I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:50 On Mar 13, 7:47 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. > It doesn't matter if it is an invention or a discovery. It is not fundamental in nature. Mathematics does not physically exist in and of itself. > The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be > fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a > component of nature. Correct. 'Modeled'. Mathematics is used to model the very fabric of the universe. Mathematics is not the very fabric in and of itself. > 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. Discovery of nature is different than the use of mathematics to discover nature. Nature exists with or without mathematics. Mathematics does not exist without nature.
From: porky_pig_jr on 13 Mar 2010 19:51 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. > Never put Descartes before the horse.
From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 20:20 On Mar 13, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 7:47 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > It doesn't matter if it is an invention or a discovery. It is not > fundamental in nature. Mathematics does not physically exist in and of > itself. > There is one math that is physical. It is known as Gamma mathematics and it is universal in physics. Mitch Raemsch > > The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be > > fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a > > component of nature. > > Correct. 'Modeled'. Mathematics is used to model the very fabric of > the universe. Mathematics is not the very fabric in and of itself. > > > 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. > > Discovery of nature is different than the use of mathematics to > discover nature. Nature exists with or without mathematics. > Mathematics does not exist without nature. Zero. Mitch Raemsch
From: BillyGates on 13 Mar 2010 20:43 Edward Green 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. > > 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. > to whom? To humans or to something external to humans? Do aliens find our "art" logical? What about mother nature? Maybe we are just rearranging randomness into another form of randomness?
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 22:03
On Mar 13, 8:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 4:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 7:47 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > It doesn't matter if it is an invention or a discovery. It is not > > fundamental in nature. Mathematics does not physically exist in and of > > itself. > > There is one math that is physical. It is known as Gamma mathematics > and it is universal in physics. > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be > > > fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a > > > component of nature. > > > Correct. 'Modeled'. Mathematics is used to model the very fabric of > > the universe. Mathematics is not the very fabric in and of itself. > > > > 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. > > > Discovery of nature is different than the use of mathematics to > > discover nature. Nature exists with or without mathematics. > > Mathematics does not exist without nature. > > Zero. > > Mitch Raemsch Without nature there is no zero. |