** Meta-Gumble** wrote:
Yes, but apart from the meaning we give it what is 2?
Apart from the meaning we give to mathematics what is mathematics?
Dear ** Milum**
It’s impossible for the human mind to comprehend the absence of everything because to do so is to comprehend the absence of its own comprehension.
We cannot “think” of nothing, in the same way we can’t “eat” nothing, but that doesn’t prove therefore that “something exists”
I always think this one is funny. You’ve just assured us all of something that is, quite honestly, unverifiable. I don’t deny that “conventional wisdom” (as well as many, many scientists) agrees with you. But I think “assurances” should require quite a bit of thought be put into them.
For instance, if the universe only existed for 9 bil years, you’ve lied to us all. Not that this is a showstopper for your argument, by any means: the issue is simply that you’ve said something that I can’t believe you mean.
If language is to be used for communicating ideas precisely, crap like this can’t happen. And, at any rate, it can’t be “proven” that the universe wasn’t shat out of nothingness 150,000 years ago in such a configuration that it looks like it’s really old. So please, if you’re going to be giving assurances, let them be something that you can reasonably assure people of.
I can reasonably assure you that the universe has existed for ten or so billion years because the universe has existed for ten or so billion years.
The big bang theory is now pretty well established and any controversies concern the details, not whether or not it actually occurred. If you don’t want to believe it you are free to do so, of course. (There are young earth creationsists who believe that the world is only 7000 yrs old.) But it seems to me that any real philosophical discussion has to presume the validity of the scientific method, and the truth of its well established results.
Please, proceed to explain how the scientific method would discover if the universe had only actually existed for 170,000 years and simply was churned out looking old.
That the scientific method can discern some truths is an entirely different statement than that the scientific method can discern all truths.
Look, as Bertrand Russell said, it is impossible to prove that the Universe was not created five minutes ago, with all our memories included. But once you indulge that radical skepticism, where are you? How do I know you exist? How do I even know I exist?
It simply seems more practical and more parsimonious to take phenomena as they come. Science has done an excellent job of explaining phenomena, and its predictive nature inspires confidence.
The Big bang theory explains vast amounts of phenomena, all of which point to an old universe. If you want to suggest that the Universe was popped out looking old, it is incumbent on you to explain how the heck that could possibly be. The only explanation I can think of would be the antics of a decietful supernatural being, but why should I believe in that? There’s no evidence for it.
I’m not denying that science makes metaphysical assumptions: that the Universe is orderly, that what happens here is going to apply there, etc. But these are not too different from the assumptions that we make in life. I can’t prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have absolute confidence that it will. Given what I know of scientific method; it metaphysical sparseness, its system of check and double check, its reasonableness in differentiating what is well established from what is tentatively conjectured, I’m going to buy into it. Of course you are free not to. But, forgive me, that just doesn’t seem like a useful or reasonable thing to do.
Anyone ever do those rub-downs in art class? You know, you’d take, say, an engraving, put a piece of paper over it, and then rub a crayon all over it - you’d end up with a picture of the engraving.
I think that’s how math is.
Is it a human or nature construct? Well, I’d say it’s a lot like the picture you end up with.
Anywho, nature has all kinds of bizarre an arbitrary rules, and I don’t see why math can be a derivative of one or more of them. In which case, again, it’s a lot like the picture you end up with.
Previously posted by Iamthat
It’s impossible for the human mind to comprehend the absence of everything** because to do so is to comprehend the absence of its own comprehension. **
We cannot “think” of nothing, in the same way we can’t “eat” nothing, but that doesn’t prove therefore that “something exists”
OK, Iamthat, you are approaching the moment of “Ah-ha!”
What is it that thinks?
___________________ Something! ______
Right.
Ignoring the solipsistic nonsense that forever seems to pollute threads of this nature, we are trying to establish just how “real” mathematics is. It is plainly not completely arbitrary since it can be used to make predictions in the real world which subsequently come true, against all odds.
As ChaosGod pointed out, the universe appears to follow “rules”: We all (solipsists excepted) agree that atoms and any “stuff” made from atoms have “realness”. But what “realness” do these rules comprise?
I would offer that the following question is equivalent: Does a pattern “really” exist? The water in the snowflake exists, but does the snowflake pattern? The paint on the canvas exists in reality, but does the painting?
IMO, yes, they do. And if patterns can have reality, then patterns of behaviour of stuff (“rules”) can have reality, and patterns of thought such as mathematics can have reality.
Can’t we determine the age of stars pretty accurately?
Are you saying that the scientific method can’t prove that, 170,000 years ago, the laws of physics were suspended for the purpose of creating a universe that appeared to be old?
It probably can’t, but Occam’s Razor would do it well enough to satisfy me.
I mean, can you prove to me that the universe wasn’t created last Thursday, complete with all of our memories of “before” then, so that it just looked old? I would say to this the same thing: no, scientific method cannot disprove that. But I wouldn’t give that theory any credibility either.
Back to the OP, I remember a conversation with a friend a while back. One of the backdrops of the discussion was the fact (we both agreed) of alien intelligence somewhere other than earth. (Whether we’d ever meet any was undefined.)
Later he asserted that all scientific knowledge was suspect, and should be viewed as if there were a decent chance it was wrong. He used the classic “people used to think the earth was flat” argument.
My argument was that we never believed the earth was flat after we applied scientific method to the question…we sailed around the earth and realized it was a globe. Fundamental truths do exist, and we build up scientific knowledge off of them. No matter how advanced and different an alien species could be, they would still agree with us that 1+1=2.
This was based on the assumption that math was discovered, not invented. I still hold to that, though I would listen to someone who could convincingly argue against it.
Iamthat–the theory you espouce has always reminded me of the philosophical equivalent of trolling.
If the Universe existed only in reference to ourselves, only in our minds, then logically we could bend Reality to our wills merely by “wishing”.
Now, I regard that as a child’s fantasy, but lets us test it experimentally.
I propose this experiment: we raise a baby grand piano 4 stories up in the air, by means of a winch & pulley. Directally underneath the raised piano, we shall paint a large bullseye. You stand on the bullseye, while I operate the winch.
On the count of 3, I will trigger the release, sending the baby grand piano plummeting down onto your noggin.
You, on the other hand, will remain beneath the piano, directally on top of the bullseye. You shall begin “wishing” the piano into non-existance several minutes before I trigger the release.
If it goes POOF!–then you are correct, and I shall manfully admit it.
If not, there’s this guy in North Georgia–he owns a crematory, & business has been bad lately…he’d offer you a nice discount.
The point is not to make this an argument on the origins of the universe. Rather, the point was simply that Larry Borgia assured us all of soemthing that he could reasonably give no assurances of. That was my only point.
The point is, there are people who believe that the universe is less than 10 billion years old. How much less, of course, varies depending on the person. And there are plenty of people that are well-versed in science, educated, etc. that give the Big Bang theory less credibility than do many others. I’ve known physics professors at University that failed to believe that the popularly accepted big bang theory was anything more than half-assed, and of course others (th emajority) that placed all of their faith in it. But there are people with PhDs in Physics that disagree with Larry Borgia on the age of the universe, and so for him to assure us all that he is right is a bit out of place.
And that was all I cared to point out, since this board is based on the ability to have discussions, and using the word ‘assure’ improperly lessens that ability.
philo_narnia, observed galactic red-shift, the microwave background radiation of the universe and spectrographic analysis of the oldest stars all show beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is billions of years old, at least. Even those few steady-staters who aren’t quite satisified with the Big Bang still believe the universe to be older than 10 billion years.
Perhaps a new thread should be started if you wish to discuss this, or indeed any of the solipsistic detritus that has bobbed to the surface here.
Milum wrote:
What is it that thinks?
Your assumption is that there is something that thinks.
If one looks inside and all they find is a continuous stream of thoughts which appear to have no origin; they appear to arise from no where, do you conclude that this stream of thoughts is a thinker? Is the thinking process a thinker? There may be no thinker at all.
But if there is how could we possibly know what it is that thinks when all that is observed is the end product of thinking, the thoughts? If thinking produces thoughts and all we are aware of is the thoughts then we are not aware of pre-thought activity. It’s obvious that we are not aware of the processes of our own brains. So it appears we are unware of the thinking process. It doesn’t mean we don’t think, we’re just not awaree of it, that is, if pre-thought activity, the processes of our own brains can be considered “thinking”.
Is this pre-thought activity, the processes of our own brains a thinker? Well if it is this “thinker” is not self consciousness.
Originally posted by ** Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor**
Why do you assume that? Can you control all the events in a night dream? Most cannot. If the world is a mental construct it doesn’t follow that you have any control over the events that take place. And of course the fundamental consideration is, “Who are we referring to when using the word, “ I “ or “you”?
If “you”, the you take your self to be, the ego/body, is no more then a matrix of mental events, just an idea, a mirage, how is it that this “Idea” that constitutes “you” controls anything?
Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor said debaringly…
Iamthat–the theory you espouce has always reminded me of the philosophical equivalent of trolling.
Then SentientMeat said dismissively to philo_narnia…
Perhaps a new thread should be started if you wish to discuss this, or indeed any of the solipsistic detritus that has bobbed to the surface here.
Hey Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor and SentientMeat, my my, you boys do bandy fancy fad words about without much thought as to whom you might hurt. Yeah I know that I bobbed some of my own “solipsistic detritus” to the surface here, but if I am to be banned or censored on this board I hope the charge is that I too commited the philosophical equivalent of trolling. I don’t quite know what it means but it sounds pretty damn classy.
** Straight Dope Message Board > Great Debates >
______ Does mathematics underpin the universe?___**
So far no one here has said that the human mind can’t find patterns as we extract sensory data from the universe. And certainly Iamthat and others, including me, have not said absolutely that the universe is the collective figments of everyone’s or anyone’s imagination. The discussion hasn’t got that far.
To begin to attempt to explore the Opening Proposition it is obviously necessary to establish a semantical base in which to start. I thought you knew that.
__________________________________
If anything, you are pointing out the necessity for the language known as mathemetics, as well as highlighting the primary reason that disciplines using non-mathematical languages have proven to be no practical use in answering questions in any real objective and universal way that hold up over time.
Yes, language is limited, not least because words in spoken languages do not and cannot have set, definitive meanings. Hence dictionaries.
That is why mathematics becomes necessary; it is not a spoken language, but a written pictographic language. ‘1’ is a symbol; so is ‘=’, etc; these symbols have as many different names as there are spoken languages. Symbols do not enter the language of mathematics merely through common usage. Hence, no dictionaries coming out every year with the latest meaning(s) of Pi.
Your argument is one of perception, yet for a symbol to be entered into the language of mathematics quite a bit of time and effort has to be spent, in effect, accounting for any possibility that what the symbol represents isnt just a matter of perception. The
words of spoken languages have no such rigorous criteria applied. Certainly, at times some faulty concepts sneak into mathematics and it takes years to find the flaw; but each one of these cases merely makes future concepts that much more rigorously tested.
Your example above is illustrative; you can sit and argue the definition of ‘nothing’ and ‘something’ all you want, as well as ‘exists’, etc, because these words all have different meanings in differing contexts, geographic locations, etc. Youre trying to use a language that is inherintly and necessarily imprecise to try to (assumedly) prove the unreliability of a language that is by intent and necessity extremely precise. In the attempt, all youre doing is illustrating the need for mathematics and the reason why it exists by demonstrating the inability of aguments/theories/hypothesis developed using normal spoken languages to prove, show or answer anything without at least some reference to…mathematics.
** Iamthat **said
Your assumption is that there is something that thinks.
No ** Iamthat**, think!
I didn’t said that “something” thinks. That would be presumptuous.
All I said was that there was something as opposed to nothing. That “something” doesn’t have to think. Who said anything about it thinking? All “something” has to do is to be.
I thought we had passed that page…:smack:
Voodoochile wrote quite emphatically…
“Youre trying to use a language that is inherintly and necessarily imprecise to try to (assumedly) prove the unreliability of a language that is by intent and necessity extremely precise. In the attempt, all youre doing is illustrating the need for mathematics and the reason why it exists by demonstrating the inability of aguments/theories/hypothesis developed using normal spoken languages to prove, show or answer anything without at least some reference to…mathematics.”
No Voodoochile, you are right in that the spoken and written languages of man are imprecise instruments for uncovering and understanding the underlying principles that govern the universe, but the language of mathematics is much worse.
Math works by selecting certain coincidents that occur in numbers. They explain nothing. Some numbers are usefull in predicting the future.
Kinda like what math is today…latter-day astrology.