philosophy of mathematics

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by chaz wyman »

spike wrote:I don't believe you. You are just being argumentative. That's your nature.
And it is in your nature to avoid the truth when you see it.
If you think what I say is untrue then argue against it.
Don't give up so easily.
If you argue in the spirit of enquiry, then you will grow from what you may learn.
I thought that was why people contributed to such Forums are these.

Show me a circle!
spike
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by spike »

Show me a circle!
Never mind a circle. I'd like to show you the door!

I think about practical and pragmatic things. You think about flying shit! I'm not into that.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by chaz wyman »

spike wrote:
Show me a circle!
Never mind a circle. I'd like to show you the door!

I think about practical and pragmatic things. You think about flying shit! I'm not into that.
Close your eyes if you are happier doing that. It seems you have stopped learning.
Makes me wonder why you bother to contribute to this forum.
spike
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by spike »

Makes me wonder why you bother to contribute to this forum.
Makes me wonder too because it is often so dumb and stupid. To bad there weren't more professionals on board, like people from the magazine.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by chaz wyman »

spike wrote:
Makes me wonder why you bother to contribute to this forum.
Makes me wonder too because it is often so dumb and stupid. To bad there weren't more professionals on board, like people from the magazine.
I think you mean "Too bad". People from the magazine would have you for breakfast.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by Arising_uk »

chaz wyman wrote:... There are no integers in nature; ...
Apart from the physical counters when counting was matching sets? Nature can pretty much be described in integers.
no circles, ...
Pebbles in pools?
straight lines, ...
Shadows on tents, poles, the pole star?
no regular polygons. ...
Bees.
Maths comes from the imagination, like fairies and deities. Maths is a model.
I'll give you that the latter of mine were tenuous in the thing you propose but to propose that Maths has not a base in perception, in a way that fairies and deities do, seems wrong to me.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by chaz wyman »

Arising_uk wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:... There are no integers in nature; ...
Apart from the physical counters when counting was matching sets? Nature can pretty much be described in integers.
You have perhaps not been following the thread. I said nature can be DESCRIBED with integers. Maths is a model.
no circles, ...
Pebbles in pools?

Nope. Reality is 3D, circles are 2D.
straight lines, ...
Shadows on tents, poles, the pole star?

Nope. A tent pole is not strait. Take a look at the microscopic level and you will find it is bumpy. The ground where the shadow falls is also bumpy.

no regular polygons. ...
Bees.

a polygon is 2D. Have you ever seen inside a beehive? I have. Bees make irregular polygonal extruded 3D shapes.
Maths comes from the imagination, like fairies and deities. Maths is a model.
I'll give you that the latter of mine were tenuous in the thing you propose but to propose that Maths has not a base in perception, in a way that fairies and deities do, seems wrong to me.
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.
spike
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by spike »

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by Rortabend »

How do you use an Ancient Egyptian doorbell?
spike
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by spike »

Rortabend wrote:How do you use an Ancient Egyptian doorbell?
Sounds like a knock, knock joke: k=(qu<>qu):-)
User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by Rortabend »

Toot-and-come-in!

(I'm trying to cheer up Chaz. He seems to be a bit grumpy at the moment and I know he likes jokes about Ancient Egypt.)
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by chaz wyman »

Rortabend wrote:Toot-and-come-in!

(I'm trying to cheer up Chaz. He seems to be a bit grumpy at the moment and I know he likes jokes about Ancient Egypt.)
Is that like the girl who never was breast fed, but bottled fed.

Never-Titi ?

Sorry- not great - I just made it up!
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by chaz wyman »

What about the the pyramid builder that swallowed a key.

He had to have Che- ops to remove it.
User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by Rortabend »

Lovely stuff.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: philosophy of mathematics

Post by Arising_uk »

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.
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?
Post Reply