I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Logic]
|
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 22:46 On Mar 13, 10:43 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thoughts, emotions, feelings, fears, love, hate and all the rest are > completely and totally unmeasureable !!! Descartes is NOT A > PHYSICIST !!! > > I cannot take 50 cc of love and pour it into a flask. I CANNOT take 2 > kilos of hate and put it into a beaker and leave it in the lab. You > cannot measure these things, and you cannot make valid physical > observations of them either !!! > > For Descartes to say "I Think" this, and "I Think" that - is > meaningless to PHYSICS. > > HOWEVER - you can indeed OBSERVE that 2 apples plus 3 apples is indeed > 5 apples. This constitutes a VALID physical observation because it is > Reproducible, Quantitative, Qualitative, Falsifiable, and what you > have observed is a logical process in action . > > I'll get to randomness, existential indeterminacy and Conjecture > later. The important thing to note is that Descartes is NO > PHYSICIST !!! If you do not have any apples then you can not observer 2 apples plus 3 apples is 5 apples. The apples must exist in nature in order for you to be able to count them. Mathematics does not exist without nature.
From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 22:53 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
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 23:10 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.
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. |