Proposal for difference between types of pattern

[The Voice of Time]

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?

[Impenitent]

no, there are no patterns in nature.

patterns are constructs of the human mind...

-Imp

[The Voice of Time]

no, there are no patterns in nature.

patterns are constructs of the human mind...

-Imp

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]

no, there are no patterns in nature.

patterns are constructs of the human mind...

-Imp

So two apples can't exist independently of our minds? I fail to understand what how you can say that and what it means.

awareness is private

Steve Jobs is smiling

-Imp

[The Voice of Time]

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.

[Impenitent]

pain without knowing the cause does not prove the external existence of apples

-Imp

[The Voice of Time]

pain without knowing the cause does not prove the external existence of apples

-Imp

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]

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

[tillingborn]

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?

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.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

"Existence has been variously defined by sources."
"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.

[Impenitent]

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

"Existence has been variously defined by sources."
"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.

definitions do not create existence

ask Ludwig...

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

"Existence has been variously defined by sources."
"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.

definitions do not create existence
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

[Impenitent]

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 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...

Everything you have learned has come from words,

what words fully describe sensory perceptions?

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

the references I leave are obvious to those who have read philosophy...

-Imp

[Hjarloprillar]

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

[SpheresOfBalance]

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 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...
You have misquoted me, that was TVoT. Here, see above, I have corrected it for you.

Everything you have learned has come from words,

what words fully describe sensory perceptions?
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.

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!

the references I leave are obvious to those who have read philosophy...
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