Define “prove”. A “proof” is only proof if someone accepts that it’s proof. Kind of a tautology, no?
Prove that you exist. Sorry, whatever you say, I will just respond that it’s really not proof, by my standards. I assert that you’re just a construct of my imagination. Oh, I can touch you, so that proves that you are physically there? Naw, that’s just my very good imagination telling the nerves in my fingers that there is something that they’re touching.
Kind of stupid, isn’t it? But then, it’s no different from you disputing me when I say that physicality and numbers exist. There is no way that I could prove that to your satisfaction. In fact, Gardner touches on that in the Blackberries book too, the well-accepted idea that you can’t prove everything about a system within that system (I’m paraphrasing from memory, please don’t nitpick if I didn’t get the wording exactly right). Certain axioms have to be either accepted without proof, or you just can’t go anywhere.
So numbers and math exist, and it’s not possible to prove that within the system of numbers and math. If you assert that they have no existence, then you have nowhere to go. There are no dinosaurs in the field, I guess.
Of course but I don’t think the concept of a specific and countable number, of dinosaurs exists (i.e. Gardners 2 + 2 = 4 dinosaurs) without someone or something to do the concepting (I can make up words too).
Roadfood: While I personally think that math is nothing more than a little game we play on paper, that’s not what I’m interested in debating here. My assertion is that this is not an empirical question; that there is no piece of evidence that favors one side over the other. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Then we probably just need to agree to disagree, because I maintain that the number of dinosaurs exist, just as much as the dinosaurs exist, independent of any concepting.
Depends on how you define “evidence”. I say that the evidence is, if you will, self-evident. Given two dinosaurs in a field, if two more dinosaurs walk into the field, there are four dinosaurs in the field. Substitute whatever terms you want for “two” and “four”, the result doesn’t change. The reality of those dinosaurs doesn’t change. With or without intelligent observation or “concepting”, they exist and the number of them exist. Existence is pretty clear evidence, to me.
It seems, however, that it does not constitute “evidence” to you, so as with Mr. Simmons, we’re probably just at an impass.
So, not to hijack (too much), but do you apply this line of reasoning equally? I mean, on the question “Does the universe exist independent of intelligent observation?”, there is no evidence that favors one side over the other, right?
Roadfood:
When counting dino’s, do you include the 1.8 pounds (made up, of course, but you get the idea) of skin flakes that are dropping to the ground every second?
Do you include water that is being sweated out?
Do you include all of the bacteria and other organisms inside the dino?
The point being that the definition of any collection of atoms/molecules as a distinct object is arbitrary even though it doesn’t seem that way when perceived through our senses (coupled with years and years of experience and learning).
The nice thing about the universe we live in is that enormous numbers of phenomena in it which can be very well described by math. Math itself is just an intellectual game, but it turns out to be a very important and useful one, because of its correspondences with our universe.
I can’t prove that there isn’t a potential universe in which, say, pi is 5.2, or simple arithmetic does not apply to counting things, although I don’t see how any human could ever imagine such a universe.
Anyhow, math and science do what they do extraordinarily well. I’d argue that they do what they do better than religion does what it does. On the other hand, what religion tries to do is probably a lot harder. Anyhow, there’s no real point in comparing them.
No, but your post was all over the place. It would have to be unknotted before a response would make sense. There is no such thing, for example, as “absolute existence” — it’s a metaphysical non sequitur. The reason I cannot prove that I exist is because of circulus in demonstrando. In order to do anything at all, including prove my existence, I must first exist. That makes my existence axiomatic (audiatur et altera pars). Since my conclusion — that I exist — is the same as my premise — that I exist — my proof is valid, but unsound. And addition does not exist in the same way as physical things. If you’re interested in the philosophy of existence, then here’s a good place to start:
The gritty workings of mathematics have to be discovered, but that insight can only be determined and expressed within a notational system of symbols, formulae and proofs which is, irreducibly, an invention.
Sorry, but I disagree. There is such a thing as absolute existence. The universe exists, absolutely, with or without intelligence to observe it, or to engage in pointless philosophical discussions about whether or not it exists. Some in this thread have referred to math as nothing but a little game that humans play. If math is a little game, then what is philosophy but an infinitesimal game? Math, at least, has significance; philosophy has nothing.
Your reasoning about proving your existence is fine, but ignores the point I think you know perfectly well I was making. So, fine, make it that tree outside my window instead of “yourself”. You can provide no proof that it exists. So where does that leave you? With nothing further to say.
You want to maintain that math, numbers, the universe, have no definite existence? Fine, that’s your perogative, but it leaves us with zero common ground for any kind of discussion.
You want to start with some basic reality agreed upon, that you and I and everyone else and the universe have a real existence, then perhaps a discussion of math’s place in that existence could be had.
Let me see if I have this straight — a “pointless” logical proof with respect to the nature of existence would have no meaning, but your unproved premise, shot out of nowhere and stating categorically the nature of existence, is to be accepted as true?
Well, philosophy has math. Math, logic, science, religion — these are all branches of philosophy.
No, you’re mistaken. If the tree is the subject of the proof, then the self-reference has been removed. The argument is no longer a circle.
Well, is it definite existence or absolute existence? And what do they mean? Are they synonyms? If so, then is a definition the same as an absolution?
I have to say that I am impressed. This is highly enlightening. I have few points to discuss with those still debating, as someone succinctly stated, “does the universe exist independent of intelligent observation?”. This is the point at the heart of the argument. To believe that something does exist outside of human intelligence/perception is taking that on faith, just like a religious belief. Personally, I’m not a fan of religion or mathematics but I have a hard time seeing one as being more “true” than the other.
Everything comprehended by our minds is perceived through the senses. Is this not true as far as we can tell? First, we have to accept without proof that the senses are true representations of what is being perceived. Then we assume, without proof, that what I perceive is the same as what you perceive. Everything is processed by the human intelligence and I can only really speak for myself on this matter because other intelligence cannot be verified. How do I really know that what I am perceiving, which is then processed by my mind, is a “true” perception valid for any other intelligence? How do I know if I’m not being shown a movie for the purpose of entertainment?
In order to make sense of the world, as has been stated before, we apply systems to bring some sense of order. Answer me this: What is oneness? What if I see as one what you see as six dinosaurs? “Oneness” like the concept of the “dinosaur” are the same. They are attributes of something. An attribute that we recognize are mental abstractions. What if I see as one is three of what you see? I would have three images in my mind while you have one but we both call it “one”. What is a number other than an attribute assigned by human intelligence? What I perceive and what you perceive could be completely different but we have a common way to relate because of an artificial means of explaining things. How this relates to what is true and what is commonly true (if that exists) I do not know.
Every culture builds it’s cultural reality around certain common assumptions. Cross culture beliefs are easy to explain. Human kind, according to the belief, come from the same origin and this could easily explain the more profound beliefs. A common toolkit for coming to the same or similar conclusions. We had a discussion a few weeks ago about the Indians not being able to “see” Columbus’ ships because they could not explain them. We solved this riddle by stating that the Indians had a concept of a boat and therefore were able to reason that these were bigger boats and therefore could probably see the ships. I’m trying to get to the heart of this and it basically boils down to “if a tree falls in a forest…”.
To some degree, believers in this atheist scientific belief system, get angry when others subject their system to the same analysis as they would subject traditional religion. The fact of the matter is that we cannot know anything outside of our perception and things shaped by perception are subject to doubt. So, the only thing that I can say with some certainty is that my subjective reality is true only in so much as I perceive it to be.
And by the way, a side to the person that corrected me on Newton: Do his laws of gravitation apply to the area around a black hole?
I hope you don’t put me in with the group that questions the existence of a physical universe outside of me because I shouldn’t be in that group. There is an external world and in my opinion any other view is not of any use except for naval gazing.
But mathematics is not something physical. It is a concept that starts from some basic assumptions. These assumptions are often called self-evident but they don’t have to be. The only requirements are that they be independent in that none of them can be inferred from the others, and not contradictory among themselves. From then on the game is to see what conclusions can be drawn from the assumptions. I maintain that without someone or something to form the concept mathematics doesn’t exist and so is a construction of people, in short and invention.
The question of the reality of the physical universe is not germane to that question at all.
Naval gazing huh? That’s nice but I believe what Socrates believed: That “the unexamined life is not worth living”.
I’m sure we could all be like others and believe everything that we are taught to believe. To me, life is a puzzle and to engage with someone in this sort of debate is what true souls should do. We are simply rational creatures trying to find the answers to existence. To state that we have no common ground because we disagree is childlike.
*
I’m going to pick up my toys and go home. *
But, to some degree we need to acknowledge that a person has to believe in something in order to make sense of the world. Our common ground should then be the questions of, if we all have similar intelligence, do we collectively through belief cause things to be or is there some sort of Supreme Intelligence which has defined the “rules” for us or is the Universe simply something random and without purpose other than it’s mere existence with the rules implied? No one seems to be able to disobey the rules but then again, no one believes that they can either.
