I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 23:27 On Mar 13, 11:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 8:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 10:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 7:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Zero math is real in the Mind of God. The Mind of God does not need > > > the universe. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > I'm discussing the physical universe. Without a physical universe > > there is no zero. My definition of physics is the 'physics of nature'. > > I realize I'm not supposed to use 'physics' when defining 'physics' > > but you get what I mean.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > You said math is only abstract. So now zero math is more than a mind > construction? Please show how you can find zero in nature. > > Mitch Raemsch You are the one who responded with 'Zero.' to my statement of 'Mathematics does not exist without nature.' It is up to you to demonstrate how zero exists without nature.
From: Edward Green on 14 Mar 2010 11:24 On Mar 13, 9:43 pm, "BillyGates" <Bill.Ga...(a)Microsoft.com> wrote: > 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: Edward Green on 14 Mar 2010 11:33 On Mar 13, 9:43 pm, "BillyGates" <Bill.Ga...(a)Microsoft.com> wrote: > 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? You miss my point, really. The word "logical" perhaps could have been just as easily been removed from the sentence. Does that make it clearer? There is no arrangement of matter or information we can make that was not a feasible arrangement of matter or information, just as there is no (legal) game of chess that can be played which was not inherent in the rules of chess, even if nobody has ever played that game before.
From: Huang on 14 Mar 2010 11:59 > > 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? > > You miss my point, really. The word "logical" perhaps could have been > just as easily been removed from the sentence. Does that make it > clearer? There is no arrangement of matter or information we can make > that was not a feasible arrangement of matter or information, just as > there is no (legal) game of chess that can be played which was not > inherent in the rules of chess, even if nobody has ever played that > game before.- Hide quoted text - > What Ed Green said is correct. And I will add that even if all of these various configurations of matter, or chess games never actually happened, they are all OBSERVABLE. You cannot observe a chess game between 2 people where 3 people actually win. That would be an unobservable chess game. Descartes claims "I think....therefore a,b,c,d,e...". He might as well have said "I love, therefore a,b,c,d...", "I hate, therefore a,b,c,d...", "I have faith, therefore a,b,c,d...", "I fear, therefore a,b,c,d...", Thoughts are NOT observable. Love is NOT observable to a physicist. Hate is NOT observable to a physicist. Fear is NOT observable to a physicist. Want is NOT observable to a physicist. Passion is NOT observable to a physicist. Greed is NOT observable to a physicist. Descartes based his conclusions about existence on something which is completely non-observable. It makes much more sense to draw conclusions based on things which ARE observable, and logical processes are observable. You can observe many logical things in action, they are very simple. Put 2 bricks on the table, add 3 more bricks. The result of this PHYSICAL EXPERIMENT is that you will now have 5 bricks, and you have observed logic in action in our physical world. If you ever take 2 bricks and add 3 more, if the result is something other than precisely 5 then please call me immediately on my cell phone because I will want to take a look at that !!
From: Huang on 14 Mar 2010 20:12
I think it is a very interesting question to ask : Can logic be "observed" in the same sense that we observe time and length. Logic is not visible to our eyes, but can certainly be detected by means of experiment. All you need to do is perform some simple arithmetic experiments or demonstrations. There may be some question as to whether logic itself is quantifiable, but this may be possible due to some ideas such as entropy. |