Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

Math ultimately comes from the observations made in the world.

Not the bulk of math.

The bulk of math is built upon math, not the world. The world doesn't even enter the picture.

It doesn't have to because we are only talking about abstractions of the world.

You seem to define abstraction in a strange way.

To abstract is to make something completely new.

What is abstracted is one thing and the abstraction another. Three coconuts are real, "3" is an invented fiction.

 

[ryan]

Math ultimately comes from the observations made in the world.

Not the bulk of math.

The bulk of math is built upon math, not the world. The world doesn't even enter the picture.

It doesn't have to because we are only talking about abstractions of the world.

If some math is out there, then math is out there.

You seem to define abstraction in a strange way.

No, you must be using its rarer meanings.

In all of my time alive, I have never seen it used in ways other than, "Something which exists only as an idea"; this is the Oxford Dictionary's definition. It is exactly how I have been using it, and as far as I know, it is certainly not a strange way to use it.

To abstract is to make something completely new.

The verbal use of "abstract" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as, "Consider something theoretically or separately from (something else)".

There are other versions, but I don't know which one you are using.

What is abstracted is one thing and the abstraction another. Three coconuts are real, "3" is an invented fiction.

Which definition are you using?

 

[untermensche]

If some math is out there, then math is out there.

No math is out there.

Humans have taken what is out there and created something that isn't out there.

If you think some part of math is out there provide the evidence of it.

Where in the world is the number 3? Not 3 entities but the number 3.

"Something which exists only as an idea"; this is the Oxford Dictionary's definition. It is exactly how I have been using it, and as far as I know, it is certainly not a strange way to use it.

So where can I find the number 3?

If it is more than an idea, where is it?

As far as abstraction goes, I use the word as it is used for abstract art.

Abstract art is not a representation of the world. It is a transformation of the world into something that isn't in the world.

Like quantities were abstracted into numbers.

 

[Kharakov]

No math is out there.

Humans have taken what is out there and created something that isn't out there.

Math is a linguistic form for the symbolic expression of perfect order. However, perfect order exists without math, which is probably what ryan is getting on about.

 

[untermensche]

No math is out there.

Humans have taken what is out there and created something that isn't out there.

Math is a linguistic form for the symbolic expression of perfect order. However, perfect order exists without math, which is probably what ryan is getting on about.

Order exists. Perfect order is an abstraction.

There are many circular objects, but no perfect circles in nature.

 

[ryan]

No math is out there.

Humans have taken what is out there and created something that isn't out there.

If you think some part of math is out there provide the evidence of it.

Can the baby in the sound proof box with no light ever learn math? Can a baby that grows up being taught math ever learn math?

Where in the world is the number 3? Not 3 entities but the number 3.

I have already answered this question three times today. I am not going to answer it anymore.

"Something which exists only as an idea"; this is the Oxford Dictionary's definition. It is exactly how I have been using it, and as far as I know, it is certainly not a strange way to use it.

So where can I find the number 3?

If it is more than an idea, where is it?

I have already answered these questions three times today. I am not going to answer them anymore.

As far as abstraction goes, I use the word as it is used for abstract art.

Abstract art is not a representation of the world. It is a transformation of the world into something that isn't in the world.

Like quantities were abstracted into numbers.

A perfect analogy is that the art, like numbers, has an element of the real world in it.

 

[untermensche]

Can the baby in the sound proof box with no light ever learn math? Can a baby that grows up being taught math ever learn math?

That isn't evidence of numbers existing in the world.

Where are these numbers out there in the world?

Where in the world is the number 3? Not 3 entities but the number 3.

I have already answered this question three times today. I am not going to answer it anymore.

Refusing to engage is usually evidence of no real answers.

You can't point to 3 in the world anymore than you can point to the tooth fairy.

Both are imaginary entities.

 

[ryan]

That isn't evidence of numbers existing in the world.

I can't actually do the experiment, so I thought that the thought experiment could suffice. Do you really think that the baby would eventually learn math?

The evidence is that we learn math from external sources.

Where are these numbers out there in the world?

They are outside of the brain but only as elements of the numbers that we think of.

Where in the world is the number 3? Not 3 entities but the number 3.

I have already answered this question three times today. I am not going to answer it anymore.

Refusing to engage is usually evidence of no real answers.

You can't point to 3 in the world anymore than you can point to the tooth fairy.

I explained this 6 times today; see posts: #2966, #2970, #2974, #2976 (twice), #2980. This is madness!

 

[untermensche]

I can't actually do the experiment, so I thought that the thought experiment could suffice. Do you really think that the baby would eventually learn math?

The evidence is that we learn math from external sources.

We learn math by being schooled in math.

Not by observing the world.

Where are these numbers out there in the world?

They are outside of the brain but only as elements of the numbers that we think of.

What does that mean?

Again, real quantities may have been the catalyst for the invention of numbers and even some basic functions like addition and subtraction.

But the invention is not a reflection of the world. Like abstract art it is a transformation of elements of the world, in a mind, into something not in the world.

I explained this 6 times today; see posts: #2966, #2970, #2974, #2976 (twice), #2980. This is madness!

Talking about some mind body dualism isn't coming close to answering my questions.

You say numbers exist in the world.

Point to them. Where can I see the number 3 in the world? Not as some human symbol or concept but the number 3 out there in the world in plain sight.

How do you get from 3 coconuts to just plain 3 without a mental transformation?

Again, you seem to think humans can only reflect the world. They have imagination and can invent things not ever in the world.

 

[surreptitious57]

Numbers are abstract and so do not exist as such which is why one can not produce them in the
way one would a solid object. But although they are human constructs mathematics it self is not
since that is the language of reality and as such is independent of human construction. While its
symbols are human the discipline is not since mathematics was discovered rather than invented

 

[Speakpigeon]

There has never been evidence of anything existing that does not consist of the elementary particles. If they do not consist of elementary particles, then what is it that you are talking about? They would have to be nonphysical objects like a ghost.

A can spin a top. The top is made up of elementary particles. The spin is not.

So we have something existing, "spin", that does not consist of elementary particles.

I hope the attentive reader will have noticed that what untermensche replied to ryan here would have been ryan's very own argument in the thread "Are words immaterial?", namely that there exist immaterial things that have physical effects. By immaterial, we have to guess that what he reality meant was some physical thing without mass such as a position, structure, distribution, possibly movement and so on. Now, suddenly, he thinks there's no evidence at all of anything that does not consist of some elementary particles.

Can somebody explain it all to me?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

A can spin a top. The top is made up of elementary particles. The spin is not.

Spin is just elementary particles in different positions through time.

Excellent argument.

Apparently you eventually changed your mind. What you called "immaterial", like position and what not, now you say it doesn't exist at all, it's just material things existing in spacetime.

That still lives spacetime though.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This thread is about turtles, right?

We haven't got to turtles yet.

Somebody did bring the first turtle (somebody had too I guess).

Now the question is, can anyone bring the last one?

Or should we start a new thread?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Numbers are abstract and so do not exist as such which is why one can not produce them in the
way one would a solid object. But although they are human constructs mathematics it self is not
since that is the language of reality and as such is independent of human construction. While its
symbols are human the discipline is not since mathematics was discovered rather than invented

It is not the language of reality.

It is a human construct that is useful, when the rare genius arrives to make it useful.

 

[Togo]

I can't actually do the experiment, so I thought that the thought experiment could suffice. Do you really think that the baby would eventually learn math?

The evidence is that we learn math from external sources.

Babies can do simple mathematical operations (1+1=2, 2-1=1), shortly after birth. It's most likely an innate feature of the brain, and not learned from the world. After all, the world doesn't contain mathematical abstractions, so how could we learn such abstractions from the real world?

I'm not aware of any evidence that we learn math from external sources. Can you share?

 

[Kharakov]

Math is a linguistic form for the symbolic expression of perfect order. However, perfect order exists without math, which is probably what ryan is getting on about.

Order exists. Perfect order is an abstraction.

So you're saying that nature does not follow specific patterns exactly? In other words, fields are not propagated in specific ways, but instead nature sort of wings it and tosses stuff around willy nilly?

 

[untermensche]

Order exists. Perfect order is an abstraction.

So you're saying that nature does not follow specific patterns exactly? In other words, fields are not propagated in specific ways, but instead nature sort of wings it and tosses stuff around willy nilly?

We are not observing fields.

We observe on the macroscopic level.

Mathematics was invented when the only thing people knew about was the macroscopic level.

Perfect order was a religious invention that could not be observed anywhere when it was invented.

 

[ryan]

We learn math by being schooled in math.

School is the world.

Not by observing the world.

So then who taught the first person that knew math?

They are outside of the brain but only as elements of the numbers that we think of.

What does that mean?

I have explained this many times.

The brain accepts an input from outside of the brain. The input triggers a process. The process is what we think.

Again, real quantities may have been the catalyst for the invention of numbers and even some basic functions like addition and subtraction.

But the invention is not a reflection of the world. Like abstract art it is a transformation of elements of the world, in a mind, into something not in the world.

Whether you like it or not, this is dualism.

I don't know why you won't admit it. If I had to guess, it's because dualism has religious connotations. But it doesn't when studying philosophy. I am sure that many atheists were dualists, not to say that you are an atheist.

Science is showing us that reality is probably monistic, or it is at least showing us that there is no reason to believe in a dualistic nature from the observations made thus far.

I explained this 6 times today; see posts: #2966, #2970, #2974, #2976 (twice), #2980. This is madness!

Talking about some mind body dualism isn't coming close to answering my questions.

You say numbers exist in the world.

No, I keep saying that elements of our thoughts of numbers exist in the real world. Just like we have no idea what a banana actually is, I have no idea what these inputs into the brain are.

How do you get from 3 coconuts to just plain 3 without a mental transformation?

You are assuming some kind of platonic realm. That's fine, but it's not science and there is no evidence of such a thing.

Again, you seem to think humans can only reflect the world. They have imagination and can invent things not ever in the world.

No, I don't think that humans only reflect the world. But I argue that every thought is a complex process involving some element of the environment.

 

[ryan]

Spin is just elementary particles in different positions through time.

Excellent argument.

Apparently you eventually changed your mind. What you called "immaterial", like position and what not, now you say it doesn't exist at all, it's just material things existing in spacetime.

That still lives spacetime though.
EB

Somehow "nothing" is an input for the brain. It is essential information.

In the "Are Words..." thread, I think I was making some ontological assumptions.

I will look at it again when I have time.

Okay, I looked at it.

I am not sure why I went in the direction of qualia in the "Are Words..." thread. I am really starting to question why I believe in qualia when there is no evidence for it. It's irrational intuition so far.

 

[ryan]

I can't actually do the experiment, so I thought that the thought experiment could suffice. Do you really think that the baby would eventually learn math?

The evidence is that we learn math from external sources.

Babies can do simple mathematical operations (1+1=2, 2-1=1), shortly after birth.

I assume that you aren't talking about formal math. If you are, then I don't think that a baby can pick up a pencil and draw in the answer to 1+1 without being taught.

As for informal math, I believe that the universe adheres, at least locally, to informal math. By "informal", I mean math but with different symbols.

It's most likely an innate feature of the brain, and not learned from the world. After all, the world doesn't contain mathematical abstractions, so how could we learn such abstractions from the real world?

Every cause and effect is usually a natural equation except with different symbols than formal equations.

I'm not aware of any evidence that we learn math from external sources. Can you share?

People need to go to school to learn formal math.