Mathematics, Discovered or Invented?

[Alien826]

My dog has 'discovered' that grunting at me will remind me to get her dinner. But I would say she invented the specific sound she makes.

I think that we discovered that sound can carry information and invented the specific sounds to be used for that purpose.

My dog is very vocal. She's limited to the noises that dogs can make of course, but she manages a lot of different meanings. For example, a high pitched "yip" means "yes" when I ask her a question like "Do you need to go outside?". She only does that when she does need to go. I suppose she has invented it, and rattling her tags for the same request when it's the middle of the night and we are asleep ...

 

[Polymath257]

No .. that assumes that minds are nothing more than neurons firing.
..and you reply .. do you have any evidence to the contrary?

All of the evidence we have for how the brain functions and its relationship to personality. Again, look at the book 'Behave' by Sapolsky. It goes into a LOT of detail.

But, if you want to claim there *is* more than neurons firing, the burden of proof is on you. This is a general thing: the burden of proof for an existence statement is on the side of the positive existence. Otherwise, the default is non-existence. This is as true of particle physics as it is of theology.

..and round we go .. do you have evidence that minds are nothing more than neurons firing?
Of course you don't !
You can only assume.

And, again, the burden of proof isn't on the side claiming there is nothing else. it is on the side that claims there *is* something else. Otherwise, it is simply trying to prove pixies don't push the planets around.

Pure assumption .. which I do not agree with, naturally.

Do you have any proof otherwise? No? Then the default is as I said it.

I believe in the unseen, and have less faith in mankind's limited knowledge than you.

You can believe in whatever you want. But that isn't a reason to believe. It is simply your opinion. The *assumption* that is being made is on the side of the one claiming there is more than what we can actually see and detect.

 

[Polymath257]

I wouldn't .. I would say that it is "in her nature".

Then why different grunts for other dogs? Or no grunt at all?

The new meaning to the grunts is because of her: she invented the grunt to carry the meaning.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Then why different grunts for other dogs? Or no grunt at all?

The new meaning to the grunts is because of her: she invented the grunt to carry the meaning.

Actually, the two of them 'invented' the communications because one realized that the other reacted...and understood...the symbol for the object/event...communication only occurs when there are at least two...

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the burden of proof isn't on the side claiming there is nothing else..

I'm not trying to prove anything .. you are the one making the claim that the mind is nothing more than...
I'm simply saying that it is assumption, based on what we have observed.
If you are happy with that, fine .. but I'm not.
I believe in the unseen, and consider mankind's knowledge of "what is" incomplete.

You can believe in whatever you want. But that isn't a reason to believe. It is simply your opinion.

There IS a reason to believe .. but you presume that religion is all hearsay, contrived and reject it.

For me, this is an ignorant stance .. but we all have our reasons ..
To believe that this life is no more than idle amusement, is not for me.
Not only do I prefer to believe that this existence is no coincidence, but my intellect
cannot believe otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then why different grunts for other dogs? Or no grunt at all?

The new meaning to the grunts is because of her: she invented the grunt to carry the meaning.

Yes .. creatures have their own personality .. their own soul.
..but the nature of a dog, is still the nature of a dog.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find it interesting where people will draw the line between discovered math and invented math. For you, it is calculus. For @sayak83 it seems to be partial differential equations (which are used extensively in quantum mechanics).

Personally, I put the line at algebra.

Expressing numbers as symbols to manipulate them more easily was an inspired invention, not a discovery of some innate property of the numbers themselves.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not trying to prove anything .. you are the one making the claim that the mind is nothing more than...
I'm simply saying that it is assumption, based on what we have observed.
If you are happy with that, fine .. but I'm not.
I believe in the unseen, and consider mankind's knowledge of "what is" incomplete.

I'm saying that ALL the evidence we have points in that direction and that there is no evidence pointing another direction.

Until there is, there is no reason to propose more.

Further, the proposal that there is more actually explains exactly nothing that is not already explained. It doesn't explain how consciousness works, how decisions are made, etc. So even as an additional hypothesis, it fails.

There IS a reason to believe .. but you presume that religion is all hearsay, contrived and reject it.

The 'evidence' from religion is simply unreliable. It is untestable, actually makes no predictions, and explains nothing that has not already been explained.

For me, this is an ignorant stance .. but we all have our reasons ..
To believe that this life is no more than idle amusement, is not for me.
Not only do I prefer to believe that this existence is no coincidence, but my intellect
cannot believe otherwise.

So it is your *opinion*. And it is an opinion with no actual evidence (testable, observable) to back it up.

OK, you do you. But don't expect others to take it seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

Personally, I put the line at algebra.

Expressing numbers as symbols to manipulate them more easily was an inspired invention, not a discovery of some innate property of the numbers themselves.

And others seem to put the line at Zormelo-Fraenkl set theory. Each Platonist puts it in a different place. And that tells me it is arbitrary and not something outside of our minds.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, you do you. But don't expect others to take it seriously.

I don't expect anything from anybody .. I just like talking with other people.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The 'evidence' from religion is simply unreliable..

In your opinion.

We both commence with a different null hypothesis.
Your hypothesis, is that this life is all that is, and you seek evidence to prove that you are wrong.
..hence you cannot but help arrive at the null hypothesis being correct.

Whereas a believer has a different null hypothesis.
They feel that there MUST be 'one' that is responsible for all we see, and it is a matter
of finding the right creed / belief.

..so that is why "the heart" is more important than the brain.
The brain cannot find the truth without a suitable intention.

 

[Polymath257]

In your opinion.

We both commence with a different null hypothesis.
Your hypothesis, is that this life is all that is, and you seek evidence to prove that you are wrong.
..hence you cannot but help arrive at the null hypothesis being correct.

No, that is NOT the assumption. It is the *conclusion* based on available evidence. You have the direction of the argument backwards.

And why would it be impossible to nullify that hypothesis by proving it wrong?

Whereas a believer has a different null hypothesis.
They feel that there MUST be 'one' that is responsible for all we see, and it is a matter
of finding the right creed / belief.

And why *must* there be *one* responsible? Why not many? Why not none? All you have is your 'feeling' that there should be more.

I see that as an aspect of human ego: to think we are more important than we are.

..so that is why "the heart" is more important than the brain.
The brain cannot find the truth without a suitable intention.

OK, I disagree. Strongly. The 'heart' (meaning emotions) very frequently leads to falsehoods. In fact, it is the most common element where people arrive at wrong conclusions (whether in theology or not).

Do you not see that?

As such, its role in any search for truth should be limited and ALWAYS questioned. It is *far* too easy to be subject to confirmation bias otherwise.

The 'heart' may be more important for the search for a fulfilled life, for a life of pleasure and (perceived) meaning. But it is a very poor indicator of truth.

I prefer truth to 'meaningful' falsities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And others seem to put the line at Zormelo-Fraenkl set theory. Each Platonist puts it in a different place. And that tells me it is arbitrary and not something outside of our minds.

It's only arbitrary if everyone is equally justified.

 

[Polymath257]

It's only arbitrary if everyone is equally justified.

I do think they are equally *un*-justified.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I see that as an aspect of human ego: to think we are more important than we are..

..yet there are billions of souls/minds .. that is significant .. nothing to do with ego.

OK, I disagree. Strongly. The 'heart' (meaning emotions) very frequently leads to falsehoods..

Yes, it does .. I never said that the brain/intellect is not important.
I'm just saying that "the heart" is more important than the brain.

It is quite obvious that we will not find anything, unless we have the intention to find it !

 

[Polymath257]

..yet there are billions of souls/minds .. that is significant .. nothing to do with ego.

Significant compared to what? The universe at large? Hardly.

Yes, it does .. I never said that the brain/intellect is not important.
I'm just saying that "the heart" is more important than the brain.

It is quite obvious that we will not find anything, unless we have the intention to find it !

Yes, the 'heart' determines our goals, our values, and what we like/dislike. It determines whether we are interested in truth for its own sake or not. It determines, when we find a truth, whether we will reject it because we don't like it, or stick to it because we have found it to be true. It determines whether honesty, especially self-honesty, is important to us or not.

So, to determine the *goal* of searching for the truth, the 'heart' is invaluable. But for *determining* truth, it is unreliable and prone to biases. The brain is far better at that job.

Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself. How do you guard against that?

Of course, this is a metaphor, since the 'heart' (emotions) are also a matter of brain functioning and the *brain* (logic and reason) are simply a different aspect of that functioning. And the two together do not exhaust what the brain (biological organ) actually does.

And, frankly, if the search for truth is NOT your goal, then we are simply on different paths. Buddha was concerned about pain and suffering and not directly in the search for truth. That is where I part ways with Buddhism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Significant compared to what? The universe at large? Hardly.

..so 'physical size' impresses you more than intellect and compassion?

Yes, the 'heart' determines our goals, our values, and what we like/dislike. It determines whether we are interested in truth for its own sake or not. It determines, when we find a truth, whether we will reject it because we don't like it, or stick to it because we have found it to be true. It determines whether honesty, especially self-honesty, is important to us or not.

Agreed upon.

So, to determine the *goal* of searching for the truth, the 'heart' is invaluable. But for *determining* truth, it is unreliable and prone to biases. The brain is far better at that job.

Agreed upon.

Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself. How do you guard against that?

All we can do is our best.
Not one of us is of pure intent .. that is because we are human.
We must try to be sincere, and not lie to ourselves or others, despite the suffering it might cause us.

Of course, as with everything, there are always exceptions .. but invalid excuse only fools ourselves,
in the long run.

Of course, this is a metaphor, since the 'heart' (emotions) are also a matter of brain functioning and the *brain* (logic and reason) are simply a different aspect of that functioning. And the two together do not exhaust what the brain (biological organ) actually does.

Yes .. it is metaphor .. one cannot function/survive without the other.
Nevertheless, intention is a real concept, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Polymath257]

..so 'physical size' impresses you more than intellect and compassion?

As I see it, we are a bunch of ants living on a very small anthill in a universe that is immeasurably hostile to life as we know it.

Intellect and compassion impress me about conscious beings. I don't see the universe at large as being conscious.

Agreed upon.


Agreed upon.


All we can do is our best.
Not one of us is of pure intent .. that is because we are human.
We must try to be sincere, and not lie to ourselves or others, despite the suffering it might cause us.

Agreed. A proper amount of skepticism is a good thing.

Of course, as with everything, there are always exceptions .. but invalid excuse only fools ourselves,
in the long run.

Agreed. Which is why we need to be on guard when the heart speaks one way and the brain another. In that case, the heart is far more likely to be wrong.

Yes .. it is metaphor .. one cannot function/survive without the other.
Nevertheless, intention is a real concept, as far as I'm concerned.

And my point is that *for determining truth* the brain (logic, reasoning, skepticism) is far more important than the 'heart' (emotions, goals, and feelings).

In fact, if I have a strong emotional response for or against a concept, it only invokes my skepticism more. That response means that I am setting myself up for confirmation bias.

 

[Ostronomos]

Consciousness has nothing to do with this collapse. Instead, it has to do with the *interaction* with the electrons that is necessary to determine 'which slit' information. It is that information, not consciousness, that collapses the wave function.

And what else do you suggest?

All claims. But claims with no evidence to back them up. The reality of the world is part of the *definition* of the word 'real'.

Please show a spiritual world exists at all.

WITH PLEASURE!

If you ponder the word "existence", you would see in its very definition things that go beyond the physical. But include the mental as well.

For instance, if we consider that anything and everything that exists is identifiable by the very nature of its existence, this broadens the horizon of the word to include the mental as well as the physical, the immaterial and the material. I.e. existence is more general than previously believed.

Reality contains all and only that which exists. (A supertautology advanced by Langan and I).

Existence and non-existence are one.

In the further above statement lies the possibility of existence containing more than just the material, but every possible kind of existence as implied by the word.

Do not simply dismiss this logic based on the illusionistic nature of experience. You have to really see beyond your material experience which includes the sun and the moon and the trees and the grass, but the pitch black darkness of the night as well. You have to open your eyes to the possibility of the genuine spiritual experience as well, which is ineffable.

 

[Ostronomos]

As I see it, we are a bunch of ants living on a very small anthill in a universe that is immeasurably hostile to life as we know it.

How do you explain the spiritual? Can ants be spiritual? We create reality by observing reality. Ants have this ability to a lesser extent. They too are syntactors. As God permeates all matter.