I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Logic]
|
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: 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: 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. |