I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Edward Green on 13 Mar 2010 18:26 On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. Not really, if you think about it. Invention, or even the creation of art, is simply the uncovering of some logically feasible arrangement of matter, information, and so forth. > 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. I don't agree. I think his argument is very strong. > 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". Solipsism remains an option, but even that is overcome by Descartes: I think therefore at least I exist, if nothing else. > 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. As I said, I think invention and discovery are equivalent. When you invent or create something, you are uncovering a pattern which was always possible in theory.
From: Huang on 13 Mar 2010 18:34 On Mar 13, 5:22 pm, "BillyGates" <Bill.Ga...(a)Microsoft.com> wrote: > 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?- Hide quoted text - > I am not sure that proof is possible in terms of physics. You might get something like a mathematical proof somehow, but whather it applies to the physical reality is dubious to me. In other words - I dont know that you can actually prove that mother nature exists. I believe that you can show 2 things : [a] The universe is modellable using Mathematics [b] The universe is modellable using a system of consistent Conjectures I believe that [a] and [b] are equivalent, because they would both output the same numbers. To prove that mother nature is strictly existent would be to invalidate option [b] (which is based on existential indeterminacy), and so I do not know if such a proof is really possible (in my opinion). My whole argument is that Descartes could have taken the view that "I might think, therefore I might exist", and from that he could have derived a system of reason equivalent to mathematics and nobody would have ever known the difference.
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:04 On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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 doesn't matter if you prefer to describe math as invented or 'uncovered'. Math does not exist in and of itself in nature. Mathematics is used to describe physical processes. The physical processes which exist in nature exist in nature whether there is mathematics or not. > 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. It is more correct to say, "I am therefore I think".
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:07 On Mar 13, 7:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 doesn't matter if you prefer to describe math as invented or > 'uncovered'. Math does not exist in and of itself in nature. > Mathematics is used to describe physical processes. The physical > processes which exist in nature exist in nature whether there is > mathematics or not. > > > 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. > > It is more correct to say, "I am therefore I think". More correct: "I think therefore I am" is equally correct as "I am therefore I think".
From: Huang on 13 Mar 2010 19:47
On Mar 13, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 - You have no proof either way. Nobody does. prove to me that it is an invention and not a discovery, or vice versa. You cannot. The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a component of nature. More fundamental even than space itself, that things like logic are embedded in reality and we simply fail to acknowledge this as part of our natural world. There is a huge difference between the two views (discovery or invention), and it is very important to the debate at hand. |