Proposal for difference between types of pattern
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Proposal for difference between types of pattern
Math has been called a science of patterns. And while it may very well be true, I'd like to introduce another notion, namely that it is a science of comparative patterning. That is, patterns exist in nature, but when mathematicians do their work, they do not use the patterns in nature, and instead they've created their logical system to compare the patterns found in nature with their own replication using same or similar pattern, but different matter to show it. In this way, patterns should be said to exist in two ways, I propose, one mathematical, a comparative way, an "abstraction" so to speak (though I avoided that term earlier for fear of ambiguity over its meaning), and a natural way, that found by simply looking at the world and how it acts and is eventful.
Is this reasonable? Should this separation be kept or should math be considered a science also of the patterns found in nature, prior to abstraction?
Is this reasonable? Should this separation be kept or should math be considered a science also of the patterns found in nature, prior to abstraction?
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
no, there are no patterns in nature.
patterns are constructs of the human mind...
-Imp
patterns are constructs of the human mind...
-Imp
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
So two apples can't exist independently of our minds? I fail to understand what how you can say that and what it means.Impenitent wrote:no, there are no patterns in nature.
patterns are constructs of the human mind...
-Imp
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
awareness is privateThe Voice of Time wrote:So two apples can't exist independently of our minds? I fail to understand what how you can say that and what it means.Impenitent wrote:no, there are no patterns in nature.
patterns are constructs of the human mind...
-Imp
Steve Jobs is smiling
-Imp
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
I don't know about Steve Jobs or what that's supposed to mean, but certainly two apples hitting your head can very much cause you pain without you being aware of their existence even before or after.
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
pain without knowing the cause does not prove the external existence of apples
-Imp
-Imp
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
So if a friend told you it was apples, and its impact was resemblant of that of apples (as opposed to other things like wood or rock), would you not believe him? Would your trust in him not be enough for you to deem their (the two apples') existence true? If you try to resort to an argument of yet not enough proof here I shouldn't have to remind you that illusions could be played on you to trick your mind into thinking you see apples when maybe you're just seeing an extremely sophisticated hologram, however, if you go down that path you are just saying nothing is certain and the point of the discussion is null and useless, that sort of thinking serves none and is void of my interest.Impenitent wrote:pain without knowing the cause does not prove the external existence of apples
-Imp
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
testimony isn't enough to prove existence either...
I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism...
if it is void of your interest, why initiate the question?
what is the pattern if an argument cannot withstand scrutiny?
-Imp
I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism...
if it is void of your interest, why initiate the question?
what is the pattern if an argument cannot withstand scrutiny?
-Imp
-
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
I think what you are talking about is the difference between pure and applied maths. There is way more maths than there is nature, at least as far as we can see. Sometimes there are patterns in nature that people wish to describe, Kepler's Laws of planetary motion, for example. Sometimes there are mathematical patterns that turn up when you know what to look for, like the Fibonacci sequence. Some mathematicians get their jollies manipulating entirely abstract concepts, others like to see whether nature has beaten them to it.The Voice of Time wrote:Math has been called a science of patterns. And while it may very well be true, I'd like to introduce another notion, namely that it is a science of comparative patterning. That is, patterns exist in nature, but when mathematicians do their work, they do not use the patterns in nature, and instead they've created their logical system to compare the patterns found in nature with their own replication using same or similar pattern, but different matter to show it. In this way, patterns should be said to exist in two ways, I propose, one mathematical, a comparative way, an "abstraction" so to speak (though I avoided that term earlier for fear of ambiguity over its meaning), and a natural way, that found by simply looking at the world and how it acts and is eventful.
Is this reasonable? Should this separation be kept or should math be considered a science also of the patterns found in nature, prior to abstraction?
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
"Existence has been variously defined by sources."Impenitent wrote:testimony isn't enough to prove existence either...
I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism...
if it is void of your interest, why initiate the question?
what is the pattern if an argument cannot withstand scrutiny?
-Imp
"In common usage, it is the world one is aware or conscious of through one's senses, and that persists independently in one's absence."
"Other definitions describe it as everything that 'is', or more simply, everything."
"Some define it to be everything that most people believe in."
"Aristotle relates the concept to causality."
--Wikipedia--
Imp, obviously see's it as in the third and first, above, except that he ignores the second half, in red.
I assume that 'you'(?), TVoT, and I, see it as in the first, (including the half in red), second, (in blue), and forth, (Aristotle), above.
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
definitions do not create existenceSpheresOfBalance wrote:"Existence has been variously defined by sources."Impenitent wrote:testimony isn't enough to prove existence either...
I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism...
if it is void of your interest, why initiate the question?
what is the pattern if an argument cannot withstand scrutiny?
-Imp
"In common usage, it is the world one is aware or conscious of through one's senses, and that persists independently in one's absence."
"Other definitions describe it as everything that 'is', or more simply, everything."
"Some define it to be everything that most people believe in."
"Aristotle relates the concept to causality."
--Wikipedia--
Imp, obviously see's it as in the third and first, above, except that he ignores the second half, in red.
I assume that 'you'(?), TVoT, and I, see it as in the first, (including the half in red), second, (in blue), and forth, (Aristotle), above.
ask Ludwig...
-Imp
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
Impenitent wrote:definitions do not create existenceSpheresOfBalance wrote:"Existence has been variously defined by sources."Impenitent wrote:testimony isn't enough to prove existence either...
I am not claiming a brain the vat paradox, I am claiming skepticism...
if it is void of your interest, why initiate the question?
what is the pattern if an argument cannot withstand scrutiny?
-Imp
"In common usage, it is the world one is aware or conscious of through one's senses, and that persists independently in one's absence."
"Other definitions describe it as everything that 'is', or more simply, everything."
"Some define it to be everything that most people believe in."
"Aristotle relates the concept to causality."
--Wikipedia--
Imp, obviously see's it as in the third and first, above, except that he ignores the second half, in red.
I assume that 'you'(?), TVoT, and I, see it as in the first, (including the half in red), second, (in blue), and forth, (Aristotle), above.
You do realize we are using words, right? Definitions of words are so we can understand one another, you do understand this simple concept, right? Everything you have learned has come from words, you, it would seem, just choose to ignore the ones you don't like, such that then it would seem that you know not, of what you say. But I can see you as part of the: 'Some that define it to be everything that most people believe in,' or in other words the group of: "knowledge, not!
ask Ludwig...
-Imp
-
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
SpheresOfBalance wrote: You do realize we are using words, right? Definitions of words are so we can understand one another, you do understand this simple concept, right?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I don't know about Steve Jobs or what that's supposed to mean
I understand that simple concept more than you realize, as you completely missed this simple reference...
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Everything you have learned has come from words,
what words fully describe sensory perceptions?
the references I leave are obvious to those who have read philosophy...SpheresOfBalance wrote:you, it would seem, just choose to ignore the ones you don't like, such that then it would seem that you know not, of what you say. But I can see you as part of the: 'Some that define it to be everything that most people believe in,' or in other words the group of: "knowledge, not!
ask Ludwig...
-Imp
-Imp
- Hjarloprillar
- Posts: 952
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
- Location: Sol sector.
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
and a natural way, that found by simply looking at the world and how it acts and is eventful.
Yes it is eventful
phenomena abound
Patterns are i call wisdom. it works this way well.religion is all about patterns.
thus it worls
We need to dig depper
nikos
Yes it is eventful
phenomena abound
Patterns are i call wisdom. it works this way well.religion is all about patterns.
thus it worls
We need to dig depper
nikos
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Proposal for difference between types of pattern
Impenitent wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote: You do realize we are using words, right? Definitions of words are so we can understand one another, you do understand this simple concept, right?I understand that simple concept more than you realize, as you completely missed this simple reference...The Voice of Time wrote:I don't know about Steve Jobs or what that's supposed to mean
You have misquoted me, that was TVoT. Here, see above, I have corrected it for you.what words fully describe sensory perceptions?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Everything you have learned has come from words,
That all depends on how much work you put into conveying such perceptions. I'd say that by this day and age their are sufficient words in the dictionary, for you to convey that of your perceptions.the references I leave are obvious to those who have read philosophy...SpheresOfBalance wrote:you, it would seem, just choose to ignore the ones you don't like, such that then it would seem that you know not, of what you say. But I can see you as part of the: 'Some that define it to be everything that most people believe in,' or in other words the group of: "knowledge, not!
That's such bullshit, your logic is flawed, as it does not necessarily follow, as one has neither necessarily read ALL philosophy texts nor necessarily remembered ALL that they've read, verbatim. The truth is that you seemingly hide behind this false concept, as I have noted that you rarely say more than a word or two. To me, in the past, it's seemed that you've just been too lazy or busy to really contribute, but now I know the truth of it, as this statement above of yours has illuminated. It is a ploy so as to create an illusion for both you and your audience to believe you actually know what you're talking about. Come on Imp, get real, I was once happy to see a fellow Rush fan here, as Neils lyrics have much philosophical substance. No one knows everything, I certainly don't, so why play that game?
-Imp