You don't get maths from experience. If you were not taught it as a system you would not simply find it in the world. You seem to be confusing the object with the conception of it.Arising_uk wrote:Never been to happy about these terms. Are you saying that maths is a Kantian type category? Why is it not built upon experience from the world, you get circles in pools from rain, spiders webs show straight lines, as do claw marks. I accept that symbols are ours but maths appears at source to be the language for describing objects. We counted using heterogeneous sets once, we made right angles with rope and chain, a distance was how far we walked, etc. Not arguing that its not apriori when proving its own theorems, just the idea that it was not experience that gave it its grounds. Just as Logic is entailed by there being objects and states of affairs, why is Maths not the same?chaz wyman wrote:... It is much better than faieries, I agree. More useful for one thing, but it reflects nature in human interested ways, It is apriori, not aposteriori.
If you look closely at a spider's thread you will find that it is made of molecules - not a continuous straight line. It also has depth- which a straight line does not. The line is an abstraction for reasons of measurement.
I'm not sure what else I can offer you.
As for Kant - I don't think he has a monopoly on these terms.
Logic is the same as maths. It is a system that unpacks linguistics, and renders it to reason. It is an abstract system. But I see no reason to assume that the universe is written in maths or logic. These are human ways to help understand them. In the human realm they are part of experience, but take the humans away and the universe abides without logic or maths.