"God cannot create a square circle"

[Kharakov]

If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

Good idea! I'm now patenting logic and anytime someone says something that makes sense, they owe me a dollar.

You will never get a penny out of me! <-- haha, analyze that version of the liar's paradox.

 

[Kharakov]

If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

All inventions are cinclusions drawn from witnessing the "natural order".

Yeah. For some reason I have the idea in my head that when we discover something (such as logical progression), by witnessing something else doing something, we didn't "invent" that something, but instead we "discovered" it (or simply witnessed it).

So we didn't make up logic- we witnessed its occurrence and utilized it.

It would be like me seeing someone else use logic, witnessing it, and then claiming to have invented it. Logical progressions existed prior to our usage of them...

Unless you want to end up paying Tom a lot of loot...

 

[jonJ]

If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

Good idea! I'm now patenting logic and anytime someone says something that makes sense, they owe me a dollar.

You'll never get rich...

 

[Juma]

Logical progressions existed prior to our usage of them...

no, it didnt.

 

[Kharakov]

Logical progressions existed prior to our usage of them...

no, it didnt.

You should probably research a dead language that we call "English". Anyways (anyway doesn't have an "s" on it, but I personally have decided that it will, because my writings WILL influence the thought of mankind for eternity).

Anyways- they did. Let it be written, let it be done, I sense that I am the chosen one.

Juma- there is no way in logic that you can prove that logic was not preceded by order- if you assume that order did not precede logic, logic is illogical.

 

[Juma]

Juma- there is no way in logic that you can prove that logic was not preceded by order- if you assume that order did not precede logic, logic is illogical.

i did not write that order did not precede logic.

 

[untermensche]

Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.

If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

Do you have any logic to actually make this an argument?

There are many who claim mathematics is part of the observed universe.

I say that is nonsense.

Mathematics is just a very flexible system capable of modeling moving systems.

The fact that it can be used to approximate natural phenomena is just a feature of invented mathematics. It has nothing to do with mathematics being involved in natural phenomena. Despite the fact that many scientists don't seem to comprehend the difference between their invented models and the real thing.

 

[Kharakov]

Juma- there is no way in logic that you can prove that logic was not preceded by order- if you assume that order did not precede logic, logic is illogical.

i did not write that order did not precede logic.

So order which allows logic precedes logic, an order that logic is based on. Discovery (or "invention") of logic is like a child "discovering" or "inventing" English.

 

[Kharakov]

If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

Do you have any logic to actually make this an argument?

Make a wild guess. I'll play later.

The fact that it <math> can be used to approximate natural phenomena is just a feature of invented mathematics. It has nothing to do with mathematics being involved in natural phenomena. Despite the fact that many scientists don't seem to comprehend the difference between their invented models and the real thing.

Are you actually naive enough to think that a language that describes specific attributes of reality was formed around reality, rather than formed by reality? Math, in all its exactness, describes very specific aspects of reality- it was not formed to describe reality, it was formed by reality itself. In other words, various ratios exist as absolutes, and math does not impose these things upon reality.

 

[untermensche]

Math, in all its exactness, describes very specific aspects of reality- it was not formed to describe reality, it was formed by reality itself.

Nonsense.

Math is a human creation. It is an abstraction of reality. Reality does not have numbers or derivatives or circles or straight lines. Only human math does.

 

[Learner]

Math is a human creation. It is an abstraction of reality. Reality does not have numbers or derivatives or circles or straight lines. Only human math does.

My perspective is that the universe is so formulated in a way that we see certain characteristics of many elements of matter currently known, to behave accordingly to what is expected. I would agree with the notion that the maths we understand is a man made invention at the same time,a mathematical essence was always there to be discovered. By this I mean it is only the 'measuring units' we have invented. We can change about these measuring units and still get fairly precise calculations.

 

[untermensche]

Math is a human creation. It is an abstraction of reality. Reality does not have numbers or derivatives or circles or straight lines. Only human math does.

My perspective is that the universe is so formulated in a way that we see certain characteristics of many elements of matter currently known, to behave accordingly to what is expected. I would agree with the notion that the maths we understand is a man made invention at the same time,a mathematical essence was always there to be discovered. By this I mean it is only the 'measuring units' we have invented. We can change about these measuring units and still get fairly precise calculations.

That is what people say.

I disagree.

Math is not out there. It is in the human mind.

Not one aspect of math actually exists in the world. All our math does is model and abstract the behavior of things that do exist in the world.

 

[Juma]

So order which allows logic precedes logic, an order that logic is based on.

All that is needed to create a telephone preceded the telephone. And that is what an telephone is based on. But we still count the telephone as an invention.

Discovery (or "invention") of logic is like a child "discovering" or "inventing" English.

Please elaborate on this. It is not clear what you mean.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All that is needed to create a telephone preceded the telephone. And that is what an telephone is based on. But we still count the telephone as an invention.

Discovery (or "invention") of logic is like a child "discovering" or "inventing" English.

Please elaborate on this. It is not clear what you mean.

I think he means that a child is immersed in a cculture that speaks English, and he will absorb the language from that context. He's claiming that by being in an orderly universe, we're immersed in logic, and the 'discovery' is only us recognizing it. Picking it up from what's around us.

But what i think a problem is, is that logic is a tool for evaluating ideas. Given assumptions about Booples and Beffles, we can evaluate statements made like 'all Beffles want to be Booples' or 'Some Booples mug Beffles, but not all Beffles are victimized by their Senators.' This works even though both populations are fictional inventions. Ideas.

But when we try to evaluate reality with logic, if our assumptions are not correct, then very elegant logic may turn out with completely hosed-up conclusions. Attempts to reason out the movements of the stars and planets with the assumption of a heliocentric universe is a good example. There was order, of a sort, but logic couldn't really get a handle on things until the minds that used it knew enough to process the data accurately.

So, if Logic is a tool for ideas, could there have been logic in the universe before anything evolved enough to have ideas?

And really, doesn't 'order' mean only that we can predict how something will behave? As opposed to chaos, which may only mean that WE don't yet understand the rules by which it behaves.
Does 'order' really exist independent of an observer?

 

[Kharakov]

So order which allows logic precedes logic, an order that logic is based on. Discovery (or "invention") of logic is like a child "discovering" or "inventing" English.

Please elaborate on this. It is not clear what you mean.

I think he means that a child is immersed in a cculture that speaks English, and he will absorb the language from that context. He's claiming that by being in an orderly universe, we're immersed in logic, and the 'discovery' is only us recognizing it. Picking it up from what's around us.

Nailed it.

But what i think a problem is, is that logic is a tool for evaluating ideas. ..
So, if Logic is a tool for ideas, could there have been logic in the universe before anything evolved enough to have ideas?

You're assuming that consciousness did not precede the universe itself. You might be assuming that "space" is not consciously aware of what or who exists within it, attempting to balance the desires of all beings within it, with a conscious plan for the future of all (which includes order, and a bit of chaos).

And really, doesn't 'order' mean only that we can predict how something will behave? As opposed to chaos, which may only mean that WE don't yet understand the rules by which it behaves.
Does 'order' really exist independent of an observer?

Does chaos? Do quantum occurrences require an observer? Wouldn't both the universe, and those within it, have to exist to observe one another?

As to chaos- we can understand rules by which chaos is generated, but not be able to predict exactly what will be generated by the rules- although we can vaguely predict what will be generated.

- - - Updated - - -

Math, in all its exactness, describes very specific aspects of reality- it was not formed to describe reality, it was formed by reality itself.

Nonsense.

Math is a human creation. It is an abstraction of reality. Reality does not have numbers or derivatives or circles or straight lines. Only human math does.

Umm, human math is caused by and part of reality...

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're assuming that consciousness did not precede the universe itself.

An assumption which does not appear to be at odds with reality.
Your milage may vary.

You might be assuming that "space" is not consciously aware of what or who exists within it, attempting to balance the desires of all beings within it, with a conscious plan for the future of all (which includes order, and a bit of chaos).

No, i'm simply unaware of any reason to think such a fantasy is in any way related to the world around us.

Does chaos?

Same as order, 'chaos' is a term we use to describe things we cannot predict. It doesn't change how the universe operates, just how well we can understand the operation.

Do quantum occurrences require an observer?

Not to my knowledge.

Wouldn't both the universe, and those within it, have to exist to observe one another?

I'd say not. But then, the universe is reality.
I thought we were talking about logic, a human invention to help try to understand the universe.

As to chaos- we can understand rules by which chaos is generated, but not be able to predict exactly what will be generated by the rules- although we can vaguely predict what will be generated.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that 'chaos' and 'order' are human labels, not traits of the universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're assuming that consciousness did not precede the universe itself. You might be assuming that "space" is not consciously aware of what or who exists within it, attempting to balance the desires of all beings within it, with a conscious plan for the future of all (which includes order, and a bit of chaos).

Actually, either way, i'm saying that 'logic' is an artifact of intelligence, not something that can exist without an intelligence. You want to posit some woo that made it before man made it, that doesn't really challenge my main point.

But i'm curious. If the Universe is self-aware, where is the universe's memory kept? Wouldn't it require several universes just to keep track of all the fiddly bits in this one?

 

[Kharakov]

An assumption which does not appear to be at odds with reality.

Of course your assumption appears to be at odds with reality. You're a conscious being that assumes that other beings in reality are non-conscious, although you are made of the same self reacting (conscious) energy that the rest of the beings in reality are made of.

Hey look at that form of energy reacting to other energy! It's not conscious, but when I (a being composed of energy) react to other energy, the reaction of energy is conscious!

You are composed of energy that is connected in such a way that it forms a unit that is somewhat conscious of the way the unit should act to perpetuate its continued existence in relation to other forms of energy. There is no reason to think that forms of energy do not have some form of basic connection to one another (fundamental forces) and some degree of freedom (wave particle duality- behaving as a wave allows some choice), and some basic desires.

 

[Keith&Co.]

An assumption which does not appear to be at odds with reality.

Of course your assumption appears to be at odds with reality. You're a conscious being that assumes that other beings in reality are non-conscious, although you are made of the same self reacting (conscious) energy that the rest of the beings in reality are made of.

No, not an assumption.
But you're stuck with your lampoon of my position and unwilling to revisit it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are composed of energy that is connected in such a way that it forms a unit that is somewhat conscious of the way the unit should act to perpetuate its continued existence in relation to other forms of energy.

But i'm still curious. If all energy is self-aware, where is the energy's memory kept? Wouldn't it require several universes just to keep track of all the fiddly bits in this one?
I mean, imagine a universe that is comprised of 8 particles of matter. Each one capable of being on or off.
A memory file for each particle would require three bits just to identify which particle it's talking about. So 8x3 is 24 bits just as file headers.

If the universe exists for 1 hour, and we record the state of those particles once a second, each particles would need 13 bits (12 bits to identify the second, one bit to identify if the particle was on or off), for 3600 seconds, for 8 particles, or 374,400 bits of data.
Or 374,424 bits just to record 8 particles and their on-off status for 1 hour.
A universe of 8 bits would require the bits of 50,400 similar universes to record two hours of operation.

As time increases, or as the particles being observed increases, the need for greater and greater quantities of data storage expands at an astounding rate. it's that chess trick with the grains of wheat. We pretty quickly get to the point that the entire inventory of quantum bits in the universe isn't enough to allow the universe to identify itself, much less develop any sort of intelligence.
I mean, this is just for memory, what's left over for the actual processing?

As i understand intelligence, it requires some sort of way to learn, or store memory, and some way to process data using those memories. I just can't see that something made of energy would have access to this very necessary material just by virtue of it being energy.

But, hey, as long as you're willing to totally ignore anything like a rational analysis of your woo position, you can pretend it's a rational thing to hold.