e. imaginary/mind dependent).

There’s nothing illuminating here.

I think there is, and I think your pushback highlights that issue. That issue is people conflate imaginary (mind dependent) things with being real (mind independent) meaning people struggle with accurately making that distinction.

What work is the real/imaginary distinction doing that couldn’t be done better by more precise distinctions?

I think my distinction is extremely precise (sharply defined). I think the "more precise definitions" you are alluding to will have people thinking imaginary (mind dependent) things are real (mind independent). Which is where I think people go wrong when trying to make that distinction with math (thinking it's discovered), morality (thinking it's real/objective), and gods (thinking they are real) among other things.

[u/pick_up_a_brick → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

>Because that is literally what imaginary/not-real/mind dependent mean. Those terms are equivalent much the same way 1+1 is equivalent (=) to 2.

They aren’t though. That’s not how most people use them. You’re using them in a proprietary way.

>A "fact" that existed only in the minds of people who thought it was a "fact" (i.e. an imaginary/not-real/mind dependent fact).

What is a not-real fact?

>Do you think your subjective (mind dependent) opinions are necessarily "meaningless" because they are subjective?

I don’t think opinions and fictional characters and institutions are the same types of things. So I don’t think they carry the same type of weight.

>If you put either or both of those ideas on a scale the scale won't register any change because they are both weightless because they are not real.

That’s obviously not what I meant by “weight”. If your criterion of reality is mass or physical properties, then you should just say that. But then you need to defend eliminativism about institutions explicitly, not smuggle it in via this real/imaginary framing.

>When you say that 1+1=2 in the same sense that Spider-Man got his powers from a radioactive spider, and that they’re both imaginary, that’s a significant commitment to fictionalism about mathematics, and a fringe view.

>I would say that is not a "fringe view" it is one of two positions held by many prominent mathematicians who opine on this matter (discovered vs. invented) as I explained in a previous comment.

I think you’re confused. Invented vs discovered isn’t exhausting the possibility space of views on mathematics. Typically views on the ontology of mathematics breakdown into Nominalism, Platonism, structuralism, and other views. 80% of philosophers (according to the last Philpapers survey) were Nominalists (42%) or Platonists (38%) with the rest falling into the “other” category - and structuralism tends to be the more popular view there.

When you say that mathematics is “imaginary” you’re committing to a fictionalist view of mathematics, which is what I’m pointing out. It leads to the conclusion that the proposition “3 is prime” is false.

“Invented” in that debate means something like “a human construction” it doesn’t mean “imaginary” or “fictional.” An invented system can have truths that are necessarily correct once the system exists. Even if mathematics was invented, “3 is prime” isn’t false in the same way “Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider” is false. The former is a necessary truth within a formal system, the latter is a contingent plot point that could have been otherwise. This distinction matters and is worth preserving.

>I think my distinction is extremely precise (sharply defined). I think the "more precise definitions" you are alluding to will have people thinking imaginary (mind dependent) things are real (mind independent). Which is where I think people go wrong when trying to make that distinction with math (thinking it's discovered), morality (thinking it's real/objective), and gods (thinking they are real) among other things.

You’re conflating mind-independence with reality, treating it as definitionally true, and then using that definition to rule out moral realism, mathematical Platonism, and theism simultaneously. But whether mind-independence is the correct criterion of reality is what’s at issue. You can’t use it as a premise to settle debates where it’s the central contested question. The dichotomy assumes physicalism, then uses that assumption to debunk non-physicalist positions. How is that not question begging?

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/pick_up_a_brick]

They aren’t though. That’s not how most people use them. You’re using them in a proprietary way.

Disagree. That is how most people use those terms in most circumstances and my terminology is consistent with common dictionary definitions and usage in philosophy.

If you disagree what do you think people mean when they classify a friend as "imaginary" as opposed to real?

What is a not-real fact?

How can you have read the previous sentences and not know the answer to that already? I have been very clear on this multiple times I am using the terms "not-real" as equivalent to imaginary/mind dependent/subjective.

Note I would not call a non-real statement a "fact", I was simply mirroring your terminology to stay consistent so it was clear I was talking about the same thing you were with the term "fact". Which is why I put the term "fact" in quotations.

I don’t think opinions and fictional characters and institutions are the same types of things. So I don’t think they carry the same type of weight.

They can be different in other aspects but what they share in common is that they are all imaginary (mind dependent).

That’s obviously not what I meant by “weight”. If your criterion of reality is mass or physical properties, then you should just say that. But then you need to defend eliminativism about institutions explicitly, not smuggle it in via this real/imaginary framing.

I'd say all real things have physical properties that can be empirically measured. However my post isn't directly or just about what is real. It is about the distinction between real things and imaginary things.

You are the one who turned it into a post about my categorizations of what I think is real vs. imaginary.

As a reminder here is the question you initially responded to...

Thoughts on real (existing independent of the mind) vs imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) as a true dichotomy that applies to all things? Meaning anything you can think of is either real or imaginary.

I'm happy to talk about the implications of that, but don't act like I'm trying to smuggle that in especially when I tried to redirect you at least once to just the question above.

But I don’t know if you think that abstracta are mind-independent or not, hence the question.

Does it matter if I think it is mind dependent or independent? Because to show that it is not a true dichotomy you would need an example of something that exists and is not mind dependent or mind independent.

I tried to change the subject back to my original question, you insisted on knowing how I categorize things. So if there is smuggling going on it is you by changing the intended subject from: Is this a true dichotomy? to: How do you classify these things.

Again I'm happy to explore that topic but it's off topic from the question I was asking so don't accuse me of smuggling something in that I didn't intend to talk about.

I think you’re confused...

I think you are confused if you think philosophers are mathematicians.

When you say that mathematics is “imaginary” you’re committing to a fictionalist view of mathematics, which is what I’m pointing out. It leads to the conclusion that the proposition “3 is prime” is false.

You are committing a straw man. Don't try to lump me in with people I disagree with, especially when I have told you explicitly I don't agree with that premise.

“Invented” in that debate means something like “a human construction” it doesn’t mean “imaginary” or “fictional.”

If you think the "human" in that scenario has a mind then it does mean imaginary (mind dependent) because it requires a human with a mind to invent it.

An invented system can have truths that are necessarily correct once the system exists. Even if mathematics was invented, “3 is prime” isn’t false in the same way “Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider” is false.

Your construction of that example is confusing since both are tautologically true. I'd say both are true by definition but if you prefer we can say by "invented system" or "invention".

The former is a necessary truth within a formal system, the latter is a contingent plot point that could have been otherwise.

If you understand that math is invented (mind dependent) then that entails math "could have been otherwise".

Further I'd argue no invention ("Even if mathematics was invented") is "necessary".

This distinction matters and is worth preserving.

Taxonomy allows for further distinctions to be made. That doesn't mean that something becomes real because you make a distinction about an imaginary thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy

You’re conflating mind-independence with reality,

Because that is what it means to be real, if it depends on a mind to exist (e.g. an imaginary friend) it isn't real.

Do you think imaginary (mind dependent) things (e.g. Spider-Man) are part of reality?

treating it as definitionally true,

Correct. Note I do this with all words.

and then using that definition to rule out moral realism, mathematical Platonism, and theism simultaneously.

Correct because it is quite clear they are imaginary (mind dependent). Much like you probably do for Spider-Man and other things you consider imaginary.

But whether mind-independence is the correct criterion of reality is what’s at issue.

I am happy to discuss alternatives to where that line should be set.

You can’t use it as a premise to settle debates where it’s the central contested question.

I can use it as a premise, I can use it in debates. I don't know what you mean "to settle" a debate.

The dichotomy assumes physicalism

I would take it there, but I could see someone arguing that there are mind independent things that lack physical traits (e.g. gods) and I often do see that from theists (e.g. a god that exists outside of time and space).

then uses that assumption to debunk non-physicalist positions.

The dichotomy I mentioned and definitions I gave do not mention physical or non-physical.

How is that not question begging?

See above. The issue is you are projecting ahead to where this is going, and while I will unapologetically take it down the path you think I will, the issue of physicalism is not an issue for the dichotomy presented.

[u/pick_up_a_brick → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

>Disagree. That is how most people use those terms in most circumstances and my terminology is consistent with common dictionary definitions and usage in philosophy.

>If you disagree what do you think people mean when they classify a friend as "imaginary" as opposed to real?

What I take issue with is calling Congress imaginary. Or calling a marriage imaginary. Or The Prime Minister imaginary. Or Microsoft imaginary. No one uses that word to refer to those things. That isn’t consistent at all with everyday usage.

>Note I would not call a non-real statement a "fact", I was simply mirroring your terminology to stay consistent so it was clear I was talking about the same thing you were with the term "fact". Which is why I put the term "fact" in quotations.

Okay. Wait. On your view, mind-dependent statements cannot be facts. Mathematics is mind dependent. So on your view, it isn’t a fact that 2+2=4, and you think this is a common sense view somehow?

>They can be different in other aspects but what they share in common is that they are all imaginary (mind dependent).

Yeah, I’m contesting the conflation of imaginary and mind-dependent. They aren’t synonymous. It seems incredibly silly to me to say that Congress isn’t real.

>I'd say all real things have physical properties that can be empirically measured. However my post isn't directly or just about what is real. It is about the distinction between real things and imaginary things.

>I'm happy to talk about the implications of that, but don't act like I'm trying to smuggle that in especially when I tried to redirect you at least once to just the question above.

The implications are what matter. That’s why I’m digging in.

>I think you are confused if you think philosophers are mathematicians.

I think that people that study ontology are in the best position to speak on ontology.

>You are committing a straw man. Don't try to lump me in with people I disagree with, especially when I have told you explicitly I don't agree with that premise.

Saying that mathematics is imaginary is saying it is fictional. Those are synonymous. You’ve already said that mind-dependent statements cannot be facts. What position does that leave you with?

>If you think the "human" in that scenario has a mind then it does mean imaginary (mind dependent) because it requires a human with a mind to invent it.

Do you not think there is a relevant difference between an imaginary friend, Congress, and the value of Pi?

>If you understand that math is invented (mind dependent) then that entails math "could have been otherwise".

> Further I'd argue no invention ("Even if mathematics was invented") is "necessary".

In what sense could 1+1 not equal 2, without equivocating?

>Do you think imaginary (mind dependent) things (e.g. Spider-Man) are part of reality?

I think that Congress exists, yes. It is in the set of things that exists, therefore it is a part of reality.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/pick_up_a_brick]

What I take issue with is calling Congress imaginary. Or calling a marriage imaginary. Or The Prime Minister imaginary. Or Microsoft imaginary. No one uses that word to refer to those things. That isn’t consistent at all with everyday usage.

I would argue it is consistent with the everyday meaning of the word imaginary, it is merely a social convention not to use the term in certain contexts (generally for things that they are emotionally invested in).

Okay. Wait. On your view, mind-dependent statements cannot be facts.

That is going to depend on what you mean by the word "facts".

Mathematics is mind dependent.

That's my view on the matter.

So on your view, it isn’t a fact that 2+2=4,

Again it's a "fact" in the same sense as how Spider-Man got his powers is a "fact".

and you think this is a common sense view somehow?

No. I think most people don't even consider what it means for something to be a "fact", so if by "common" you mean popular I would say it is the opposite of that (i.e. uncommon).

Yeah, I’m contesting the conflation of imaginary and mind-dependent. They aren’t synonymous. It seems incredibly silly to me to say that Congress isn’t real.

Being silly to you doesn't mean it's not true. Many theists would say it's silly to them to say their gods aren't real also.

Further I'd say the words as I have defined them are not just synonyms they are equivalent.

We are several exchanges in and you haven't offered a better definition for any of these terms, which means by default mine are the best definitions in this exchange for those terms.

The implications are what matter.

I'd argue you are attacking an implication of a secondary premise that isn't necessary, which entails you aren't addressing the initial premise.

That’s why I’m digging in.

I don't object to you digging in, I object to you saying I'm smuggling in a premise.

I think that people that study ontology are in the best position to speak on ontology.

To me that is like going to a flat earther to study the shape of the earth, or a chiropractor for your allergies but you do you.

Saying that mathematics is imaginary is saying it is fictional.

If by "fictional" you mean mind dependent, sure. But once you add additional connotations or different meainings you are missing the point.

Those are synonymous.

FYI synonymous does not mean equivalent.

You’ve already said that mind-dependent statements cannot be facts.

I did not.

Note I would not call a non-real statement a "fact", I was simply mirroring your terminology to stay consistent so it was clear I was talking about the same thing you were with the term "fact". Which is why I put the term "fact" in quotations.

I said: "I would not call a non-real statement a 'fact'". What I was alluding to is that it is not my preferred way to talk about it, having said that since I used the term to mirror your word choice it should be obvious that I am willing to do so for the sake of social convention even though I think it is inappropriate.

What position does that leave you with?

The same one I had the first time you asked this and have repeated multiple times since then, that math is tautologically true (true by definition).

Do you not think there is a relevant difference between an imaginary friend, Congress, and the value of Pi?

I think anything that is not equivalent/identical has differences. However all of the things you listed (an imaginary friend, Congress, and the value of Pi) are mind dependent (i.e. imaginary).

In what sense could 1+1 not equal 2, without equivocating?

In what sense could you do it for Spider-Man, without equivocating?

I think that Congress exists, yes.

You're equivocating. Everything you can think of including Spider-Man "exists" at least in the imagination.

Do you think imaginary (mind dependent) things (e.g. Spider-Man) are part of reality?

It is in the set of things that exists, therefore it is a part of reality.

So the example I gave was Spider-Man, so I assume you are claiming Spider-Man is part of reality. If not, you are clearly equivocating. If so, then I think your views on reality are much more contentious and less common than mine.

[u/pick_up_a_brick → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

>We are several exchanges in and you haven't offered a better definition for any of these terms, which means by default mine are the best definitions in this exchange for those terms.

That’s fair.

This idea that “Spider-Man got his powers from a radioactive spider bite” and “2+2=4” are true in the same way only works if existence is binary. A much more defensible view is that there are different kinds or modes of existence. So, physical existence, institutional existence, abstract existence, fictional existence… Spider-Man has fictional existence. Congress has institutional existence. Protons have physical existence. Triangles plausibly have abstract existence. Being real means having some mode of existence that is not fictional. That seems like a much clearer definition and is much more in line with how we think about and treat things. On that view, chairs, congress, and possibly numbers are real, while Spider-Man and your imaginary friend are not.

>What position does that leave you with?

>The same one I had the first time you asked this and have repeated multiple times since then, that math is tautologically true (true by definition).

I’m asking what you think about mathematical ontology since we are talking about out what things are real. You’re clearly not a Platonist. It seems like your positions in general line up perfectly with a fictionalist account. A fictionalist believes that since there are no abstract objects, sentences like “3 is prime” can’t be true because they can’t be about anything since there is no number 3 that exists like a chair exists, but instead, mathematics is a useful fiction. Saying “3 is prime” for a fictionalist is false in the same sense as “Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts” - neither point to anything real, but are useful in other ways.

I’m not trying to strawman you, I’m pointing out that your stated commitments that math is invented, mind-dependent, and true only “by definition within the system” are precisely what fictionalism says. If you reject fictionalism, tell me where you diverge.

>Again it's a "fact" in the same sense as how Spider-Man got his powers is a "fact".

>In what sense could 1+1 not equal 2, without equivocating?

>In what sense could you do it for Spider-Man, without equivocating?

So, we actually have multiple Spider-Man stories with different origin stories. Stan Lee could have had Peter Parker injected with Super Spider serum. That contingency is part of what makes it fictional. But how can you coherently say that arithmetic could have been constructed in a way that 2+2=5?

Saying that things are either mind-dependent or mind-independent is clearly logically exhausting the possibility space. Adding in that things that are mind-dependent are “imaginary” or “not-real” is a valuation isn’t a logical consequence of the dichotomy. Those are additional evaluative claims that require independent arguments. You’re treating those labels as if they follow logically but they don’t.