Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Objective reality
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 172 (559413)
05-09-2010 8:16 AM


About Math
I am * coughs gently * a mathematician.
What I would say about mathematics is this. Given the rules of chess, we can show that it is absolutely impossible to achieve checkmate with just a king and a knight against a lone king.
Mathematical truth is like that. Given a set of rules which we make up, we can discover the logical consequences of these rules.
This should not be dragged into a discussion of "objective reality" as I believe that phrase was meant in the OP. At best it is a side-issue. Is it objective reality that a king and a knight can't checkmate a king?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by cavediver, posted 05-09-2010 10:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 172 (559424)
05-09-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by cavediver
05-09-2010 10:34 AM


Re: About Math
Why ever not?
Well, because they seem to be different kinds of questions.
The question: "Does that fact that we can't achieve such-and-such a checkmate follow from the rules of chess?" can be resolved by looking at the rules of chess and deducing their logical consequences. We would in principle never have to look at the outside world to answer the question.
This is different in kind from the question; "Do aardvarks exist?", which can be resolved, if at all, only by observation. We can only even approach towards an answer to this question by looking outside our heads and seeing if we can see anything that looks like an aardvark.
A very good question, which seems to demonstrate that questions concerning the reality or otherwise of mathematics are especially pertinent in this thread.
Such questions are pertinent only until I've explained why the answer is NO. After that they're not so much pertinent as redundant.
And? Amongst my friends is a mathematician who doesn't believe in the reals, and finds the rationals highly suspicious ...
I'll go further than that. The natural numbers don't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by cavediver, posted 05-09-2010 10:34 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 05-09-2010 2:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 05-09-2010 7:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 95 by nwr, posted 05-13-2010 1:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 172 (559432)
05-09-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
05-09-2010 2:01 PM


Re: About Math
True, but it's not really what I'm talking about. What "exists" to me is the "fact" that your particular checkmate does follow from your particular rules.
But I note that you yourself put "exists" in quotation marks.
It really doesn't exist in the same sense that rain or potatoes or income tax exist.
Ah, I see. I must have erred. I didn't realise that all great questions have their answers in Dr A's infallible proclamations
I shall try to see if I can think of a suitable penance.
That's the spirit! I'm not sure why it never occured to me before that to puzzle out the mysteries of Platonism, all I needed was a constructivist ...
I am not a constructivist. I despise constructivism, for reasons that should be evident from my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 05-09-2010 2:01 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 05-09-2010 2:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 172 (559444)
05-09-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by cavediver
05-09-2010 2:50 PM


Re: About Math
But surely that is exactly what we are discussing here? The question is "what is objective reality".
To which I would reply in the first instance: real stuff that really exists, like treacle and tigers and titillation.
I am reasonably convinced that intelligent aliens will be more aware of the existence of Pi than they are of potatoes.
Me too.
Pi certainly appears objective, and to many of us, it seems real. What is your problem with this?
I have the impression that every post I've made on this thread to date explains my problem with this. At this point I want to ask: what is your problem with my problem with this?
I've made my arguments. Feel free to criticize them.
My apologies - I obviously don't pay enough attention to your posts...
Well, you obviously don't pay enough attention to the posts that I make and that you take it upon yourself to answer. Reading my posts about math and calling me a constructivist is like reading my posts about biology and calling me a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 05-09-2010 2:50 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 05-09-2010 5:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 172 (559473)
05-09-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by tesla
05-09-2010 4:43 PM


Re: My Take;
You know, if you'd used different words and put them in a different order, then that post might have meant something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by tesla, posted 05-09-2010 4:43 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 05-10-2010 9:29 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 172 (559475)
05-09-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
05-09-2010 5:36 PM


Re: About Math
Err, that would be ...
No, that would be practically everything I've posted on this thread.
you're really cutting to the heart of matter
Yes. I await your counter-arguments with interest.
The laughing smiley face doesn't quite cut it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 05-09-2010 5:36 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 172 (560155)
05-13-2010 3:01 PM


I REST MY CASE
You're all (with the occasional exception of nwr) talking nonsense about math.
This prevents you from addressing an interesting question such as that raised in the OP.
It is fortunate for you that mathematics is merely an intellectual discipline rather than a religion, or I should burn most of you at the fucking stake.
Instead of being wrong about math, why don't you try being right about the OP?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2010 3:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-13-2010 3:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 172 (560170)
05-13-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by cavediver
05-13-2010 3:14 PM


Re: I REST MY CASE
Again, I'm glad you are here to solve these age old arguments. We really could have done with you in DAMTP - many many hours of arguments over coffee could have been saved. It must be so nice to be so convinced you're right. Have you tried Christianity? It would suit you well.
Ah yes, I was forgetting. A Christian strongly believes that Jesus is his savior --- whereas you strongly believe in the existence of cheese.
So because you both have strong beliefs in something, that basically puts you on the same level and your beliefs should be regarded in the same way.
Yeah, I was kinda forgetting that basic logical syllogism when I dared to suggest that I was right about something. Oopsie. Dearie me.
Do you have any actual arguments against the point of view that I have expressed? If so, I should be interested to hear them. If not, then spare me the rhetoric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2010 3:14 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2010 4:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 172 (560171)
05-13-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
05-13-2010 3:17 PM


Re: I REST MY CASE
Gawsh, an explanation on where and how they were wrong would've been an interesting read.
I thought I'd done that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-13-2010 3:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-13-2010 4:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 172 (560181)
05-13-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by cavediver
05-13-2010 4:56 PM


Re: I REST MY CASE
What arguments? That because Pi is not like a tiger, it is obviously not "objective reality", where-as titilation obviously is. Forgive me, but I just prefer to laugh at that rather than argue with it.
You may indulge yourself however you choose, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
You seem worringly attached to your beliefs here, hence the justifable comparison with a religious faith.
And hence the justifiable comparison to your fanatical belief in the existence of cheese. It worries me.
I'm still on a long journey trying to understand this existence, and I rather debate and argue it with others of similar curiosity.
Feel free.
But apparently you don't want to debate with me because I actually have a point of view. This is both your loss and mine.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2010 4:56 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 172 (560184)
05-13-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
05-13-2010 4:44 PM


Re: I REST MY CASE
Well you didn't.
I thought that I had, but I guess sometimes I'm a bit gnomic. So what didn't you understand? I'm happy to fill in the gaps for anyone who is genuinely interested.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-13-2010 4:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 172 (560185)
05-13-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by cavediver
05-13-2010 5:06 PM


Re: I REST MY CASE
Yes, it's strange. From all of Dr A's claims of having shown, demonstrated, and explained, I must be missing half of his posts.
Again, I'm happy to fill in the gaps. What didn't you understand?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2010 5:06 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 172 (560191)
05-13-2010 6:20 PM


GAH!
Could we at least fill in the ontological status of math as an afterthought?

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by nwr, posted 05-13-2010 6:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024