After a fairly robust conversation with one of my learned chums, I asked him wether he thought that maths was discovered or invented. He thinks that it was invented whereas I think that it was discovered.

What followed was a pretty heated debate from which neither of us persuaded the other to change his mind and to my astonishment, I found out that this very same matter has been the cause of a lot of debates for many years and has split the science community right down the middle.

Think about it. Maths is a truly universal language that (in my opinion) should be discovered by any alien life that resembles our carbon based selves. Sure they will call it something else but the under-laying principles will be the same.

We most certainly exist inside a mathematical universe with maths being the language of creation, the blueprint of existence itself. I just cannot see how someone could believe that maths is simply an exclusively human achievement like English or Spanish or Mandarin for example.

I would like to see what you guys thought on the matter.

You're, like, TOTALY blowing my mind, maaaaan.

A bit of both i guess...
The stuff Maths deals with was discovered but the way we deal with it was invented...

It was invented by a Zionist Conspiracy.

I think it was invented.

Mathematics is an invention. It's a way for humans to quantify their environment. Amounts of things only exist because we ascribe them to things.

TheRobotLol wrote:You're, like, TOTALY blowing my mind, maaaaan.

Robot, you need to lay off the weed, itll help you with that problem




I really could see this being argued in favor of either side. But I like the thought of it being discovered, it sounds better

Mathematics is an invention. It's a way for humans to quantify their environment. Amounts of things only exist because we ascribe them to things.

Completely false. Epistemologically, mathematics aren't a science, they are multiple systems of quantitative truth functions. Wittgenstein described it best in the Tractatus logico-philosophicus, mathematics, just as logic, show us what structures of truth-relations needs to be respected for something to possibly be true or false. The ''science'' of mathematics are the collective research on those truth functions.

Maths are discovered, if anything. In truth the relation is much more complex.

On one hand, maths existed in the laws of physics before we knew of it, therefore it was discovered. For it to be invented would imply that humans made it.

However, one could argue that maths is simply a way of expressing these concepts that existed before hand; therefore it is a system devised by humans to explain and prove the laws of physics.

It is indeed a tough question... it all comes down to "what is maths" basically. If it is the underlying principles of the universe then it was discover. If it is the way humans describe, explain and prove the laws of physics then it was invented.

Maths is only important to us cos it's a way to make sense of the world around us, if we hadn't made math, we'd have made something else.

So math is invented. XD

NOm

Mathematics is merely a philosophical construct with which humans can quantify their environment and predict the effects of change, therefore it is an invention.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Mathematics is an invention. It's a way for humans to quantify their environment. Amounts of things only exist because we ascribe them to things.

Completely false. Epistemologically, mathematics aren't a science, they are multiple systems of quantitative truth functions.

I know you probably expected to blind me with your terminology, so I'm sorry to disappoint. Quantification is a human exercise; a product of our culture. It cannot exist without us. There is no essential mathematics, only what we percieve and our interpretation of it.

I find it odd that you cling to absolutist statements about truth, and ignore the near-century of work that came after, pretty much destroying it. There is no mathematics without us, because it arises from us. I mean, what is an amount?

Mathmatics came in to being organically. Essentially, enough Orks believed in it one day, and BOOM. Math. Now, you might ask why Orks would bother to believe in something like math to begin with, given their tech base. However, taken in the context of Gork and Mork, it falls nicely in to place. Math is the Ork's "great evil" to counter balance Gork and Mork.

Without a 'mind' in which to calculate them maths cease to exist. So invention.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Mathematics is an invention. It's a way for humans to quantify their environment. Amounts of things only exist because we ascribe them to things.

Completely false. Epistemologically, mathematics aren't a science, they are multiple systems of quantitative truth functions. Wittgenstein described it best in the Tractatus logico-philosophicus, mathematics, just as logic, show us what structures of truth-relations needs to be respected for something to possibly be true or false. The ''science'' of mathematics are the collective research on those truth functions.

Maths are discovered, if anything. In truth the relation is much more complex.

First, just a piece of advice: use the quote function. It makes it easier to see who you're referring to, and what words are your own; especially as most people (myself included) don't expect the use of italics in such a context here.

Now, on to business: I have several problems with your statements, which I'll bullet point for my own, and possibly your, convenience.

1: Whether or not math is a science comes down to what particular philosophy of science you subscribe to. I'm biased here, because I generally think the "problem" is a non-problem, and am broadly willing to give people claiming that a thing is science the benefit of the doubt so long as they aren't blatantly incorrect. For example, claiming that I have scientifically proven X is in fact Y because I feel really strongly that X is Y is not science, but being able to demonstrate that there is a sound argument for X really being Y, by way of material evidence, is science. You might think math cannot rise to this, but it can, and has, done so. Though, admittedly, the physical evidence lags well behind the theoretical evidence (though that's arguably true of all science).

2: Like truth functions, mathematical postulates are necessarily falsifiable. Sure, at a fundamental level they are not, as shown unintentionally by Russell, but the same is true of everything. You cannot falsify the claim that you exist, because existence is defined by, essentially, itself; ie. "I exist because this thing I am doing is existing."

3, and this is only sort of an objection: The question of discovery versus invention is essentially moot, because they are freely interchangeable. When we invent things, because we are, ultimately, just as much a part of reality as anything else, we are also discovering them. To invent a thing is to discover it can be done, or that a certain set of concepts can be associated with a certain other set of concepts. Its simply a question of emphasis, which has more to do with an emotional response than any question of truth.

I know you probably expected to blind me with your terminology, so I'm sorry to disappoint. Quantification is a human exercise; a product of our culture. It cannot exist without us. There is no essential mathematics, only what we percieve and our interpretation of it.

Sorry if I passed for an douche, but if you are going to pronounce yourself over an epistemological subject, expect those who study epistemology to argue, and to know and use the proper terminology. BTW, it's nothing you can't completly acquire throughout 2 wiki searches.

Epistemology : discourse over the definition and value of truth, and it's implication toward knowledge
Truth-function : A structure depicting a basic logical relation. For example, the truth function of non-contradiction is [if A = True, then -A /= True]

Your reduction to the necessity of an organic support is simply ridiculous. By all accounts, it would means that nothing is discovered, all is invented, even objects of perception. Semantically, it erase the definition of 'discovery'.
And quantitative essences are a priori in existence, however much I loath to use Kant's terms. Things exists as cohesive unit before we subjectively can do the operation of calculus.

Dogma reveals himself to be an existentialist!

I'm going to follow this thread with keen interest.

Thanks for that post Dogma, enjoyed reading it.

Mathematics crosses boundaries of discovery.

It is not an invention, neither is it a discovery, its both and neither or something else. The point is discovery refers to a preexisting concept or item, wheras invention is solely sourced by the human imagination.

Mathematics includes fundamental themes which are pre-existant, such as numbers and geometry what were either perceived or otherwise revealed by a process of discovery.

Other mathematical concepts are entirely of human invention. Plainly put if we discover a pretty pattern in mathematics (which is what most theorems are) we in fact invent, because the observers choose the criteria and how the criteria are observed and quantified wholecloth.

nomsheep wrote:Maths is only important to us cos it's a way to make sense of the world around us, if we hadn't made math, we'd have made something else.

So math is invented. XD

NOm

If that was true then how come we cannot simply 'invent' a way for 5 + 5 to equal 15? Without mathematics modern life would be impossible. Why do we need to quantify things in order to make sense of the world? Think about that, think really hard for a moment.

To understand the universe and to even be able to work out how something should behave that we have no direct experience of we need mathematics in order to make that possible.

There is something really profound about that.

If anyone simply thinks that it's just a way that we humans make sense of the world then they haven't thought deeply enough on the matter. Mathematics taps into something that links everything and everyone from the beginning of time and beyond. All the greats in history that have offered any true insight to the mechanics of the physical world (Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Penrose to name just a few) have done so through the abstract language of mathematics.

Newtons Inverse Square Law simply could not be explained any other way (a way in which could be applied to other planetary bodies in order to gain an accurate result that is) except through mathematics. You could communicate speaking English, Japanese or even French but that mathematical content would be the same.

I wanted to use the quote function, sorry ^^
Yes, I pronounced myself quite specifically, this isn't the place for a complete course on epistemology, and even less on epistemology of philosophy (which would be needed at first). But Wittgenstein's exposition of the comparable emptyness of truth-content of logical and mathematical axioms is currently pretty much considered the highest level of epistemological study at my university. Quine would be the other top figure, but I know next to nothing about him. Even then, its true, there are other very well developed opinions about the question, but none that comes down to "well, humans are needed to think, so maths were invented".

On the other side, my main interest is Husserl, who started as a mathematician, only to turn to descriptive psychology and later on phenomenology. Even then, he maintained that it would be impossible for us to have evolved a categorical attitude if naturally the quantitative aspect of objects didn't, in a sense, come from the object to the subject, in an existential kind of way.

And on to 3. I perfectly agree with you. Most of the problems are linked to the application of the term 'science' unequivocally unto different forms of knowledge. Yes, they are all sciences, in the broad sense of knowledge, but they aren't all sciences according to the same objectivity. Mathematics, like logic, and certainly the meta-language do not pronounce truths, but structures of truth, and those 'sciences' are usually recognized as those we called 'a priori' (even tho the term doesn't exactly mean 'pre-existing')

Its invented.

starting with basic counting, we have 10 fingers we use a base 10 system for counting. is we only had 8 fingers our base would be 8.

all measurements are invented, someone looked at his foot and walla we have a unit of measurement. But that was to easy so someone else invented a metric system. Gravity might be a constant we discovered, but it is expressed by the measurements we make up.

just because we can measure the distance to the moon, you could say we discovered the distance, but the distance is still expressed in our invented system.

while we figure out some impressive formulas to measure and calculate various things, its not really discovering it. If math was purely something we discovered like say Pluto, then PI would probably just equal 3 Pi is only the number it is because of the number of our fingers, in any other base its a completely different number.

starting with basic counting, we have 10 fingers we use a base 10 system for counting. is we only had 8 fingers our base would be 8.

all measurements are invented, someone looked at his foot and walla we have a unit of measurement. But that was to easy so someone else invented a metric system. Gravity might be a constant we discovered, but it is expressed by the measurements we make up.

We aren't talking about how we count, what overall shortcuts we use, but about the actual essence of quantity. The act of counting presuppose unity, then multiplicity. In a sense, Math isn't measurements, it's what allow measurements.

I believe math is what we use to describe facts, so it's an invention.

Relapse wrote:I believe math is what we use to describe facts, so it's an invention.

Very well put.

I believe that mathematical objects really exist, located not in the physical world of appearances but in an abstract realm of idealized forms, accessible to the intellect. Theoretical physicists, who express the laws of physics as mathematical equations, tend to follow this tradition. They prefer to envisage the laws of physics as having real existence, but transcending physical reality.

I like what Galileo had to say on the matter: "The great book of nature can only read by those who know the language in which it was written. And that language is mathematics." Or to be put more bluntly, here's what the English astronomer James Jeans said three centuries later: "The universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician."

Seriously, if you think it was invented then you ain't thought hard enough. If anyone does think this then can you give a good example of why you think this rather than the bland statement of: "It was invented," or: "It's how we make sense of the world." Something a bit more persuasive please.

I believe that mathematical objects really exist, located not in the physical world of appearances but in an abstract realm of idealized forms, accessible to the intellect. Theoretical physicists, who express the laws of physics as mathematical equations, tend to follow this tradition. They prefer to envisage the laws of physics as having real existence, but transcending physical reality.

That might be a bit too idealist for my taste. The 'mathematical object' could simply be the character of the unity of an object, in which case it's a synthetic character, revealed by our Gestalt-oriented perception. Hence the 'discovery'.
You don't need to believe in a metaphysical 'final cause' to have the same position, and I do not find that most physicists would agree with a 'final cause' argument. Could you provide source? I always was under the impression it was quite abandoned.
Anyway, the important epistemological fact is that claiming it's invented is absolutely false on all accounts.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

I believe that mathematical objects really exist, located not in the physical world of appearances but in an abstract realm of idealized forms, accessible to the intellect. Theoretical physicists, who express the laws of physics as mathematical equations, tend to follow this tradition. They prefer to envisage the laws of physics as having real existence, but transcending physical reality.

That might be a bit too idealist for my taste. The 'mathematical object' could simply be the character of the unity of an object, in which case it's a synthetic character, revealed by our Gestalt-oriented perception. Hence the 'discovery'.
You don't need to believe in a metaphysical 'final cause' to have the same position, and I do not find that most physicists would agree with a 'final cause' argument. Could you provide source? I always was under the impression it was quite abandoned.
Anyway, the important epistemological fact is that claiming it's invented is absolutely false on all accounts.

Theoretical physicists who are steeped in Platonic tradition will think in a similar vein as my own. From the sense of it originating from Plato you are quite correct in saying that it is outdated but the fact that it is still given a healthy amount of credence by a number of theoretical physicists, I think, counts for something.

Having said that, I think that it is an enjoyable experience to have a debate like this when people like yourself add what they do to it. In many ways, I think that you are someone who, in some respects, think in very similar ways to myself. Glad you joined the thread Kovnik.

Math is an invention-we gave each number value. 2 can mean a single object plus a single object, or it can mean Glorp. We determined it to have the value of a single object plus a single object. Now, multiple objects having the ability to be combined, hetero- or homogeneously, has always been possible, but the formulas had to be created. Do you think the universe decided "I'm going to make A^2+B^2=C^2 equal the formula for the area of a right triangle and see how long it takes people to figure it out?" No. We assigned a triangle to have a value of 180 degrees (a human conception) and over time built up a formula that would always give us an answer to side lengths, with the foundation based on the angles of the triangle. We assigned value, then built the formulas. Nature didn't do that. We had to "discover" the formula, but it was a formula discovered out of our created value for each piece of the puzzle. Combinations were discovered to make it easier to utilize our invention.

Glad you joined the thread Kovnik.

Thanks, a pleasure!

Math is an invention-we gave each number value. 2 can mean a single object plus a single object, or it can mean Glorp.

No. Each individual numerical values where named, yes, but there essence all descend from unity (0 or 1) or multiplicity (2,3,4, etc...). The name doesn't matter, the value is essentially there. It would've been there for a peasant looking a three cows even if he didn't know the number three. That's one aspect of the higher degrees of discrimination of the categorical attitude.

We determined it to have the value of a single object plus a single object.

Unity and multiplicity are given to anyone, anything capable of higher levels of perception. The conceptualization of those in numerical concepts is just a exercise of organization. We act on quantitative essence way before we can conceptualize them (like the cavemen who decides to run after the one beast he has isolated, instead of the pack). So again, 'discovery'.

Now, multiple objects having the ability to be combined, hetero- or homogeneously, has always been possible, but the formulas had to be created.

Same thing with the meta-language and natural language ; the meta-language is the necessary structure for the development of higher languages. Even formulas aren't truly created, but more balanced on previously established grounds.

Do you think the universe decided "I'm going to make A^2+B^2=C^2 equal the formula for the area of a right triangle and see how long it takes people to figure it out?" No.

Of course no. But it's easy to counter with the argument that however else you decide to express the formula for the area of a right triangle, it would be directly translatable to our formulation, hence suggesting its relative to an underlying structure.

We assigned value, then built the formulas. Nature didn't do that. We had to "discover" the formula, but it was a formula discovered out of our created value for each piece of the puzzle. Combinations were discovered to make it easier to utilize our invention.

I have no idea how you can conceive that we discovered formulas but invented values. I could almost understand the contrary. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Kovnik Obama wrote:
And on to 3. I perfectly agree with you. Most of the problems are linked to the application of the term 'science' unequivocally unto different forms of knowledge. Yes, they are all sciences, in the broad sense of knowledge, but they aren't all sciences according to the same objectivity. Mathematics, like logic, and certainly the meta-language do not pronounce truths, but structures of truth, and those 'sciences' are usually recognized as those we called 'a priori' (even tho the term doesn't exactly mean 'pre-existing')

I would contend that in order to exist a priori any structure of truth must itself be truth, but otherwise agree.

I'd be happy to elaborate-or at least post a new way of looking at it. A formula is like a recipe: the parts are always there, but you have to invent to discover really. Take chicken, garlic, wine, butter and lemon juice. Do you discover that together they make an amazing meal? No, you try out combinations, maybe adding parsley one time, maybe adding onion, maybe taking out the butter etc, etc. After trying all sorts of options, you decide on a recipe that works best for you, and you write it down. Does that count as discovering a meal? No, you invented one and created a formula/recipe to make sure you get the result you want each time. Mathematics is that same concept, only GREATLY enhanced. I mentioned "discovered" before in parenthesis-suggesting I had an ulterior meaning behind the word. It's discovered in the same was as that recipe, through trial and error. Trial and error comes about through inventiveness. You must invent to discover. That's about as philosophical as I'm getting at this hour with a 7am flight waiting for me. I think it's time to bounce for the night.

Totally off topic, if anyone wants a recipe for a great chicken dinner, I'd be happy to help

Perhaps it would be fair to say that the symbols we use to represent mathematical ideas (numbers, letters, and other symbols) are an invention, but that many of the concepts and ideas we use those symbols to express have been discovered.

Sort of in the way that the word "tree" would be an invention, but to the first person who ever saw the thing that the word "tree" represents, the thing itself would be a discovery.

I would contend that in order to exist a priori any structure of truth must itself be truth, but otherwise agree.

Yeah, it's why Wittgenstein spoke about logical and mathematical axioms as 'the borderline' of factual truth of the world. Basically, they delimits the world of the nonsensical and the meaningful, but themselves only have the barest minimum of content.

I've spent the last summer translating basic logical axioms to geometrical pathways according to a process described in the Tractatus. I don't have them on my computer tho, but I might try and find a scanner tomorrow. They would probably help to illustrate my point.

They would probably better help you illustrate your e-cock, which is all you're basically doing here.

They would probably better help you illustrate your e-cock, which is all you're basically doing here.

I don't know what is your problem. Someone asks a question on which an entire academical discourse has been centered around and developped for over 2300 years. Then you get frustrated when an academician actually logs on and offer to share his works? Because he actually uses the terms established in his profession? I did also offer to clarify anything and everything I posted. Instead of acting like a douche, you could've just asked ''could you vulgarize this?'' If you are genuinly concerned about the fact that I might be misrepresenting the subject because of the anonymity granted by the internet, you could've just ask 'could you offer me your credentials, and what courses are about this?'.

On top of things, in a thread about epistemology of mathematics, you complain about people claiming to the authority granted by years of study? I dont even...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

I know you probably expected to blind me with your terminology, so I'm sorry to disappoint. Quantification is a human exercise; a product of our culture. It cannot exist without us. There is no essential mathematics, only what we percieve and our interpretation of it.

Sorry if I passed for an douche, but if you are going to pronounce yourself over an epistemological subject, expect those who study epistemology to argue, and to know and use the proper terminology. BTW, it's nothing you can't completly acquire throughout 2 wiki searches.

Epistemology : discourse over the definition and value of truth, and it's implication toward knowledge
Truth-function : A structure depicting a basic logical relation. For example, the truth function of non-contradiction is [if A = True, then -A /= True]

You're appearing douche-esque because you're a philosophy student who appears to be indulging his 'smartest guy in the room' power fantasies. I understand the terms you use (though cultural theory is actually my field), I just happen to speak in plain English because I seek to persuade people with my arguments, not cow them into acquiesence by blinding them with jargon. That's an incredibly immature thing to do, and I clocked that you were doing it as soon as you entered the thread.

Your reduction to the necessity of an organic support is simply ridiculous. By all accounts, it would means that nothing is discovered, all is invented, even objects of perception. Semantically, it erase the definition of 'discovery'.

It's interesting that you bring up semantics, because there are schools of semiotic thought which contend that everything is an 'invention' - there is no essential reality, only our reality. The colour red is an 'invention'. The universe is an 'invention'.

And quantitative essences are a priori in existence, however much I loath to use Kant's terms. Things exists as cohesive unit before we subjectively can do the operation of calculus.

I disagree. The universe does not simply divide itself up into discrete, manageable units, just waiting for us to discover them. The concept of division into amounts is our concept. It's our interpretation, because that's what our brains are capable of. The universe doesn't actually care how it is measured and interpreted, because the universe doesn't care what we think. It wasn't designed with us in mind. It just is.

O look, dakka is trying to be smart. The word has been created to describe the principles of math in our world. To say math was created is to also say humans don't exists due to the word describing an object you can see and touch. However math may not be able to be seen since it describes values, it is a constant in our lives.

In all math (as a word and its units of measurement) are invented to understand the real property's smarter people then us have discovered.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

I don't know what is your problem. Someone asks a question on which an entire academical discourse has been centered around and developped for over 2300 years. Then you get frustrated when an academician actually logs on and offer to share his works?

Now, now - no need for tears before bedtime. There's a good chap. I'm genuinely shocked that you didn't expect your rudeness and arrogance to be reacted to.

Albatross wrote:They would probably better help you illustrate your e-cock, which is all you're basically doing here.

I like Albatrosses post.

Is Albatrosses the correct plural?

Or is it just albatross, ala sheep?

Or Albatrossi?

More importantly, why are we all here? And why does nobody else understand my genius?

Albatross'

You're appearing douche-esque because you're a philosophy student who appears to be indulging his 'smartest guy in the room' power fantasies. I understand the terms you use (though cultural theory is actually my field), I just happen to speak in plain English because I seek to persuade people with my arguments, not cow them into acquiesence by blinding them with jargon. That's an incredibly immature thing to do, and I clocked that you were doing it as soon as you entered the thread.

You seem to be threatened by the fact that this subject is actually not readily available to more vulgar intellects. Or you have a biais agaisnt intellectuals? Anyhow, it's hilarious to think that, on the subject of the a priori or a posteriori state of mathematical objects, you didn't expect complicated arguments.

I expect just about every intellectuals must appears to you to 'indulge in his smartest guy in the room power fantasies', if he isn't vulgarizing everything. Unfortunately for you, not all subjects can be readily vulgarized.

It's interesting that you bring up semantics, because there are schools of semiotic thought which contend that everything is an 'invention' - there is no essential reality, only our reality. The colour red is an 'invention'. The universe is an 'invention'.

And you suscribing to it would be perfectly in line with your 'cultural theory' studies. But absolute relativism is regarded like a complete fallacy by almost all analytical and continental authors in philosophy of knowledge. It's considered akin to a conceptual disease, really.

I disagree. The universe does not simply divide itself up into discrete, manageable units, just waiting for us to discover them.

Well, I can only say that yes, they do wait for us, separated, and only need our discrimination (which is done instinctively, not conceptually). Otherwise we couldn't pick up an object from it's background and move it unto another background.

The universe doesn't actually care how it is measured and interpreted, because the universe doesn't care what we think. It wasn't designed with us in mind. It just is.

The universe is not required to enact anything. It didn't decide what maths would say. But it's arrangement only allows us to enact mathematical studies in certain ways, thus quantities are pre-existing to our intepretation.

Another of those 'mysteries' that simply boils down to interpretive definitions in language.

Honestly, I think it is impossible to identify Mathematics as either a discovery or invention due to the simple fact that we are the only beings currently known to use these rules to quantify our environment.

For Mathematics to truly be a discovered entity, another intelligent being needs to be found and studied for how they quantify their environment. Logically, we would think they would use the same rules that we follow, thus would show it to be a discovered discipline.

But, if a newly discovered intelligent being utilizes a completely different method, unrelated to Mathematics, to correctly and repeatedly, quantify their universe, then it would seem that it is an invention.

*shrug*

Albatross wrote:[
You're appearing douche-esque because you're a philosophy student who appears to be indulging his 'smartest guy in the room' power fantasies. I understand the terms you use (though cultural theory is actually my field), I just happen to speak in plain English because I seek to persuade people with my arguments, not cow them into acquiesence by blinding them with jargon. That's an incredibly immature thing to do, and I clocked that you were doing it as soon as you entered the thread.

Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

Albatross wrote:
You're appearing douche-esque because you're a philosophy student who appears to be indulging his 'smartest guy in the room' power fantasies. I understand the terms you use (though cultural theory is actually my field), I just happen to speak in plain English because I seek to persuade people with my arguments, not cow them into acquiesence by blinding them with jargon. That's an incredibly immature thing to do, and I clocked that you were doing it as soon as you entered the thread.

.

Oh no Albatross, he is actually smart! Look out, his inteligence might confuse and anger you! How is being clever and using the correct terms immature?

Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

Thanks, that's probably a better way to put it that how I did myself.

BTW, is your name an indicative of your litterary taste? Because if it's the case, I so very much approve.

There's also the fact that being francophone first and foremost, I can only express myself over these topics through a very litteral translation of the terms I have been taught. Maybe it appears unduly arrogant, or maybe it's a bit of ethnocentrism on the part some of the anglophone readers, I dunno.

Let's just say that I do not see the point in building e-cred on an Off-Topic Thread on a site about toy soldiers. But I like debates about philosophy, it's my career, what can you do? I'll handle these debates at whatever level of discourse I damn well please. If you want to proove me wrong, go ahead, attack my arguments. But addressing my tone or my vocabulary is at best an aesthetical issue, and at worst a diversionary tactic.

Muhr wrote:

nomsheep wrote:Maths is only important to us cos it's a way to make sense of the world around us, if we hadn't made math, we'd have made something else.

So math is invented. XD

NOm

If that was true then how come we cannot simply 'invent' a way for 5 + 5 to equal 15? Without mathematics modern life would be impossible. Why do we need to quantify things in order to make sense of the world? Think about that, think really hard for a moment.

We could, just it's globally excepted that 5 + 5 = 10. if we were to change that than things like currency would become moot.

If math can be discovered then it can be discovered by anything that isn't human as well, right?

By that theory then surely if i watch my hamster long enough, he will have discovered a method of counting?

Nom

We could, just it's globally excepted that 5 + 5 = 10. if we were to change that than things like currency would become moot.

Things like math would become moot. If it hasn't been done, it's more likely because its nonsensical to do it.

If math can be discovered then it can be discovered by anything that isn't human as well, right?

Yes, and more likely are. It's important to remember that we live with quantities around us way before we actually count them. It's more than likely that type of limited experience of quantities that higher forms of life (like the crow who can count up to three, according to the popular belief) have.

By that theory then surely if i watch my hamster long enough, he will have discovered a method of counting?

Well he would need to evolve the necessary module for higher levels of categorical perception, which isn't likely to happen to an individual hamster. But if some evolutionary vector were to influence the hamster specy so that they would evolve those modules, than yes, you would see it start 'counting' (again, like crows, who can, supposedly, count up to three, but only in specific situations, of course).

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Well, I can only say that yes, they do wait for us, separated, and only need our discrimination (which is done instinctively, not conceptually). Otherwise we couldn't pick up an object from it's background and move it unto another background.

That's a mildly whiggish approach you happen to be taking there.

Mathematical fact is as susceptible to a constructivist demolition as any scientific fact.

That's a mildly whiggish approach you happen to be taking there.

Post-modernism isn't intellectual liberalism, and whatever opposes it isn't intellectual conservatism. A better way to express this is that I take a intellectually rationnalist approach, and you take a intellectually romantic approach.

Mathematical fact is as susceptible to a constructivist demolition as any scientific fact.

IMO, not without exposing the underlying essence.
And I have yet to find a deconstruction that expose a complete, arbitrary conceptual construction (except for terms like 'Renaissance', 'Ancient', etc....
Again, IMHO, Merleau-Ponty's deconstruction toward a more physicalist objectivity is the furthest we can safely go in basic hermeneutics of the history of ideas.

Also, I'm refering here to mathematics as 'the science of quantities'. I'm far from being good at higher levels of math, so if at some point we stop using maths to correlate conceptually our ideas of quantity to the instinctual perceptions of quantities, and start expressing something else, then my position doesn't apply anymore. But it would be safe to say that we aren't talking about pure maths anymore.

I imagine that whatever concepts that can be deconstructed and have exposed it's complete emptyness, would be concepts not directly relating to expressions of unity or multiplicity.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

You're appearing douche-esque because you're a philosophy student who appears to be indulging his 'smartest guy in the room' power fantasies. I understand the terms you use (though cultural theory is actually my field), I just happen to speak in plain English because I seek to persuade people with my arguments, not cow them into acquiesence by blinding them with jargon. That's an incredibly immature thing to do, and I clocked that you were doing it as soon as you entered the thread.

You seem to be threatened by the fact that this subject is actually not readily available to more vulgar intellects. Or you have a biais agaisnt intellectuals?

You're adorable. I particularly love the amateur psychology. Yes, I feel threatened by your massive intellect, it has nothing to do with the fact that you're coming off as a pretentious arse by dropping Wittgenstein into a discussion on a miniature wargaming forum.

Anyhow, it's hilarious to think that, on the subject of the a priori or a posteriori state of mathematical objects, you didn't expect complicated arguments.

Complicated arguments are to be expected, obfuscating language intended to alienate the vast majority of other users, not so much. What you're doing is trying to set up a power relationship by creating a meta-argument; your words are saying one thing, but the obfuscating nature of your language connotes the real argument you're trying to make: 'I am very clever, agree with me because I'm cleverer than you.'

Yeah, well I'm not buying. I understood every word you said, and all you're offering is outdated essentialist, and worse, absolutist statements on what is, in actuality, a human cultural practice.

I expect just about every intellectuals must appears to you to 'indulge in his smartest guy in the room power fantasies', if he isn't vulgarizing everything. Unfortunately for you, not all subjects can be readily vulgarized.

You should have 'fortunately for me', not 'unfortunately for you'. Once again, I understood you, I just thought your delivery was pretentious. I'd rather transfer knowledge, not use it to try and impress strangers on the internet. I'm a grown-up.

It's interesting that you bring up semantics, because there are schools of semiotic thought which contend that everything is an 'invention' - there is no essential reality, only our reality. The colour red is an 'invention'. The universe is an 'invention'.

And you suscribing to it would be perfectly in line with your 'cultural theory' studies.

I love how you put that in scare-quotes, as if cultural theory isn't one of the most important humanities disciplines, certainly post-war. I think you just became not worth bothering with.

I disagree. The universe does not simply divide itself up into discrete, manageable units, just waiting for us to discover them.

Well, I can only say that yes, they do wait for us, separated, and only need our discrimination (which is done instinctively, not conceptually). Otherwise we couldn't pick up an object from it's background and move it unto another background.

What is an object, what is a background? You can't adequately answer these questions without recourse to semiotic analysis, and if so that relies on human agency (or not, depending on your viewpoint). Not all discrimination is instinctive, either.

The universe is not required to enact anything. It didn't decide what maths would say. But it's arrangement only allows us to enact mathematical studies in certain ways, thus quantities are pre-existing to our intepretation.

Not true, because of the key word 'us'. WE enact mathematical studies, because we are here to enact them, they don't exist without us.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

That's a mildly whiggish approach you happen to be taking there.

Post-modernism isn't intellectual liberalism, and whatever opposes it isn't intellectual conservatism. A better way to express this is that I take a intellectually rationnalist approach, and you take a intellectually romantic approach.

Mathematical fact is as susceptible to a constructivist demolition as any scientific fact.

IMO, not without exposing the underlying essence.
And I have yet to find a deconstruction that expose a complete, arbitrary conceptual construction (except for terms like 'Renaissance', 'Ancient', etc....
Again, IMHO, Merleau-Ponty's deconstruction toward a more physicalist objectivity is the furthest we can safely go in basic hermeneutics of the history of ideas.

Also, I'm refering here to mathematics as 'the science of quantities'. I'm far from being good at higher levels of math, so if at some point we stop using maths to correlate conceptually our ideas of quantity to the instinctual perceptions of quantities, and start expressing something else, then my position doesn't apply anymore. But it would be safe to say that we aren't talking about pure maths anymore.

I imagine that whatever concepts that can be deconstructed and have exposed it's complete emptyness, would be concepts not directly relating to expressions of unity or multiplicity.

I should note here that you'll need to use slightly more inter-disciplinary terminology to debate this one with me. I'm a historian by trade, which has some interchangeability with philosophy, social sciences, and anthropology. But when you start talking about 'underlying essences', you may have to quantify that one for me.

A good example of the constructivist position that mathematical formulas, proofs and results rely on presuppositions, ispointed out in David Bloor's Strong Programme. To steal from Bucchi's 'Science in Society':-

'The proof that the square root of two is an irrational number may lose significance in a mathematical system in which the concept of even and odd do not exist; or it may be interpreted (as it was by the Greek mathematicians) that the square root of two is not a number at all. To different institutional and cultural contexts may correspond different logic and mathematics'.

There's also an excellent example of how supposedly 'discovered' mathematical laws can be continuously amended and updated in Euler's theorem, which has been amended. Euler's Theorem was related to polyhedra, and defining their vertices, edges,and faces. Unfortunately, fifty years later, someone drew a shape it didn't work for. The wording was amended so it would count for the new shape. Then another shape was created which broke the theorem once again.

Things such as those demonstrate that mathematical fact, is like scientific fact, and historical fact, in that what is considered to be 'fact' is in reality, affected by cultural context and presuppositions. In the same way Thomas Kuhn demolished scientific fact, and Geoffrey Carr historical fact, it has now been fairly conclusively demonstrated that mathematical laws are only laws so long as they remain the current paradigm. And if that is the case, it cannot be the case that, “The conclusions of natural science are true and necessary, and the judgement of man has nothing to do with them", to quote Galileo. Laws of mathematics are never anything more than theories, and 'theories are not collections of facts, they are models of the world that are to some extent capable of being tested by the facts’ to steal a quote from a well known social scientist.

Muhr wrote:
Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

...aaaand, here comes the fan-club.

Albatross wrote:

Muhr wrote:
Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

...aaaand, here comes the fan-club.

Well then at least he has people agreeing with him. Thats a couple more than you

As far as I can see dogma (a frequent and respected poster) and alby (a... frequent poster) agree here.

For the record I agree with them too.

TheRobotLol wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Muhr wrote:
Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

...aaaand, here comes the fan-club.

Well then at least he has people agreeing with him. Thats a couple more than you

See, if you could read, you'd understand that, actually, what other posters have said here has been in agreement with my points. But you either can't, or you're more impressed by 'the man what uses the long fancy-sounding book-learning words' that you don't understand, but want to. Or at least, pretend to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm going to get banned again, aren't I?



weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

I think it's funny that only you are allowed to "play e-psychologist" or whatever and say Kovnik Obama is stroking his ego, but if anyone suggests maybe his knowledge of the subject or his stance flusters you they are the "e-psychologists".

If I had to guess Kovnik saw a topic very much relevant to his interests and career and so enthusiatically chimed in. I think anyone who finds a topic that coincides with their interests or hobbies would get pretty excited to talk about it.

Also why not pick on dogma or Ketara? They use pretty high brow terminology as well.

If anything it's always nice to see fellow philosophers on dakka, it reminds me that I'm not the only one who has made terrible career descions , though admittedly philosophy has become more of my hobby and less of my (potential) trade.

Granted I do appreciate the idea of "vulgarizing" subjects as Kovnik put it but I think that's the inner tutor and camp counselor in me talking. Having to deal with dumb kids gives you a knack for speaking plainly but without diluting the message. Either way I think you're picking on the new guy a bit too much.

There has been a lot of words I don't understand flying around (yes i'm a dumbass) and surprisingly this is not my field of expertise.

However if I've got it right alby is saying it's invented (which I agree with)

And Kovnik is saying it's discovered and that my hamster could discover math should it evolve enough)

Right?

@Kovnik. Surely if math is discoverable then once again using my hamster as an example even how he is atm unevolved, he could logically work out a rudimentary system of mathematics?

even if it's just lots of food and small amounts of food?

Nom

EDIT: wrong name

Albatross wrote:
See, if you could read, you'd understand that, actually, what other posters have said here has been in agreement with my points. But you either can't, or you're more impressed by 'the man what uses the long fancy-sounding book-learning words' that you don't understand, but want to. Or at least, pretend to.

If I cannot read how am I rssponding, eh, dumbass? And the person wo uses the 'long words' is more impressive than you as it shows he actually knows something about anything instead of you, unable to understand what he is getting at, and hiding your lack of knowledge with insults and low blows about stupidity and length of words. Pathetic.

@ TheRobotLol: OTOH maybe he's just pointing that big words don't make you clever and make your point hard to understand for everyone else.

Nom

nomsheep wrote:@ TheRobotLol: OTOH maybe he's just pointing that big words don't make you clever and make your point hard to understand for everyone else.

Nom

True, but again, OTOH, it can also show more knowledge on the subject. Depends on the poster, and I don't know them.

TheRobotLol wrote:And the person wo uses the 'long words' is more impressive than you as it shows he actually knows something about anything instead of you

That actually doesn't show that at all, it just shows they know the words; knowing something and using it are two different things. Albatross (and many others) know these words, but we also know that in a layman's conversation they it is unnecessary, or even problematic, to use technical jargon. In a classroom or professional setting it makes sense and in fact would be necessary, but in a casual conversation among a very mixxed group in can be inappropriate, and knowing when to apply language and when not to is a form of knowledge as well.

TheRobotLol wrote:And the person wo uses the 'long words' is more impressive than you as it shows he MIGHT actually knows something about anything instead of you

Okay, edit'd.

Ahtman wrote:

TheRobotLol wrote:And the person wo uses the 'long words' is more impressive than you as it shows he actually knows something about anything instead of you

That actually doesn't show that at all, it just shows they know the words; knowing something and using it are two different things. Albatross (and many others) know these words, but we also know that in a layman's conversation they it is unnecessary, or even problematic, to use technical jargon. In a classroom or professional setting it makes sense and in fact would be necessary, but in a casual conversation among a very mixxed group in can be inappropriate, and knowing when to apply language and when not to is a form of knowledge as well.

That's true but if there are far more polite ways of asking someone to tone it down. Instead of saying "I bet you like showing off your e-peen!" You could simply ask for a more approachable version of his post. Or if you really know what it all means maybe you can try to translate it into layman terms yourself. I personally find it fun to translate and then explain/teach complex ideas. Then again that might just be the teacher in me speaking.

This is getting hard to follow, but in most cases, I quite enjoy

And Kovnik is saying it's discovered and that my hamster could discover math should it evolve enough)

Right?

Essentially, yes. And more, my position is that they would discover a system of math that would be directly translatable into ours (if he did the math correctly, of course). There would be no marked differences between the human maths and the hamster maths, as long as he has the same modules as us. If he misses some, then he won't have access (somethings just won't make sense to him, or he won't even see them) to some parts of maths.

@Kovnik. Surely if math is discoverable then once again using my hamster as an example even how he is atm unevolved, he could logically work out a rudimentary system of mathematics?

even if it's just lots of food and small amounts of food?

He needs what we call logical modules, or linguistic modules, to actually work out 'small amounts' from 'large amounts'. It's all based upon some perceptive processes, which is also why people with some types of aphasia also have the inability to actually discriminate amounts. But I think most higher forms of life (crows are often mentioned, so I would assume other very intelligent animals like dogs and chimps) have enough categorical discrimination to between small amounts and big amounts.

If anything it's always nice to see fellow philosophers on dakka, it reminds me that I'm not the only one who has made terrible career descions

It always is! (except if it's a freaking aristotelico-thomist. Then it's hell ^^)

I should note here that you'll need to use slightly more inter-disciplinary terminology to debate this one with me. I'm a historian by trade, which has some interchangeability with philosophy, social sciences, and anthropology.

Ok. Then let's start by noting that deconstructions, as far as epistemology goes, are still a very iffy territory. Like my Epistemo teacher said, "the de-construction, that's whatever Derrida is currently working on ". The process of deconstruction as evolved from Husserl's Épochè, or phenomenological reduction, and was at that time a very specific program to turn a subjective concept into an objective one. Heidegger popularized the idea of applying the same program to the development of ideas throughout history, in a very similar way to what Nietzsche did. Husserl refused completely what he saw as a justification of historicism.

The movement called often 'the hermeneutic turn of phenomenology' subsequently produced number's of deconstructions based on Heidegger's destruction.

Now, deconstructions do NOT necessarily imply that the concept at end is completely artificial, but mostly that we can assume that different factors will have forced the true and most natural meaning away from our perception (Heidegger claimed that the major factor of history was our escape from ourselves, and from our contingent characteristics)

Now, the rest of your post can simply be answered by going over this :

But when you start talking about 'underlying essences', you may have to quantify that one for me.

Simply enough, if meaning is the result of interpretation, that's because we entered in contact with what can very broadly be described as an essence. We cannot call it a sense-data, since for example the unity of an object isn't actually given through a single sense, but obtained through the synthesis of most senses, so it is called something a bit more metaphysical but it is in no way a characteristics that exists at the same level as, let's say, color. It isn't either a thing of aether, floating in another world. It's just the existential correlate of the fact that objects, to be objects, require unity, and that we have evolved in a way that is capable of discerning those objects.

The relative stance of all systems of interpretation, advanced at first by Russell, is nice and all, but it's arguing by the negative. We do not have a single example of a non-consequential system of logic. Can it be said that it could exist? Yeah. But we have been talking about this for over a century, with as yet not a single system offered as an example. If anyone can give me a single example of a system of math that doesn't work accordingly to the law of non-contradiction, go ahead, you'll have disproven my entire stance. (let's note, it would have to be non-hazy logic, as non-contradiction works only in binary systems).

Laws of mathematics are never anything more than theories, and 'theories are not collections of facts, they are models of the world that are to some extent capable of being tested by the facts’ to steal a quote from a well known social scientist.

I'd say it's both false and true (yeah for hazy logic!). Laws of mathematics are initially incredibly basic stuff. We are talking about the basic axioms (like the commutativity of addition and the non-commutativity of substraction). They, again, aren't theories, they are the stuff that allows us to potentially (looking at you Alba) understand each other when we talk theorizing.

The true part is that they aren't facts. They don't say anything about the world, they allow us to say something about the world (which is defined by Wittgenstein as the totality of facts). They make up the frontier of what is possible to express meaningfully, and what we can't express because it's nonsensical.

The on the hilarious part :

it has nothing to do with the fact that you're coming off as a pretentious arse by dropping Wittgenstein into a discussion on a miniature wargaming forum

So I was right, you resent anyone who actually uses the knowledge they have acquired through higher studies. Yes, Wittgenstein is about the hardest author I can think of (Whitehead might contest him for that spot). Yes, I would have a hard time vulgarizing this to the point where it would be understandable by 16 years old (which is why we don't teach him in College).

obfuscating language intended to alienate the vast majority of other users, not so much.

So who's playing at the e-psychology game now?

I love how you put that in scare-quotes, as if cultural theory isn't one of the most important humanities disciplines, certainly post-war. I think you just became not worth bothering with.

Well, who's striking his ego now? I put quotes because I do not know what 'cultural studies' refer specifically to, other than a very broad area of humanities. Here we have 'social science'. To me 'cultural theory' could very well be stuff like afro-american culture, gender studies or post-modern studies, or even a sub-course in communication.

What is an object, what is a background? You can't adequately answer these questions without recourse to semiotic analysis, and if so that relies on human agency (or not, depending on your viewpoint). Not all discrimination is instinctive, either.

An object is what distinguishes itself from a background through perceptive or intellectual discrimination. A background is the mass of undiscriminated sense-data. While you are right, intellectual discrimination being mostly enacted (like active judgment), perceptual discrimination is pretty mush entirely instinctual (Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception is the reference here). This definition of background comes from the Gestalttheorie, and I can only refer to Goldstein and Ehrenfels for an appropriate demonstration of how its definition stems from the analysis of biological functions.

and if so that relies on human agency (or not, depending on your viewpoint).

Again, yes. If we don't exists, no one talks about "1+1=2". But if we don't exists, the continental landmass of North America still exists. It just isn't named. It's waiting to be...
wait for it...
wait....
..
'discovered'

asimo77 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

TheRobotLol wrote:And the person wo uses the 'long words' is more impressive than you as it shows he actually knows something about anything instead of you

That actually doesn't show that at all, it just shows they know the words; knowing something and using it are two different things. Albatross (and many others) know these words, but we also know that in a layman's conversation they it is unnecessary, or even problematic, to use technical jargon. In a classroom or professional setting it makes sense and in fact would be necessary, but in a casual conversation among a very mixxed group in can be inappropriate, and knowing when to apply language and when not to is a form of knowledge as well.

That's true but if there are far more polite ways of asking someone to tone it down. Instead of saying "I bet you like showing off your e-peen!" You could simply ask for a more approachable version of his post.

My comment in no way excused or endorsed the language used to respond, but only addressed the notion that just using technical language automatically showed superior knowledge.

asimo77 wrote:I personally find it fun to translate and then explain/teach complex ideas. Then again that might just be the teacher in me speaking.

I do as well, but you'll notice that wasn't what was happening here.

Albatross wrote:

Muhr wrote:
Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

...aaaand, here comes the fan-club.

I'm at first sorry to respond to this but I feel the need to tell you, that not dropping an internet issue might be considered immature.
Especially since you've not only been flaming in a discussion with one user but also start attacking others later on.
Next to that it's a bit repetitive to read about how you understand what he is saying, instead of continuing the topic discussion.

As for staying on topic:

reading what everyone had to say and how well they constructed their believes I still can't help
but 'feel' (I have discalculy (and dyslexia ) to begin with so don't try and argue my illogical approach)
that it is discovered. Being very informed about the matter since I have no solid (or barely any) understanding
about maths, I cannot construct my argument, or more likely to be called, opinion.
Some other people have mentioned that you first have to state whether other live species apply the same mathematical
structures. Although I don't believe we will in the nearby future construct any device or 'invent' any theory/way to communicate
with either animals or new found alien species, I still think of that to be a valid argument.

On another note, I've enjoyed reading the stuff that's posted and hopefully more interesting posts will come!


S.

Good thing this guy didn't enter the discussion, he'd bury us all with jargon.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o

My comment in no way excused or endorsed the language used to respond, but only addressed the notion that just using technical language automatically showed superior knowledge.

Let's note that I never said it did. I apologized about any arrogance perceived in my 1st posts. I offered to give clarifications, but was told that everything was well understood.
Then I was again insulted.
I think he could've shown the decency to simply say that we don't agree, and that we don't speak to the same audience. Said audience then could've simply made the choice of whether or not follow the thread of my answers.

He is, after all, the only one accusing me of trying to 'obfuscate' the issue.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

My comment in no way excused or endorsed the language used to respond, but only addressed the notion that just using technical language automatically showed superior knowledge.

Let's note that I never said it did.

And I never you said you did. RobotLol did and I responded to him.

Good thing this guy didn't enter the discussion, he'd bury us all with jargon.

But his pronunciation ... !!!

And I never you said you did.

I know, I just wanted it to be said. It does note an interest for the subject, but yes, high brow vocabulary is no assurance of the speaker's integrity. The opposite is true too which proves it's just not a good way to interpret an intent.

@Ahtman or Asimo77. In that case provided you understand what's being said here, could you dumb it down for me (and others) please?

Whilst I understand roughly what is being said said most of this is beyond me (mechanics =/= philosophy) and i'm quite interested.

@kovnik: can you say who you are quoting as it is easier to follow your posts that way. thanks.

And switching from my hamster who we have now established is a dumbass. My rat (who falls under your higher forms of life category) and dog have never displayed any from of counting/ numeracy and i have watched both for many many hours, the closest is if you have two dog treats and take one away then they hunt for the other one.

Rats are clever animals and will soon work their way out of a maze, learn where the food comes from etc but no counting.

That would be because (either they don't need it yet though that could be argued for x amounts of reasons) it's primarily a human creation. maths only exists because we do. but we do not only exist because maths does. maths has only developed as far as it is due to us having the spare time to philosophize and develop it beyond ten. we no longer have to fight for survival so we develop more complex ways to understand the world around us.

On another point the black hole theories and the theory of relativity( the one if you go fast enough time slows) and things we can't touch, feel or get to yet are exactly that theories and guesses based off things and behaviors we have observed here. What if we get to that speed and time doesn't slow? or we reach that black hole and it just wants a hug?

Nom

Nom

nomsheep wrote:

@kovnik: can you say who you are quoting as it is easier to follow your posts that way. thanks.

And switching from my hamster who we have now established is a dumbass. My rat (who falls under your higher forms of life category) and dog have never displayed any from of counting/ numeracy and i have watched both for many many hours, the closest is if you have two dog treats and take one away then they hunt for the other one.

Rats are clever animals and will soon work their way out of a maze, learn where the food comes from etc but no counting.

That would be because (either they don't need it yet though that could be argued for x amounts of reasons) it's primarily a human creation. maths only exists because we do. but we do not only exist because maths does. maths has only developed as far as it is due to us having the spare time to philosophize and develop it beyond ten. we no longer have to fight for survival so we develop more complex ways to understand the world around us.

Being clever doesn't happen on all levels ; your rat might be very bright at navigating a maze, probably because it has an awesome spacial memory. That doesn't involve counting (at least not until you get to higher degrees of intellect and start counting the 'left turns' and the 'right turns'. More than likely, you rat just has a good instinctual memory of his physical movements, which allows him to retrace correctly the turns. Also, let's note that us counting consciously the turns isn't necessarily an objectively better method than that of 'counting with his body', like the rats does. Higher intellectual functions aren't necessarily more effective. More than likely the rat is better off just with his spacial memory, if all he ever wants is to navigate mazes.

So they are brighter than hamsters (I guess), but that only applies to certain capacities.
The dog, I don't know. I was just mentioning him because he is one of the most easily recognized higher forms of animal intelligence. He might be able to discriminate between one, two and many, or just one and many, and it might simply be hard to locate a action that shows that well enough. He might just not have the capacity. I honestly don't know about that.
The crow example is a strong one. We know they can 'count' up to three, but not four, because they will instinctively learn to run away after the third gunshot of a hunter, if the hunter has a three-shot rifle, but won't learn it if the shooter shoots repeatedly 4, 5, 6 times in between his reload. Later studies have shown that they have a high degree of categorical perception, and that they mostly use it to publicize the size of found carcasses, so that there won't actually be more crows coming to eat then the amount of available food.

Corpsesarefun wrote:As far as I can see dogma (a frequent and respected poster) and alby (a... frequent poster) agree here.

For the record I agree with them too.

Me three.

Me three.

But... but... we come from the same town!

Kovnik Obama wrote:

I should note here that you'll need to use slightly more inter-disciplinary terminology to debate this one with me. I'm a historian by trade, which has some interchangeability with philosophy, social sciences, and anthropology.

Ok. Then let's start by noting that deconstructions, as far as epistemology goes, are still a very iffy territory. Like my Epistemo teacher said, "the de-construction, that's whatever Derrida is currently working on ". The process of deconstruction as evolved from Husserl's Épochè, or phenomenological reduction, and was at that time a very specific program to turn a subjective concept into an objective one. Heidegger popularized the idea of applying the same program to the development of ideas throughout history, in a very similar way to what Nietzsche did. Husserl refused completely what he saw as a justification of historicism.

The movement called often 'the hermeneutic turn of phenomenology' subsequently produced number's of deconstructions based on Heidegger's destruction.

Now, deconstructions do NOT necessarily imply that the concept at end is completely artificial, but mostly that we can assume that different factors will have forced the true and most natural meaning away from our perception (Heidegger claimed that the major factor of history was our escape from ourselves, and from our contingent characteristics)

I have a degree already under my belt, am studying at postgraduate level, and took an A level in Philosophy, so I'm relatively certain I'm not stupid. Yet I'm still having difficulty understanding precisely what you're getting at. To break down this post, you essentially said (correct me if I'm wrong):-

Breakdown of Kovnik's post wrote:Some chap called Heidegger attempted to historicize (or make into/generate history on, for those not familiar with the term) the development of ideas. (Now this sounds to me a bit whiggish; the concept of history being one of continuous evolution and improvement, where the current is always better than the past). Another chap called Husserl wrote a book called 'Epoche', which called him on it, and disproved him. Other books and works on it have been created which also attack him, and this school of thought is collectively known as 'the hermeneutic turn of phenomenology'. It is primarily made up of 'deconstructions', which are like disproving something, but somehow don't quite.

Close? Onto the next chunk:-

Now, the rest of your post can simply be answered by going over this :

But when you start talking about 'underlying essences', you may have to quantify that one for me.

Simply enough, if meaning is the result of interpretation, that's because we entered in contact with what can very broadly be described as an essence. We cannot call it a sense-data, since for example the unity of an object isn't actually given through a single sense, but obtained through the synthesis of most senses, so it is called something a bit more metaphysical but it is in no way a characteristics that exists at the same level as, let's say, color. It isn't either a thing of aether, floating in another world. It's just the existential correlate of the fact that objects, to be objects, require unity, and that we have evolved in a way that is capable of discerning those objects.

The relative stance of all systems of interpretation, advanced at first by Russell, is nice and all, but it's arguing by the negative. We do not have a single example of a non-consequential system of logic. Can it be said that it could exist? Yeah. But we have been talking about this for over a century, with as yet not a single system offered as an example. If anyone can give me a single example of a system of math that doesn't work accordingly to the law of non-contradiction, go ahead, you'll have disproven my entire stance. (let's note, it would have to be non-hazy logic, as non-contradiction works only in binary systems).

This one appears to be a bit more challenging......:-

Jargon

No more luck I'm afraid. When you talk about existential correlates, non-consequential systems of logic, and unities of objects, I genuinely have no idea what you're on about. I understand the meanings of objectivity and subjectivity, sense-data, empiricism and rationalism, and so on, but what you're saying just appears as a paragraph of unrelated words on a page.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Me three.

But... but... we come from the same town!

I'm actually from Kamloops, BC but I'm living in Quebec City for about 3 months despite the fact I can't speak a lick of French.

TheRobotLol wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Muhr wrote:
Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

...aaaand, here comes the fan-club.

Well then at least he has people agreeing with him. Thats a couple more than you

I agree with Albatross.

Except I'd like a bit more discussion on this point:

Albatross wrote:I find it odd that you cling to absolutist statements about truth, and ignore the near-century of work that came after, pretty much destroying it.

If you're referring to quantum mechanics, I'm not convinced that the fact that we don't know what is going to happen by default makes them unknowable. We just haven't invented/discovered the maths (you guys are turning me British) to figure them out yet.

Actually there is a principle that states some things are inherently unknowable, the uncertainty principle. In short it states that in some cases (like position and velocity) the more precisely you know one value the less precisely you know the other due to inherent quantum effects.

I know about the uncertainty principle, I'm just questioning whether or not it's accurate. I'm thinking that perhaps, in time, the uncertainty principle will be looked back on in the same light as the sun orbiting a flat earth.

There is quite a bit of proof it's accurate, it's just one of those weird quantum things that boggles the mind.

Corpsesarefun wrote:There is quite a bit of proof it's accurate, it's just one of those weird quantum things that boggles the mind.

It's accurate according to our current understanding, I agree.

I'm just saying that it was once our (read: humanity's) understanding that the universe was a giant machine that moves a bunch of glass spheres around. You see what I'm getting at?

Cheesecat wrote:I'm actually from Kamloops, BC but I'm living in Quebec City for about 3 months despite the fact I can't speak a lick of French.

Cool, I hope my compatriots are nice to you, the dumb ones can be pretty harsh on English-only speakers... and the emotional ones... ?

oki, this is going to be a long one.

Ketara wrote:
Some chap called Heidegger attempted to historicize (or make into/generate history on, for those not familiar with the term) the development of ideas.

Essentially yes. His main example was how we had obfuscated the meaning of the word 'being'. He then shows how in his opinion the obfuscation took place. He stated that that same process (the process being that of forgetting the relation between the subject and the idea, and only taking the idea as a separated event from the person) happened on all levels of intellectual history, and was more or less the the very sense of the current of history.

Now he identified two processes who would allow him to confidently find the true meanings hidden throughout our current ideas, the 1st being the hermeneutic circle (let's skip this one), the second being the destruction. That second process would later be renamed deconstruction.

(Now this sounds to me a bit whiggish; the concept of history being one of continuous evolution and improvement, where the current is always better than the past).

Absolutely agreeing with you there. It reminds me of Hegel, without the whole spirituality part, or Marx. Now ideas might get obfuscated, true, but I definitely don't think there is one reason for that, or one way to fix it. Its historicism, all and simple.

Another chap called Husserl wrote a book called 'Epoche',

Nah, the Epoche is a process (or a fiction) theorized by Husserl, who was Heidegger's teacher. It's essentially a philosophical fiction stating that, as long as I try to analyze objectively MY subjective experiences, and don't initially give them an ontological status (like an idealist would), then I might very well, along plenty of errors, actually identify something which is objective for all (an essence). For Husserl, it's a philosophical form of psychological analysis. Heidegger took that as an inspiration, and applied it to just about everything he spoke about. Husserl was shocked, but by the time he learned about it (he apparently wasn't reading much of his student's essays), Heidegger was a celebrity, well placed with the Nazi party, and Husserl was Jewish. He quickly lost his teaching licence, and Heidegger was named rector of Friedbourg Uni.

Other books and works on it have been created which also attack him

Yes deconstruction (or it's most radical tenets, like the ultimate relativity of all interpretation) can and are attacked by just about every author disliking post-modernism in philosophy.

and this school of thought is collectively known as 'the hermeneutic turn of phenomenology'.

Yes. The turn being that from a 'philo-psychology' to a 'psychology of history' (taken as a cohesive whole). The principal authors being Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur and Derrida

It is primarily made up of 'deconstructions', which are like disproving something, but somehow don't quite.

Yes and no. They are more akin to attempts at historical psychoanalysis (but of History as a whole).

Close?

Now I'll just go over these terms quickly :

existential correlates : read 'essence'. It's basically the same meaning. Its what other's in this thread try to express by saying 'humans enact maths, so we created it''. The fact that our existence is necessary for these essence to 'exist' (read here, be ideas in a mind) doesn't change the fact that we do not create those essences. The term de-construction and construction maybe more revealing : the brick in the wall doesn't exist unless we as humans exists, doesn't mean its stuffiness (actually a word used by Husserl) doesn't exist (here as clay). We use some form of basic material in the construction of meanings, those are the essence, we take them from the objects ; what we end up with, after conceptualization, are ideas.

Non-consequential systems of logic (or math) : a non-consequential system of math would be, basically, a system that doesn't work through causality. Admittedly, its a radical example, but it's literally impossible to actually think of it. And not because we are limited, but because the very idea is meaningless. Its a limit case, but since Russell also argue through limit cases, I feel authorized.

unities of objects : most higher forms of life perceive the world instead of simply reacting to it. Perception works through one (very broad) mechanism explained by a psycho school called the Gestalttheorie (or theory of forms), which is basically the process of 'shaping' objects, separating them from a cohesive background, through works of the different senses (best example, vision rely principally on spacial and image memory, psychologically, and on movement to 'reveal' objects. Our body does this first and foremost, which is why I speak of quantities first appearing on an instinctual level.

A mathematical fact is considered to be the mathematical paradigm. However, paradigms are always theories, as has now been proven, therefore there is no such thing as a mathematical fact, only a mathematical theory. If one refers to mathematical fact as an axiom(something cannot be proved and is assumed to be true), then one would assume it to be the current mathematical paradigm as things stand, which would make it a theory, something you just claimed mathematical facts cannot be.

I don't think we have the same meanings for paradigm. To me it's the 'limiting laws' enabling a scientific (or other) discourse to evolve in a certain theoretical ensemble. The foundation laws of a formal discipline would by definition be a priori immutable, since they would be the enablers of the discourse.

Logical Laws like
Propositional identity : p [implies] p
Third man : p [or] -p
Non-contradiction : -(p [and] -p)
Double negation : p [implies] - - p
De Morgan's Law : -(p [or] q) [imlies] (-p [and] -q)

are enabler's of meaning ; without them you couldn't understand this text, or any, or anything. They necessarily transcend paradigms. These laws all have basic mathematical correlates (as is evidenced by names like 'double-negation').









Automatically Appended Next Post:

Actually there is a principle that states some things are inherently unknowable, the uncertainty principle. In short it states that in some cases (like position and velocity) the more precisely you know one value the less precisely you know the other due to inherent quantum effects.

This is a case of opinion. Quantum theoricians cannot even agree on whether or not Quantum physics breaks classical logic, or if it's just a limit case. They can't even agree on whether or not it's actually unknowable because there is no knowledge to be found, or if it's simply events that happens so fast they cannot physically be registered properly.

I have a chat log of a dispute between two experts on the question. Is it possible to attach something here?

asimo77 wrote:
That's true but if there are far more polite ways of asking someone to tone it down. Instead of saying "I bet you like showing off your e-peen!" You could simply ask for a more approachable version of his post. Or if you really know what it all means maybe you can try to translate it into layman terms yourself. I personally find it fun to translate and then explain/teach complex ideas. Then again that might just be the teacher in me speaking.

You can, but you should also understand that when you use technical terminology in a lay situation there's a good chance there's going to be someone who will take it as condescending, or elitist.

Believe me, I catch myself doing this with regard to politics all the time, on this board and in real life, and people that don't know me have been offended. I had a long, and historic series of arguments with whatwhat for basically that reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yeah, it's why Wittgenstein spoke about logical and mathematical axioms as 'the borderline' of factual truth of the world. Basically, they delimits the world of the nonsensical and the meaningful, but themselves only have the barest minimum of content.

I've spent the last summer translating basic logical axioms to geometrical pathways according to a process described in the Tractatus. I don't have them on my computer tho, but I might try and find a scanner tomorrow. They would probably help to illustrate my point.

I know what you're saying, I'm quite familiar with Wittgenstein, he was a major component of my undergraduate thesis in philosophy. However, I reject the sort of qualitative comparison regarding degrees of content when speaking to individual truths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zyllos wrote:
For Mathematics to truly be a discovered entity, another intelligent being needs to be found and studied for how they quantify their environment. Logically, we would think they would use the same rules that we follow, thus would show it to be a discovered discipline.

Well, not really. This is what I was getting at when discussing the notion that discovery and invention differ only in terms of emphasis. One way of illustrating that is the comparison of the following sentences:

"Edison invented the light bulb."

"Edison discovered the light bulb."

Both are correct.

dogma wrote:"Edison invented the light bulb."

"Edison discovered the light bulb."

Both are correct.

Yes, but 'invented' can also be given a more radical sense, as in 'created from nothing', in the case of intellectual works. It's that specific sense that I oppose.

Ahtman wrote:

asimo77 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

TheRobotLol wrote:And the person wo uses the 'long words' is more impressive than you as it shows he actually knows something about anything instead of you

That actually doesn't show that at all, it just shows they know the words; knowing something and using it are two different things. Albatross (and many others) know these words, but we also know that in a layman's conversation they it is unnecessary, or even problematic, to use technical jargon. In a classroom or professional setting it makes sense and in fact would be necessary, but in a casual conversation among a very mixxed group in can be inappropriate, and knowing when to apply language and when not to is a form of knowledge as well.

That's true but if there are far more polite ways of asking someone to tone it down. Instead of saying "I bet you like showing off your e-peen!" You could simply ask for a more approachable version of his post.

My comment in no way excused or endorsed the language used to respond, but only addressed the notion that just using technical language automatically showed superior knowledge.

asimo77 wrote:I personally find it fun to translate and then explain/teach complex ideas. Then again that might just be the teacher in me speaking.

I do as well, but you'll notice that wasn't what was happening here.

Oh I didn't mean to imply your comment was doing anything of the sort I was using "you" in the most general sense. I suppose "one" would have been a better word to use. I was also just kind of expanding on the posts that are quoted is all. Basically all I was saying was "everyone be nice m'kay!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
You can, but you should also understand that when you use technical terminology in a lay situation there's a good chance there's going to be someone who will take it as condescending, or elitist.

Believe me, I catch myself doing this with regard to politics all the time, on this board and in real life, and people that don't know me have been offended. I had a long, and historic series of arguments with whatwhat for basically that reason.

That's a fair point, I guess I'm more willing to chalk this one up to getting excited about talking about something you know. Of course if it happens a lot you probably do have a case of egomania or something. Also is "whatwhat" some euphemism of some sort? Or am I missing something?

asimo77 wrote:
That's a fair point, I guess I'm more willing to chalk this one up to getting excited about talking about something you know. Of course if it happens a lot you probably do have a case of egomania or something. Also is "whatwhat" some euphemism of some sort? Or am I missing something?

A guy that used to post in the OT.

Ah before my time probably.

On the subject of quantum physics

From mdreed for AskScience, expert in experimental cryogenic quantum physics:

Quantum mechanics is mostly the same as classical physics (e.g. F=ma), except in extreme circumstances where it diverges wildly. In those circumstances, like when things are very cold and isolated, you will have particles exhibiting bizarre behaviors like being in a superposition of states (where for example one could be many different locations simultaneously) or becoming entangled with other particles (so they stop acting as two separate things, and instead act as a single thing). It turns out that if you were to build a computer which used these effects, it could be very, very powerful at certain tasks like factoring numbers or simulating physics.

Osob (I actually don't know anything about that one) replied

This is not true. Consider as an example two electrons. Classically (if they were spinning tops), then the state space would be |++>, |+->, |-+>, and |--> (where I'm using + to mean spinning one way and - to mean spinning the other, and |xx> is a ket). Quantum mechanically, the state space is a|++> + b|+-> + c|-+> + d|-->, where a, b, c, and d are complex numbers

No clue what most of that means. Mdreed replies

The fact that things can be in superpositons or even be entangled with one another has no measurable effect in the vast majority of physical situations. This is for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that things are big, hot, and incoherent.

Then LuklearFusion, a quantum programmer replies, in support :

What we call mixed states are the result of us ignoring correlations with another system.

Also, in classical mechanics pure states are not your only option. You can have classically mixed states which account for a lack of knowledge of the observer, or imprecise measuring equipment. The same is true of quantum mixed states, they are a result of a lack of classical knowledge.

Amongs Physics, Chemistry, Biology. Mathematics is classified as 'pure science'. but it also has applications on its own.

part of Maths are discovered. (when mankind learns to counts). another part is invented. (Grecoroman, Renaissance, Age o' Reasons, and Napoleon days)

Dunno but its awesome!

Both. It is discovered, and varried methodes have been invented. But they could ofcourse be discovered too. You decide.

It's worth pointing out that I actually prefer 'constructed' to either 'discovered' or 'invented'. It's more accurate, IMO.

It's also worth pointing out that I didn't just bowl into this thread being rude, arrogant and dismissive. I posted my take on the issue, and Kovnik derided my points as 'completely false' and 'ridiculous', which isn't actually true - it's arguable. I'm a 'fight fire with fire' type. Always have been, always will be. Attack me, and I will attack you back, twice as hard. My only crime is being good at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Albatross wrote:I find it odd that you cling to absolutist statements about truth, and ignore the near-century of work that came after, pretty much destroying it.

If you're referring to quantum mechanics, I'm not convinced that the fact that we don't know what is going to happen by default makes them unknowable. We just haven't invented/discovered the maths (you guys are turning me British) to figure them out yet.

Hi MR, missed your post, as it was buried amongst all the rage!

I'm not talking about quantum mechanics, I'm talking about conceptualisation and construction. 'Truth' is held by some to be a construction, reliant upon the internal logic of logical systems. Yes, 2+2 will always equal 5, but not to an entity that has no ability to conceptualise 2, 5, addition, or amounts. To such an entity, it would be irrelevant. As an example, Kovnik offered the North American land-mass as an example of something that existed, waiting to be discovered. That's a view, certainly, but I would argue that without the ability to conceptualise a 'land-mass', a land-mass doesn't exist. Yes, the physical manifestations that allow the concept of 'land-mass' to exist in potentia are present, but without entities capable of organising the interpretations of these physical manifestations (and capable of conceptualising 'physical') into concepts such as 'land-mass' or 'ocean' (for example) then they don't exist as such, because they don't define themeselves as such. We (and other animals, arguably) define them.

Consider this, if there were no eyes, would the universe have a visual component? I would argue that no, it wouldn't. A visual component would exist in potentia, but without entities capable of 'seeing', there would be nothing to 'see', as 'seeing' would be meaningless, and thus, irrelevant. That's basically where I'm coming from. Without a brain capable of understanding maths, maths doesn't exist, because the perception of division into discrete amounts is not defined by the universe, it's defined by us. The universe doesn't know, or care, or even know that it is a universe waiting to be 'discovered'. It's all our construction, based on our limited biology.

I'm not talking about quantum mechanics, I'm talking about conceptualisation and construction. 'Truth' is held by some to be a construction, reliant upon the internal logic of logical systems.

Being an epistemological constructionist doesn't inherently justify deflationism (the devaluation of truth). That can only be argued if we consider that nothing is 'true' to those who do not conceptualize, which is, IMO, false. It's true for the dog that a plane is flying over his head, even tho he doesn't have a concept of it. It was true that the continental landmass of America was there, before it was named 'America', or that we figured out it was a landmass. Truth isn't relative to your capacity, but to the capacity of the objective standard (that of the being capable of perceiving the effect).

And I object to the representation of this century having proclaimed deflationism to be true.

Discovered, or rather... interpreted. Math is an absolute truth, but we put it into our own terms to make it comprehensible. The universe doesn't calculate things with equations and variables, nor does it analyse trends with the aid of interpretive graphs. Those are tools that we've developed to understand mathematics.

I don't think there's any way that math is "invented".

Just spitballin' here:

As the codification of consistent universal relationships, both known and unknown, mathematics as a system of codification was and continues to be invented by humankind.

This 'universal language' allows us to examine and hypothesize over the answer to 'What' and 'How' questions: What is it made of, How does it function?

In this manner mathematics facilitates discovery, but it still falls short of what is generally the ultimate goal of analysis; understanding the 'Why' questions and thereby having predictive power. One could argue that we simply haven't discovered "enough" math, but even then mathematics is simply secondary to our goal of understanding; the primer for the course text. This secondary function makes me believe that mathematics are primarily a human invention, a construct for quantifying greater-than-human phenomena.

I feel that the answer to this question will ultimately depend on what you define mathematics as.

Both, becuase if you invented something you have therefore discovered something new.

I see our math as an invention to make discoveries.
The underlying principles of math are universal, but requires an invented system to figure out.
I see it akin to creating a microscope to see germs. The germs were there and were only discovered because someone invented a microscope to see them.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

I'm not talking about quantum mechanics, I'm talking about conceptualisation and construction. 'Truth' is held by some to be a construction, reliant upon the internal logic of logical systems.

Being an epistemological constructionist doesn't inherently justify deflationism (the devaluation of truth).

Of course not, but it's a good position from which to justify deconstruction.

That can only be argued if we consider that nothing is 'true' to those who do not conceptualize, which is, IMO, false. It's true for the dog that a plane is flying over his head, even tho he doesn't have a concept of it.

Actually, it has been suggested that animals other than humans can produce culture, which in turn suggests that they are capable of conceptualising, albeit to a very, very, limited degree. Regardless, it's true that yes, for us, a plane flies over the dog's head regardless of his knowledge of it. It's not true for the dog. Saying that, I've seen my dog eat horse crap, so who the feth knows what they're thinking about!

It was true that the continental landmass of America was there, before it was named 'America', or that we figured out it was a landmass. Truth isn't relative to your capacity, but to the capacity of the objective standard (that of the being capable of perceiving the effect).

It's not about anything as banal figuring out that north America was there, or that it was a land-mass - what I'm getting at is that without a concept of 'land-mass' a land-mass can't exist, because it isn't defined by itself, but by entities capable of defining it.

And I object to the representation of this century having proclaimed deflationism to be true.

That's your right, of course. The real answer is that it's arguable, very arguable, so statements of the type you made when you first replied (unasked, I might add) to my post, such as 'absolutely false', or that my view points are 'ridiculous', are bound to come accross as arrogant and self-aggrandising, when the 'truth' is actually very much up for grabs. That was what I objected to. You belong to one school of thought, I another. I don't see why we have to be rude and disrespectful to each other, but let's be real here: You were the one who set the tone of how our exchanges were going to proceed, not me. Most here who know me (as much as anyone can in such an arena), know that I am capable of being VERY spiky, but generally meet politeness with politeness, friendliness with friendliness. I'm not the sort of chap who just jumps on people for no reason (and there are definitely some arounds these parts who do).

You seemed to have some pre-concieved notion of who I was, and had made up your mind that I was just some idiot to be dismissed with a string of terms you thought I wouldn't understand. I am not an idiot - I've just been offered a fee-waiver, a job and a post-grad position by my university, all before my final works have been submitted. I was invited to present a paper at an international postgrad symposium for my field (it was in South Africa - I couldn't afford to go, and because I was undergrad there was no funding available via my institution. Which sucked.) in the first year of my degree. I'm presenting this year because it's in the UK this time.

I'm just committed to plain-speaking, because that's just who I am. It's a consequence of my upbringing and field of study. If you're not speaking to your audience, who are you speaking to, and for what purpose? These are the types of questions I have to ask on a daily basis, and I guess I just applied them to you. If I got you wrong, then fair enough, my apologies. How about we start over?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss has the right of it, incidentally.

This is like asking was language invented or discovered?

Pi is a 'fundemental' and is therefor 'discovered', but how we express that value has to be 'invented'.

So when you ask 'was maths discovered or invented', I would ask please define 'maths'?

Andrew

Albatross wrote:

Muhr wrote:
Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

...aaaand, here comes the fan-club.

err I was the one who started this thread rolling. Kovnik and I have very similar beliefs and opinions and, to be honest, I think you put a good argument forward yourself, at least at the beginning of the thread anyway. It was only when you started to become abusive that my opinion of you changed slightly, there was just no need for it Albatross, you could have said exactly the same but used a less inflammatory approach.

I came to Koviks defence purely because of how nasty some of the posters were getting when he was simply putting a highly thought out argument forward. If someone really knows their stuff, they shouldn't be made to feel as though they are not wanted on the thread because someone doesn't like how intellectual they sound.

So peace dude allow folk to express themselves yeah?

Muhr wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Muhr wrote:
Actually, this is where I must come in. I for one have personally found Kovnik's addition to the thread to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking, but then again I understood him. Don't disparage somebody simply because what they say goes over your head. If he 'dummed' himself down then he would be guilty of patronizing you.

...aaaand, here comes the fan-club.

err I was the one who started this thread rolling. Kovnik and I have very similar beliefs and opinions and, to be honest, I think you put a good argument forward yourself, at least at the beginning of the thread anyway. It was only when you started to become abusive that my opinion of you changed slightly, there was just no need for it Albatross, you could have said exactly the same but used a less inflammatory approach.

I could have, but why should I? Go back and read the thread again. I posted my take on this issue, and was met with snorting derision by another poster. Not only that, he seemed like he was trying to cow me by using technical terminology he thought I wouldn't understand. Now, I'm not the sort to sit back and accept being insulted, so I let him have it, both barrels. If that wasn't what he was trying to do, then fair enough, it was an unfortunate misunderstanding, but I'm not sorry for my reaction - he was still pretty rude to me, in any case.

Nevertheless, I've offered an olive-branch by apologising. Whether or not he accepts it is up to him. I don't mind either way.

I came to Koviks defence purely because of how nasty some of the posters were getting when he was simply putting a highly thought out argument forward. If someone really knows their stuff, they shouldn't be made to feel as though they are not wanted on the thread because someone doesn't like how intellectual they sound.

OK, so you're impressed by him. Fine, that's understandable, but it isn't really about sounding 'intellectual' - as dogma rightly pointed out, he regularly uses technical language related to his field on here. I don't have a problem with that at all, because it's clear that he's not doing so purely to try and make someone else feel stupid. At least, not always!

I'm not anti-intellectual. It's how one uses such language that matters - I don't drop post-structuralist talking points or Marxist cultural theory into a thread about Justin Beiber, because it's alienating, and I have no burning desire to prove how smart I am by referencing it. I can form cogent arguments without it. I prefer an argument to be strong, not dense. I felt that Kovnik was grandstanding to make a point - he just happened to pick the wrong person, is all. Like I said, If that wasn't the case, then I apologise to him for the misunderstanding.

So peace dude allow folk to express themselves yeah?

Folk are free to express themselves however they want, as am I. Notwithstanding the MODs, that is...

AndrewC wrote:This is like asking was language invented or discovered?

Pi is a 'fundemental' and is therefor 'discovered', but how we express that value has to be 'invented'.

So when you ask 'was maths discovered or invented', I would ask please define 'maths'?

Andrew

Ok Andy, I see your point. Right, how to 'define' math? Hmmm, I'm not sure how I'm going to put but here goes.

A friend of mine has a degree in Mathematics and he told me that, for the final exam, they were given three hours to complete it. And the ENTIRE exam was just ONE problem!
Wow, one problem that was so complex that they were given three hours to solve it. He passed but what surprised him the most was that he had solved the problem in a different way to how the others that solved theirs. So, even though there was more than one way to solve it, it could still be done.

What's my point? Well the language of math is also an abstract one. To clarify my belief: I believe it is more accurate to say that math is both discovered AND invented, and here's why...

We could write an equation, any equation will do. It doesn't have to be true, it doesn't even have to mean anything. That kind of math would be invented but we then express another equation that reveals a fundamental, UNIVERSAL truth. If that same equation could then be applied to other systems in order to gain an accurate facet of truth then THAT math would be discovered. If another, intelligent alien species existed out there that gained that same piece of the puzzle by using their own form of equation, scribbling or what have you, no matter how much it differed from ours would have to arrive at the SAME conclusion as we did but expressed it DIFFERENTLY. Now, even though our mathematical systems could be radically different they would both, if they were correct, reveal the same truth. A clear example of a piece of universal math.

So, in short, any kind of math that deals with a fundamental truth would be discovered.

Also, having an instinctive appreciation of quantities (if I break my cats chew stick in half and give her one half and hide the other, she will know that I will have the other half) she will know this not because she has worked it out mathematically but rather she has a simple 'more or less' conclusion to come to. It comes more from instinct than any specific and focused thought process. Understanding the essence of quantity is an instinctive trait, NOT a mathematical one. If simple survival is going to be your concern and you are put in imminent danger then it's a safe bet that you will resort to simple 'more or less' conclusions, you wouldn't have the time to apply specific thought processes. If you ever applied real mathematics in order to improve your chances of surviving then that would only be because you had had the time beforehand to work it out when you were not in imminent danger.

So, to answer your question, the kind of mathematics that I believe is discovered are the equations that reveal a fundamental, universal truth. And if someone could think of an example of how a highly advanced alien species could become interstellar WITHOUT using math whatsoever then I would be happy to hear it but personally, I belief that only through the abstract language of math can we unlock the stars themselves. It simply cannot be done any other way.

In which case we agree that maths is both discovered and invented.

Cheers

Andrew