| Subject: Thanks! |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/17/04 5:55am
In reply to:
Don
's message, "You wrote a very interesting post Duane" on 09/16/04 1:06pm
Don:
>You wrote a very interesting post Duane. This is what
>stuck with the most interest.
>
>How do we know what counting is? Because we can
>picture mental symboles that
>are abstracts of reasoning? That is very interesting.
I don't think so. What is "one" without our concept of "one-ness?" Well, it's a symbol. But the really interesting thing is the fact that math doesn't depend on the "oneness" of one or the "two-ness" of two to be able to say: "1 + 1 = 2" In fact, most axiomatic systems assume nothing about cardinalty, and they work just fine without it.
>I once wrote a post-- "Can Bears Add?"
>
>Well let see what happens when 3 dogs fights a bear.
>The bear kills all 3 does he
>still swing wild like in the air as if there is a
>fouth dog? If the bear kills one dog
>do the other two disapear? Perhaps counting is not
>limited to
>human after all as it is only a matter of degrees. We
>have plenty examples of amimals
>counting in a limited form "IF" we make some
>asumtions.
I think that all "higher" organisms can "count" if you mean that they can perceive multiples of concrete objects. But the main difference is that their mathematical "model" doesn't work if they're not using it on concrete objects, which is how our math differs - it works out even without concreteness.
>But then I am told
>by Russel and Godel that even math is based on
>asumtions.
Yes - though it's important to note that all math depends on unprovable, inherently "true" statements (axioms) that we define as the basis of whatever system we're talking about. They differ, in a semantic sense, from our understanding of the term "assumption."
>So amimals make asumtions
>if they can count?
If what you mean is, "do animals have an axiomatically defined system of abstract symbols?" We can't know, but I'd have to guess probably not. Well, maybe dolphins do. They have the ability to abstract - I mean, they have names (like personal ones - "Dolphin Dave" and "Dolphin Betty") - for each other.
>I like your example of bears going in and out of the
>cave..we make asumtions for safty
>before we enter and we can exspress that in the form
>of counting...don't screw up as
>the one bear left does not give a damn if you can
>count or not so reality rules and
>math be damned but math is a help only.
Yeah - math is independent - COMPLETELY independent of reality, the way it's currently understood and defined.
>That is why I
>say math can not prove a god
>but rather math is only reasoning based on asumtions.
Well, that's the argument against using philosophy to really "prove" anything about the real world - it's a closed system. Eventually you run into the brick wall of your axioms, and you can prove stuff within the system, but it can't say anything outside of itself.
Natural Science is just another limited framework, but it's the one that happens to be rooted in the real world. It, too, runs into its axioms eventually, but those axioms are minimal and very weak, and it's the correct "tool" to use for studying the universe.
Math and Philosophy are other tools with good uses, but they're not as good as science for explaining natural phenomena. In fact, I'd say they're downright crappy when it comes to the real world. Their assumptions are too big and too strong.
>So god is an asumtion? It would seem so.
Yeah - God is an axiom.
>So people worship asumtions--yes it would seem so.
I guess it's better than worshipping Mr. Peanut. All he does is give out free nuts.
>If math is based on asumtions and reasoning, or a
>mental fuction
>how could it ever be grounded in the physical world?
It's not!
>Yes the thoughts are real
>but how these thoughts are applied can be in great
>error. Why? Because we do not know it all.
>Try to get a theist to say that when they claim god
>did every thing. So they
>claim they know it all and math does not lie? What a
>joke. They can go into the
>dark cave first then. They may be right they may be
>wrong.
Heh - plus God could zap the third bear with lightning.
>To measure something
>is a consept based on a standard of comparing, and we
>only imagine
>points from what to meaure from. So I still can't see
>how math in
>any way can show a god.
Well, I think the Tristam Shandy argument is part of a larger philisophical argument that proves the existence of God. I can accept that an argument exists in Philosophy that proves God exists. I can "prove" lots of things with philosophy, given the proper assumptions. The problem is that it doesn't really "prove" anything at all with regards to the real world. So it's just mental masturbation.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 