• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Maths

I'm fine with "ordered."

Rationality arose without the human mind, of course. I am not arguing any different.

The only thing we know about rationality is that there is mind behind it -- our own. That's the basis of recognizing it in the universe.

What I see in nature is order. Pattern is order, as I understand it. Emergent properties emerge from order.

Inferring rationality from rationality is more aesthetic perhaps, but it is also more logical, it seems to me. Inferring rationality from irrationality is incoherent, it seems to me. But I welcome instruction on the point.

Maybe a mind is needed to recognize and make sense of rationality, but there's nothing to suggest a mind is needed for rationality to arise.

Again, using self organization of nature as evidence of there being a mind behind nature is circular reasoning, as it presupposes the conclusion is true.

There is no need to infer a mind behind rationality any more than there is any need to infer a mind behind gravity. Ultimately 'why' rationality exists and 'why' gravity exists (a question distinct from 'how gravity works') are philosophical questions not scientific ones and don't have an answer based upon physical evidence.
 
No, the relationships exist.. The relationships are the territory, mathematics is a map of the territory.

Yep. I view the argument that math pre-existed and we only found the key to be akin to saying ESP exists but we needed language to understand how to use it.
 
Does not the universe have a physics independent of man?
Well, it's the same for mathematics. :)

My take: the physics is independent, but the math used to describe it is an invention. I don't think the math was the discovery; the patterns math describes was though.

Correct. Maths is completely abstract and in no way actually linked to anything physical. In fact, the maths is at best an approximation of reality. This is why proof exists in maths but not in science. This need to reify mathematics and somehow create a mystical aura about how it successfully describes many phenomena is just new age bull crap.

No, the relationships exist.. The relationships are the territory, mathematics is a map of the territory.

Yep. I view the argument that math pre-existed and we only found the key to be akin to saying ESP exists but we needed language to understand how to use it.

Maybe a mind is needed to recognize and make sense of rationality, but there's nothing to suggest a mind is needed for rationality to arise.

Again, using self organization of nature as evidence of there being a mind behind nature is circular reasoning, as it presupposes the conclusion is true.

There is no need to infer a mind behind rationality any more than there is any need to infer a mind behind gravity. Ultimately 'why' rationality exists and 'why' gravity exists (a question distinct from 'how gravity works') are philosophical questions not scientific ones and don't have an answer based upon physical evidence.
Rational mensuration implies rational mensurateness.
Nilly, I am doing philosophy, not science.
calamity, if you acknowledge that the universe enjoys a physics (properties) independent of Man, then it enjoys the mathematical expression of that physics, as physics reduces to mathematics ultimately.
:)
 
Rational mensuration implies rational mensurateness.
Nilly, I am doing philosophy, not science.
calamity, if you acknowledge that the universe enjoys a physics (properties) independent of Man, then it enjoys the mathematical expression of that physics, as physics reduces to mathematics ultimately.
:)

I'm saying the patterns which we observe and define with math is not the math.
 
I'm saying the patterns which we observe and define with math is not the math.
It's not inherently the math we invented 14 billion years later, but it's inherently "mathematical," i.e., inherently rational in its mensurateness. The measurable properties are prior to our identification and measurement of those properties, both temporally and logically prior.
 
Rational mensuration implies rational mensurateness.
Nilly, I am doing philosophy, not science.
calamity, if you acknowledge that the universe enjoys a physics (properties) independent of Man, then it enjoys the mathematical expression of that physics, as physics reduces to mathematics ultimately.
:)

Yet, you are making claims about the physical universe, and the nature of the physical universe. It sounds like you are interpreting philosophy as 'let's make all sorts of claims that have nothing to do with anything'.
 
Yet, you are making claims about the physical universe, and the nature of the physical universe. It sounds like you are interpreting philosophy as 'let's make all sorts of claims that have nothing to do with anything'.
How else are you supposed to interpret philosophy? I'm kind of kidding and kind of not.
 
How else are you supposed to interpret philosophy? I'm kind of kidding and kind of not.

A lot of metaphysics is that way, particularly when they try to philosophical metaphysical 'arguments'. However, there is such areas as ethics, and the philosophy of science that do have good applications. The argument about proof vs falsification for example.
 
Yet, you are making claims about the physical universe, and the nature of the physical universe. It sounds like you are interpreting philosophy as 'let's make all sorts of claims that have nothing to do with anything'.
Yes, I'm making logical claims about the physical universe. So what? And what my argument "sounds like" to you is immaterial as to its soundness. ;)
 
Yes, I'm making logical claims about the physical universe. So what? And what my argument "sounds like" to you is immaterial as to its soundness. ;)

You are making claims.. but , IMO, those claims are neither logical or rational
 
You are making claims.. but , IMO, those claims are neither logical or rational
I am making claims and providing arguments. If you wish to reject the claims, then you must defeat the arguments for those claims, either by pointing up flaws or providing counterexamples and counterarguments. "IMO" alone does not carry argumentative weight. :)
 
I am making claims and providing arguments. If you wish to reject the claims, then you must defeat the arguments for those claims, either by pointing up flaws or providing counterexamples and counterarguments. "IMO" alone does not carry argumentative weight. :)

Well.. I do not see how your arguments are logical , rational or valid. I pointed out the counter example.. and you ignore it. So, bye.
 
Well.. I do not see how your arguments are logical , rational or valid. I pointed out the counter example.. and you ignore it. So, bye.
A counterexample? Where?
Do you mean this?
No, the relationships exist.. The relationships are the territory, mathematics is a map of the territory.
This is not a counterexample. This is an example. This is my claim, presented in your words. If you think this is a counterexample, then you do not understand the claim I am arguing. :)
 
I am making claims and providing arguments. If you wish to reject the claims, then you must defeat the arguments for those claims, either by pointing up flaws or providing counterexamples and counterarguments. "IMO" alone does not carry argumentative weight. :)

No you aren't, you made a claim and provided nothing to support it other than, 'it looks designed therefore designer' as below; that because maths can successfully describe the Universe as we observe it then it has been designed using maths. You haven't even established that it looks designed, just that it appears to follow some rules.

That the universe is mathematical in design and operation -- and that, before man invented the language of mathematics with which to measure and monitor the universe -- strongly suggests something other than accident and blind chance at work. :)
 
No you aren't, you made a claim and provided nothing to support it other than, 'it looks designed therefore designer' as below; that because maths can successfully describe the Universe as we observe it then it has been designed using maths. You haven't even established that it looks designed, just that it appears to follow some rules.

I interpreted his statement to carry with it a big "if." If the universe is built up by ones and zeroes, it does suggest something is afoot.

I guess that would be true, if it was so determined. But, for now, I think the physicist promoting that idea is just selling a book.
 
I interpreted his statement to carry with it a big "if." If the universe is built up by ones and zeroes, it does suggest something is afoot.

I guess that would be true, if it was so determined. But, for now, I think the physicist promoting that idea is just selling a book.
Well, yours is the usual 15% if you negotiate the book deal for me. :)

No you aren't, you made a claim and provided nothing to support it other than, 'it looks designed therefore designer' as below; that because maths can successfully describe the Universe as we observe it then it has been designed using maths. You haven't even established that it looks designed, just that it appears to follow some rules.
You ought to cut down on the caffeine, Bill. We're just some guys talking here. And my argument is logical, based on the success of science. It boils down to this: If something is measured, then that something is measurable.

What do you offer beyond "No, No, a thousand times No!"? :)
 
Well, yours is the usual 15% if you negotiate the book deal for me. :)


You ought to cut down on the caffeine, Bill. We're just some guys talking here. And my argument is logical, based on the success of science. It boils down to this: If something is measured, then that something is measurable.

What do you offer beyond "No, No, a thousand times No!"? :)

Snark noted, strike one.

No, it's not even evidence for your original unsupported assertion however, I will persist.

Measurement in itself is an approximation of reality, it is called the science of Metrology.

The amount of uncertainty in a measurement can be reduced such that in reality it is trivial but, it is impossible to measure something in the absolute sense that mathematics represents. Even if you move into the realm of discrete numbers rather than continuous, saying that you can count six oranges is not the same as the abstract sense of six oranges in mathematics. Literally, you would have to define oranges exactly and have six exact oranges that meet that criteria exactly for 'six oranges' to mean anything in a strictly mathematical sense. Just because we use maths informally does not mean that it has a link to reality in any philosophical sense.

It's the same fallacy you are committing with mathematics in general.
 
Snark noted, strike one.

No, it's not even evidence for your original unsupported assertion however, I will persist.

Measurement in itself is an approximation of reality, it is called the science of Metrology.

The amount of uncertainty in a measurement can be reduced such that in reality it is trivial but, it is impossible to measure something in the absolute sense that mathematics represents. Even if you move into the realm of discrete numbers rather than continuous, saying that you can count six oranges is not the same as the abstract sense of six oranges in mathematics. Literally, you would have to define oranges exactly and have six exact oranges that meet that criteria exactly for 'six oranges' to mean anything in a strictly mathematical sense. Just because we use maths informally does not mean that it has a link to reality in any philosophical sense.

It's the same fallacy you are committing with mathematics in general.
I apologize for the snark, Mr Rea. :)

As for your point about idealization and approximation, I don't see how it reaches my argument. Big G, whether an approximation or not, applies throughout the universe.

Here are some articles that might be of interest to members, whether they agree with you or me.
Math: Discovered, Invented, or Both?
How is it possible that all the phenomena observed in classical electricity and magnetism can be explained by means of just four mathematical equations? Moreover, physicist James Clerk Maxwell (after whom those four equations of electromagnetism are named) showed in 1864 that the equations predicted that varying electric or magnetic fields should generate certain propagating waves. These waves—the familiar electromagnetic waves (which include light, radio waves, x-rays, etc.)—were eventually detected by the German physicist Heinrich Hertz in a series of experiments conducted in the late 1880s.

And if that is not enough, the modern mathematical theory which describes how light and matter interact, known as quantum electrodynamics (QED), is even more astonishing. In 2010 a group of physicists at Harvard University determined the magnetic moment of the electron (which measures how strongly the electron interacts with a magnetic field) to a precision of less than one part in a trillion. Calculations of the electron’s magnetic moment based on QED reached about the same precision and the two results agree! What is it that gives mathematics such incredible power?
Math: Discovered, Invented, or Both? - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS

Why Does Mathematics Explain the Universe?
In the end, math is the language of the universe. With it, we can understand the basic construction of our home in the cosmos. You might be thinking to yourself, ‘why is the universe a mathematical place’. In the end, the answer is simply ‘that is the way our universe is’, because that is what we designed math to do.
https://futurism.com/why-does-mathematics-explain-the-universe/

Mathematics & Reality
The belief that mathematics is the surest path to the truth about the universe because the latter is at bottom mathematical has been very influential in Western thought. It goes back to Pythagoras’s assertion that “All is number,” or, as Aristotle paraphrased it, “The principles of mathematics are the principles of all things.” It is the rationale behind Plato’s insistence that no one should enter his Academy without knowledge of geometry. Pythagoras’s discovery of the mathematical ratios underlying pitch, such that doubling the length of a string on a musical instrument produces a note an octave lower, has resonated long and loud through human consciousness. Galileo’s assertion that “The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics” has been a guiding principle of science since the scientific revolution to which he contributed so much. The idea of the universe as a gigantic computer, and the belief that everything (including conscious experience) is information that is either itself digital or can be digitised without loss, is but a recent manifestation of Pythagoreanism.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Mathematics_and_Reality
 
i8CH71w.jpg

aFQmyZu.jpg
 
William Blake
dkiW4Ar.jpg

The Ancient of Days
 
I apologize for the snark, Mr Rea. :)

As for your point about idealization and approximation, I don't see how it reaches my argument. Big G, whether an approximation or not, applies throughout the universe.

Here are some articles that might be of interest to members, whether they agree with you or me.

I'm not going to have a discussion with you via cut and paste. If you have a point then make it.
 
I'm not going to have a discussion with you via cut and paste. If you have a point then make it.
I already made it, William. The cut and paste was merely the celebration of a point already made.
If you have nothing to say about Big G, then I guess we're done.
Cheerio. :)
(Do you all still say that?)
 
I already made it, William. The cut and paste was merely the celebration of a point already made.
If you have nothing to say about Big G, then I guess we're done.
Cheerio. :)
(Do you all still say that?)

Do you have any point that isn't a logical fallacy??
 
I apologize for the snark, Mr Rea. :)

As for your point about idealization and approximation, I don't see how it reaches my argument. Big G, whether an approximation or not, applies throughout the universe.

Here are some articles that might be of interest to members, whether they agree with you or me.

The uncanny thing is that those Maxwell equations are very similar to Newtons equations describing classical mechanics. It's been a long time since I played around with either, but I do recall seeing the similarity between them back in the day when I did have to work with them.

Here's someone taking that one step further.

Discussion about the similarity of Maxwell equations and mechanical equations of continuous mass
 
Do you have any point that isn't a logical fallacy??
Point out the logical fallacy, if you think you've found one. I would appreciate the favor.
On the other hand, the accusation without some indication of a basis, some example of my fallacious logic, this I don't appreciate. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom