I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Huang on 13 Mar 2010 16:00 On Mar 13, 2:25 pm, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 9:43 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 9:17 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 12:02 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > > > > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > > > > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > > > > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > > > > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > > > > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > > > > > I dont buy it. > > > > > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > > > > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > > > > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > > > > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > > > > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > > > > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > > > > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > > > > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > > > > > Logic <=> Existence > > > > > > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > > > > > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". > > > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Logic "is" thinking ? Is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of > > > > mathematics or something ? > > > > > Are you implying that if there were no such thing as thought, that > > > > there would be no such thing as logic ? > > > > > So there must be life in order for there for there to be any logic, > > > > because without life there can be no thought.- > > > > Now you're beginning to think and to get it...good! Exactly as that: > > > if there's no thought then we cannot asset anything about anything, > > > and this was perhaps what Monsieur Descartes was trying to convey. > > > > Tonio- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > So then, before there was no life on Earth, there was no logic. And > > with no logic, why then would physics make any sense ? Why does the > > universe continue if there is no logic ? > > > Are you saying that when all life has died, the we can have time > > travel, FTL communications, cold fusion and antigravity motorcycles ? > > > If there were no life here to observe things....then 2 + 2 would equal > > 7 ???- > > If there's no life at all then I claim 2 + 2 = 7 , FTL communications > will exist between lifeless planets and JHS will be considered the > greatest school janitor in mankind's history...you see? You can't > contradict me, so my claim is safe. **wink!** > > Tonio- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without us being here to appreciate it.
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 16:07 On Mar 13, 4:00 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 2:25 pm, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 9:43 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 9:17 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 12:02 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > > > > > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > > > > > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > > > > > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > > > > > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > > > > > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > > > > > > I dont buy it. > > > > > > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > > > > > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > > > > > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > > > > > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > > > > > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > > > > > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > > > > > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > > > > > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > > > > > > Logic <=> Existence > > > > > > > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > > > > > > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". > > > > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Logic "is" thinking ? Is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of > > > > > mathematics or something ? > > > > > > Are you implying that if there were no such thing as thought, that > > > > > there would be no such thing as logic ? > > > > > > So there must be life in order for there for there to be any logic, > > > > > because without life there can be no thought.- > > > > > Now you're beginning to think and to get it...good! Exactly as that: > > > > if there's no thought then we cannot asset anything about anything, > > > > and this was perhaps what Monsieur Descartes was trying to convey. > > > > > Tonio- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > So then, before there was no life on Earth, there was no logic. And > > > with no logic, why then would physics make any sense ? Why does the > > > universe continue if there is no logic ? > > > > Are you saying that when all life has died, the we can have time > > > travel, FTL communications, cold fusion and antigravity motorcycles ? > > > > If there were no life here to observe things....then 2 + 2 would equal > > > 7 ???- > > > If there's no life at all then I claim 2 + 2 = 7 , FTL communications > > will exist between lifeless planets and JHS will be considered the > > greatest school janitor in mankind's history...you see? You can't > > contradict me, so my claim is safe. **wink!** > > > Tonio- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without > us being here to appreciate it. Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs whether we mathematically define it or not.
From: Huang on 13 Mar 2010 16:35 > > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed > > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not > > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without > > us being here to appreciate it. > > Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs > whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text - Ridiculous. You cannot say whether mathematics was invented, or merely uncovered. There is a difference between discovery and invention. Nobody can say whether mathematics is one or the other. But this debate has nothing to do with that. This debate is whether Descartes was on the right track. He makes an observation that he is thinking, and concludes that he exists. I think that his argument is weak. It makes more sense to say that logical events are observable in nature, and therefore nature exhibits existence very much the same way mathematics does. "We observe logical processes, therefore we exist". Keep in mind that your comment on whether math is invention or discovery does have a fundamental role for this last statement to make any sense. Indeed, it must be equivalent (possibly indeterminate) whether mathematics is invented or discovered.
From: Huang on 13 Mar 2010 18:08 If you were to perform the following physical experiment : Take 2 apples and add 5 more apples. If you obtain 11 apples, then you can safely surmise that you do not exist. If you ever see a four sided triangle - then you can safely surmise that you do not exist. If you ever see a cube which is a sphere - then you can safely surmise that you do not exist. But we never see such things in nature. We see things which imitate existence as modelled by mathematics. Whether mathematics and logic is an invention or a discovery, that is a key question here. Because if logic is inherent to nature, then we might DEDUCE that we exist from that fact and as stated earlier logical processes are indeed observable. I will give Descartes high marks for trying, but you cannot base your scientific findings on observations of metaphysical entities such as "thoughts" (whatever those are). Thoughts are not observable, reproducible, quantitative, qualitative, falsifiable.
From: BillyGates on 13 Mar 2010 18:22
Huang wrote: > If you were to perform the following physical experiment : Take 2 > apples and add 5 more apples. If you obtain 11 apples, then you can > safely surmise that you do not exist. > > If you ever see a four sided triangle - then you can safely surmise > that you do not exist. > > If you ever see a cube which is a sphere - then you can safely surmise > that you do not exist. > > But we never see such things in nature. We see things which imitate > existence as modelled by mathematics. > > Whether mathematics and logic is an invention or a discovery, that is > a key question here. Because if logic is inherent to nature, then we > might DEDUCE that we exist from that fact and as stated earlier > logical processes are indeed observable. > > I will give Descartes high marks for trying, but you cannot base your > scientific findings on observations of metaphysical entities such as > "thoughts" (whatever those are). Thoughts are not observable, > reproducible, quantitative, qualitative, falsifiable. Your assuming mother nature exists! How do you expect to prove that once you prove that we "exist" in mother nature? |