Cogitator

Hah. Mary Leakey. Wasn't she the one who found the so-called missing link?

__________________
- this space intentionally left blank -

jizz mopper

Every morning on the way to work I walk by a fancy restaurant that has a menu in the window and one of their dishes is lobster pizza for $27. That's a lot of money but I bet it's good. Sounds good.

quiet

I assume by that, you mean (basically) three-dimensional reality as a subset of higher, hyperspatial, (again, conceivably infinite) dimensions. the answer is (sort of) yes. though the qualifications of Hyperdimensional Physics are really in some sense just a subset of all possible universes/physical realities, depending on your definition.

basically, if we agree on the following premises:

- purely formal mathematics applies to OUR physical universe incredibly well. almost by design.
- purely formal mathematics (possibly) applies to ALL concievable universes incredibly well. almost by design.
- purely formal mathematics may concievably exist WITHOUT our physical universe, and without our minds and/or the way our bbrains might be wired.

then:

possible conclusions = hmmmm.

holy shit, im fucking drunk. weeeeeeee.

__________________
we'll miss you our friend. RIP

Sex4it

euro vs usd

__________________
I'm back and happy about it.

Libertine

Ehm, no?
- The statement "purely formal mathematics applies to OUR physical universe incredibly well. almost by design" seems to consider purely formal mathematics as something independant of us. However, mankind created mathematics, and did that so as to describe our physical universe. So ofcourse it seems to apply perfectly to our physical universe, we made it as the best method we could find for describing our universe.
- The statement "purely formal mathematics (possibly) applies to ALL concievable universes incredibly well. almost by design." Well duh. We are a part of this universe, and our mental world is created completely in relation with this universe. Thus, it would be hard, if not impossible, for us to create in our heads a universe which is not based on the universe we know.
- The statement "purely formal mathematics does/may exist WITHOUT our physical universe, and without our minds and/or the way our bbrains might be wired." simply doesn't make sense when looking at the previous points. There is no good reason why it would have objective existence, and, furthermore, it would raise more new problems than it would solve. For instance, where would we situate this objective mathematics?

Pathfinder

[Labret] cannot be defeated in debate by the simpletons that attempt it.

quiet

the argument only works if you agree that purely formal mathematics does infact exist outside of our minds. many people far, far smarter than me (Einstein is an example) look at this premise over and over. and what it's possible truth may indicate.

"simply doesn't make sense when looking at the previous points. There is no good reason why it would have objective existence, and, furthermore, it would raise more new problems than it would solve. For instance, where would we situate this objective mathematics?"

no one is trying to solve problems here (at least i'm not). because it brings up more problems than it solves, has abosolutely nothing to do with it's validity.

again, most will agree with the first point. the second point, you more or less brush over. the third, you don't agree with(?). if you can fathom that purely formal mathematical theories exist without the human mind, or our particular universe, then we are talking about something potentially very profound.

however, if formal math is simply a reflection of the 'wiring' of our brains, then certainly, it may be more or less trivial

__________________
we'll miss you our friend. RIP

bunky

i really hate my offline job, and why did jenn wake me up at 4am for sex knowing i had to work 12 hours today?


bunky

__________________
BoneProne 4 Life - BoneProne Family [insert title here]

Daymare

LOL She wanted to get some

Mike Semen

Ass. I like ass.

__________________
ICQ 1454 81 522 |

a1ka1ine

Post Reply
Logged in user: a1ka1ine [logout]
Message Icon:



vB Code [help]
Normal Mode
Enhanced Mode SIZEsmall large huge FONTArial Times Courier Century COLOR sky blue royal blue blue dark-blue orange orange-red crimson red firebrick dark red green limegreen sea-green deeppink tomato coral purple indigo burlywood sandy brown sienna chocolate teal silver

Close Current Tag
Close All Tags

machineg

you dont mean to tell me Im the only one

__________________
SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

Daymare

Being rich would be cool

Libertine

"the argument only works if you agree that purely formal mathematics does infact exist outside of our minds."

But you fail to provide any arguments for that. You state it, but that's it. The other 2 points might be considered arguments, however, those are pretty weak, as I think I showed in my previous post. And even if you do accept them, they still not prove anything about an objective existence of formal mathematics.

I brush over the third point because it's not a point, but an unfounded statement. All I could say is "I disagree", since you have given no good arguments to refute.

Now, the reason I brought up the fact that it raises more problems than it solves is that it's not only unfounded, it's useless. If it would be a solution to important scientific problems that until now seemed impossible to solve, it would most certainly be worth researching from a coherentist point of view.
Right now, however, it's just an unfounded statement that, in order to be true, would require many current beliefs to be false. While these beliefs may indeed be false, they have the advantage over your statement that they have relatively solid foundations and are part of coherent belief systems.

Another problem is that the statement of formal mathematics having objective existence is not falsifiable. It can't be tested, since you seem to use a rather loose definition of "existence". (what is existence? most believe it's a spatio-temporal thing, which seems hardly applicable to a concept like formal mathematics)

Furthermore, what Einstein thought about the subject is ofcourse irrelevant. Blaise Pascal was a christian, and so was Kant, does that mean God exists? Only arguments count, not opinions. (ofcourse, if Einstein would have arguments for the objective existence of formal mathematics, these would most certainly be relevant)

But, basically, all you are saying is "If X was the case, it would have large consequences". Now, if you had arguments for X, this would most certainly be an interesting statement. However, when only stating it, one might as well replace X with "the existence of aliens" or "the existence of leprechauns" instead of "the existence of formal mathematics". All would have large consequences, but without arguments, there is no reason to believe them to be true. (there actually are arguments for the existence of aliens, so when replacing X with "the existence of aliens" might actually create an interesting subject)

Beastiepoo

ACHOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! *sniffle*blow*

Bless me.

__________________
Dammit! My timing SUCKS!
Hot body piercing jewellery at discounted prices - Click here!
Got Goth traffic?? Make money with it at DarkPassions - Click Here!