Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.