Philosophy Is maths part of the natural world?

[das_nut]

Yes! I've heard of this before.

Rereading that, it seems a tad dated. How many people here remember Iran Contra or the hostage crisis, or catch the other references, such as XK-Pluto?

 

[FortyTwo]

Rereading that, it seems a tad dated. How many people here remember Iran Contra or the hostage crisis, or catch the other references, such as XK-Pluto?

Dunno. If those are referring to specific events, then yeah, lost on me. I just know about it because it involves Lovecraft.

But, hey, nothing a little research can't cure!

ETA: I knew Reagan was awful, but that's just a tad ridiculous...

 

[das_nut]

Dunno. If those are referring to specific events, then yeah, lost on me. I just know about it because it involves Lovecraft.

But, hey, nothing a little research can't cure!

ETA: I knew Reagan was awful, but that's just a tad ridiculous...

Reagan actually said that. It was a joke during a microphone test. In this story, which is obviously alternative history, things ended up ... differently.

To find "XK-Pluto", google "Project Pluto". For the aircraft, I think he's basing it off the Corvair X-6 project, which was an aircraft propelled by nuclear reactors. In our history, ballistic missiles were preferred. In this alternative history, the US decided to go with a stronger nuclear deterrent to counter what is called "Project Korschei". Speaking of which, Korschei is from Russian folklore. There's other references as well, for example the Nazi program that lead to Korschei was called "Todt", literally "death". In this world, R'lyeh is implied to be undre the Baltic sea, and the Nazis found it first. There are other references to actual historical events - Iran Contra, Iran hostage crisis, Iran/Iraq war, Soviet-Afghanistan war, the secret Israeli nuclear weapons program, etc. "Ollie" in the story, is, of course, Oliver North.

Rereading that now, slowly. Fun little novella. I really appreciate the line: "countervailing weapons have been developed to reduce the risk of a unilateral preemption escalating to an exchange of weakly godlike agencies."

The author of this novella, Charles Stross (which I'm a big fan of), did a (so-far) 4 book series with a similar subject, where a MI-5ish agency is tasked with dealing with Lovecraftian horrors (and keeping the general public from finding out about them). Good series, I'd recommend it. First book is the Atrocity Archives. Stross is one of those authors who loves to dump many references into his work, and play with homages when he writes a novel.

 

[Blobbenstein]

annnnnyway.....back to the maths is part of nature.

How can you have abstract concepts without a brain to imagine them?

I have wondered if this was an argument for God. Take the equation for a sphere: x*x+y*y+z*z=r*r

before humans came along, did it exist.....if it existed, maybe that requires a god, to imagine it.

 

[das_nut]

How can you have abstract concepts without a brain to imagine them?

Why does a concept that a bipedal primate calls "abstract" requires a brain?

 

[Blobbenstein]

exactly!

There's no way to prove anything.

But the only way I can understand your post is by using my brain, at least I assume the brain is involved at some point.

 

[das_nut]

This is the internet. Don't assume a brain is in use.

 

[Blobbenstein]

So on the internet it's: "I link therefore I am"...?

 

[nigel1]

You stated 'simple counting maths require discretizing the matter to be counted' and 'The counter and "discretizor" are placing the value on the process. This is all based on observation, or else it is random and pointless.' That to me was an example, not fundamental to math. Does all math require counters and discretizors?



I'm confused by your position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom



Well, I guess with this example we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, we disagree in a couple of areas. My example was for the sake of discussion, which is what we are having, and it was a discussion on the fundamentals of math. I used the example for the sake of simplicity. If someone has suggested that some math is natural and other math is not, I missed that.

On the axiom/postulate thing, I know for a fact that I was meaning to go somewhere with that, but I was drunk at the time. Sorry about that. I'll try to reconstruct the thought. I will point out, though, that axioms/postulates are man-made and for a purpose, and I don't see how you can call that natural. If you want to, you'll have to accept that if math is a natural thing, humans likely aren't very good at it because we really can't assume we know all of these truths. I can't go there myself, it seems too Jesusy to me.

 

[nigel1]

That's like saying gas, liquid or solid is a subjective idea, since humans have to classify it, and are thus putting value on it.

That would have been a good example on what is natural 15o years ago when plasma didn't exist, right? Of course it's subjective. We define things as such so we can talk about them in a certain way.

 

[das_nut]

That would have been a good example on what is natural 15o years ago when plasma didn't exist, right? Of course it's subjective. We define things as such so we can talk about them in a certain way.

Plasma existed 150 years ago. It just didn't have a name. Still was there.

 

[nigel1]

Plasma existed 150 years ago. It just didn't have a name. Still was there.

Of course it did. I was being sarcastic. It wasn't a topic of discussion in physics, just as some matters in math weren't, which goes toward he non-natural humanness of both.

 

[das_nut]

Ah, gotcha.

 

[nog]

Yeah, we disagree in a couple of areas. My example was for the sake of discussion, which is what we are having, and it was a discussion on the fundamentals of math. I used the example for the sake of simplicity.

Oh, I didn't realize we were having a discussion. Thanks for the clarification. I don't see your example as having anything to do with the fundamentals of math. I'm dense at times thought so can you clarify?

If someone has suggested that some math is natural and other math is not, I missed that.

I don't think so. What we disagreed on was that you seem to be arguing that math is based on observation. I disagreed, but understand that math can explain observation, perhaps started out based on observation, but is no longer based on observation.

I will point out, though, that axioms/postulates are man-made and for a purpose, and I don't see how you can call that natural. If you want to, you'll have to accept that if math is a natural thing, humans likely aren't very good at it because we really can't assume we know all of these truths. I can't go there myself, it seems too Jesusy to me.

I didn't make a claim about the naturalness of math nor axioms or postulates. My original statement in this thread stated that it depends on how you define 'natural world' and 'part' (in terms of answering the original question). Lacking those definitions I think claiming that math is or is not a part of the natural world is meaningless.

I just disagree that math is based on observation.

Perhaps your position is that everything we think or do is based on observation.

 

[nigel1]

Oh, I didn't realize we were having a discussion. Thanks for the clarification. I don't see your example as having anything to do with the fundamentals of math. I'm dense at times thought so can you clarify?

No need to be sarcastic, Mr. Smartypants, and I don't think anyone would characterize you as sometimes (and don't come back with a comment on your specific gravity ). You don't believe that math is based on observation, which is fine, but I do, so a basis on observation is completely fundamental to me.

Perhaps your position is that everything we think or do is based on observation.

No, I don't.