Does Math Exist Independent of Our Minds?

[Curious George]

Not if they're perceptions of real things.

Man exists
Man is made in part of molecules
Therefore molecules must have existed before man.

Molecules have definitive shapes.
The definitive shapes of molecules existed before man existed.
Therefore shapes exist without mankind.

You tell me, am I talking about perceptions?

 

[PureX]

The whole of existence will no longer exist when there is no mind to comprehend it?

Now you're just trying to be stupid.

 

[PureX]

Man exists
Man is made in part of molecules
Therefore molecules must have existed before man.

Molecules have definitive shapes.
The definitive shapes of molecules existed before man existed.
Therefore shapes exist without mankind.

You tell me, am I talking about perceptions?

The molecules exist. The "shapes" of the molecules are conceptual, and so only exist as long as the minds conceiving them exist.

 

[Curious George]

Now you're just trying to be stupid.

No, i am trying to understand how you think your perspective makes sense.

 

[Curious George]

The molecules exist. The "shapes" of the molecules are conceptual, and so only exist as long as the minds conceiving them exist.

False.

So atoms bond differently when people are not around?

 

[blü 2]

Man exists
Man is made in part of molecules
Therefore molecules must have existed before man.

Molecules have definitive shapes.
The definitive shapes of molecules existed before man existed.
Therefore shapes exist without mankind.

You tell me, am I talking about perceptions?

Apparently. If so, those perceptions are interpreted by the observer, of course, but in an evolved manner implicitly useful for surviving and breeding.

If A looks at a park, qualities such as that it's a park, that it has order, beauty, the exotic, convenience &c are all judgments made by A. That it has a stand of five palms is also an interpretation, in that A is the one who defines the frame of reference, chooses to include as relevant that all the tall vegetation is of a kind, that the kind is palms, that the field of reference is the immediate vicinity, and that within that field the number of palms is five. The same would be true if A were looking at a photo, though the options would likely be more limited.

The shapes are real, and out there. A interprets the sensory input via the eye (and where relevant the other senses) and can express the result in the common language and culture of A's peers.

 

[Curious George]

Apparently. If so, those perceptions are interpreted by the observer, of course, but in an evolved manner implicitly useful for surviving and breeding.

If A looks at a park, qualities such as that it's a park, that it has order, beauty, the exotic, convenience &c are all judgments made by A. That it has a stand of five palms is also an interpretation, in that A is the one who defines the frame of reference, chooses to include as relevant that all the tall vegetation is of a kind, that the kind is palms, that the field of reference is the immediate vicinity, and that within that field the number of palms is five. The same would be true if A were looking at a photo, though the options would likely be more limited.

The shapes are real, and out there. A interprets the sensory input via the eye (and where relevant the other senses) and can express the result in the common language and culture of A's peers.

Yet the shapes we are speaking of are not as subjective as a park. We are talking about definitive structures that exist. While you can widen or narrow the frame of reference, we are discussing distinct objects, where those distinctions hold relevance.

No matter how much you widen or narrow the frame a molecule remains distinct from those surrounding it. That molecule has a definitive structure that is a shape.

 

[Nous]

heraclitus said phythagoras was a clever idiot. Thats accurate. The queatio. Is biased and an invalid question. Math is no thing. This is like arguing intelligent design where the idea matches the reality and voila magically the abstractive mind is determining nature. There is zero emperical evidence of math existing in nature objectively observed since thing is what we see. There are no observable numbers washing ashore at the beach.


Now modeling reality math rocks. Identical to a camera.
Does a photo exist? Yes. But in the photo of a crowd is it a "real" crowd? No.

So if one cannot tell the differnce between "real" and abstraction im not the one with the problem actually to to convey to someone existing in intellectual fantasy is rather impossible. We naturally gravitate towards what affirms what we believe and use that as proof. Identical to religion regardless.

Thank you for demonstrating that I was correct about your ruler not helping you to make an argument either for or against the thesis of mathematical realism.

I suppose addressing the arguments would be too much of a strain.

 

[Thief]

Does math exist independent of our minds? Why or why not?


In the philosophy of mathematics, there are basically two positions on the subject of whether or not mathematics exists independent of our minds.

Naturally, these positions date back over 2,000 years to the ancient Greeks. The first position is called Platonism, after the famous Greek philosopher, Plato. Essentially, Platonism holds that mathematics exists apart from out minds.

On the other hand, the second position -- called Formalism -- holds the opposite. Mathematics is a construct of our minds.

What think you?

sounds reminiscent of the debate between Susskind and Hawkins

can information be destroyed?.....as in the descent into a black hole

is it all in your head?.....or does reality go on without you?

I say.....the tree that falls in the forest makes a sound
whether I am breathing or not

 

[Thief]

now if you insist I answer to a numbered system......geometry

reality does seem to have angles and corners
planes and spheres

between any two points ....there is infinity

but that's not necessarily a set of numbers
but a construct of shape.....

 

[David T]

Thank you for demonstrating that I was correct about your ruler not helping you to make an argument either for or against the thesis of mathematical realism.

I suppose addressing the arguments would be too much of a strain.

And if you are talking to a convinced creationist living in a virtual reality kinda hard to get through to a religious fanatic now isnt it? We see the world as we see it. The model is not reality its bozo and mickey mouse very accurately rendered thats an emperical fact or pandora is real. Ok you are right pandora is real and exists.

 

[PureX]

No, i am trying to understand how you think your perspective makes sense.

You should probably read what I wrote, then, instead of what you think I wrote because you are so sure that I'm wrong.

 

[PureX]

False.

So atoms bond differently when people are not around?

Their "shapes" are a determinant of cognition.

 

[atanu]

And the basic assumptions we make are *our* selections. That means the derived statements are NOT true independent of our thoughts about them...

I agree with you, except that, imo, what 'we' is, is not really known.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree with you, except that, imo, what 'we' is, is not really known.

Well, I am talking about humans. I don't assume a species from a different world would have the same math as we do.

 

[atanu]

Well, I am talking about humans. I don't assume a species from a different world would have the same math as we do.

Yeah. Humans. Plato would probably say that 'we' are in reality transcendent perfect archetypes of which 'we', the bodily objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies.

 

[atanu]

..The first position is called Platonism, after the famous Greek philosopher, Plato. Essentially, Platonism holds that mathematics exists apart from out minds.
What think you?

I think that there is potential for misunderstanding Platonism.

 

[Curious George]

You should probably read what I wrote, then, instead of what you think I wrote because you are so sure that I'm wrong.

You wrote: "now you are just trying to ne stupid."

I should listen to what you mean instead of what I think you mean from listening to what you said?

 

[Curious George]

Their "shapes" are a determinant of cognition.

So atoms bond differently when people are not around?

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah. Humans. Plato would probably say that 'we' are in reality transcendent perfect archetypes of which 'we', the bodily objects in the everyday world are imperfect copies.

Sorry, but Platonism isn't very convincing to me. In fact, from what i can see, Platonism is one of the fundamental mistakes of western philosophy. I prefer Hume.