|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 29, 2013 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I guess you're aware that your last post is just a spam without any actual explanation.
I think, that the post before my last post was simply unreflected.
Mathematics is completely separated from the real or material world. It doesn't care about it.
It's more or less a language that can be used to describe the real world in a an ordered and useful way - but that isn't the purpose of mathematics, and this is what every mathematician will tell you.
Mathematics is a purpose in itself. The fact that other disciplines have so much use for it is just an additional boon.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 05:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, dont forget that the thread is not really inviting to discussions.
ITs like a thread of whether you like red or blue and why?
Certainly, arguing about which one of them is more natural is pointless in itself.
Not really. I was curious about OSM posters' opinions on this and I intended them to discuss their positions and their reasons for those positions. It's not similar to preferring blue or red. To choose one you have to have cognitive content. You can say I just prefer blue and that's it. You can't really say I am a materialist/idealist because I just feel like it. Well, you can but it would be just spam. Besides you can like both blue and red. Metaphorically, this is more like are you left-handed or right handed, you can't say neither or both. -Out of the metaphor- you can say you are indecisive.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 05:48 PM |
|
|
|
Then you'll have to explain how something can have a meaning if it is totally unrelated to everything else.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 06:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then you'll have to explain how something can have a meaning if it is totally unrelated to everything else.
I guess you talk about what we call "nothing".
"Nothing" is more about the perimeter of the universe we don't know about,can't observe and can only at the present time make speculations about.
My point is,how can a person be sure about non-existense of correlation between two objects?
In science is postulated that every known object has gravitation,the small ones having ignorable ammount of which.
By the gravitational force everything in the monitored part of the universe is related with one another.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 06:34 PM |
|
|
German wiki says this about mathematics (translated):
There is no commonly accepted defintion for mathematics. TODAY its usually described as a science, which uses logic to examine SELF-CREATED ABSTRACT STRUCTURES via logic for properties and patterns.
Which means that mathematics isn't based on the real worls and it's not trying to re-model it in any way. It's a separate entity - that also happens to work pretty well in the real world.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 07:34 PM |
|
|
Although I really wonder how this sub-discussion about math will turn out, I assume it's safe to say we all agreed that positive sciences are not entirely composed of math. A symphony is mathematical too and can be composed with ear-plugs on. But it is not categorically pure mathematics.
Math can be totally abstract when defining geometrical shapes. But there is no perfect circle in the universe, yet we still use geometry when calculating orbits of celestial objects. And calculating orbits is a very materialistic job if you ask me. That's why Kepler is a very celebrated man, he said "when we try to calculate this stuff with perfect circles it doesn't add up with what I see in my telescope, let's try elliptic orbits." And that's a very good example, because before him idealism suggested that the orbits should be perfect circles and the only way to adapt that to what you observe watching the sky is by doing this:
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 07:45 PM |
|
|
The science of math is composed from many abstract ideas,like dot,straight line,circle,sphere and so on.
I have being always good in it,taking any math exams with ease,but my point is,the whole math science is based on the concept of perfection.
Idealists very often think about perfection of theoretical concepts/ideas and sometimes when such perfection is questioned,they feel obliged to defend it by any means.
I know this happens with materialists as well.When their ideas about matter are questioned,they also defend them with the same assumption-that materialistic ideas are perfect and eternal.
The funny moment is,if you say something is unrelated to other things,both schools of philosophy will unite in telling you about the existing connections,although based on different principles.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 07:55 PM |
|
|
|
Unfortunately Master Learn, that's a very idealist symmetry.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 07:59 PM |
|
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 08:05 PM |
|
|
@artu,what do you mean by idealist symmetry?
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 08:10 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:11, 29 Apr 2013.
|
|
I mean it only exists in your head.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 08:21 PM |
|
|
@artu,please enlighten me where the materialistic symmetry is and where you see my statement wrong?
Without insults,please.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 08:37 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:39, 29 Apr 2013.
|
I didn't insult you. And your question itself makes it evident you didn't get what I mean. Let me explain it to you step by step:
1- My line of thought and example of the perfect circle suggested idealism proclaims things that are non-existent in this world and then improvises within them.
2- You said both schools of thought did that and stated they also defend them with the same assumption-that materialistic ideas are perfect and eternal, which is not true, because there are no "perfect and eternal" materialistic suggestions. Not in here and not in general. Nobody said that.
3- I, -using a little bit of sarcasm, shoot me!-, hinted to you that the symmetry you claimed to exist is just like those perfect circles which in fact don't exist. So to be more blunt:
THERE IS NO MATERIALIST SYMMETRY THAT IS AN ANSWER TO YOUR IDEALIST SYMMETRY.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 08:46 PM |
|
|
Circular logic...
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 09:05 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 21:05, 29 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
German wiki says this about mathematics (translated):
There is no commonly accepted defintion for mathematics. TODAY its usually described as a science, which uses logic to examine SELF-CREATED ABSTRACT STRUCTURES via logic for properties and patterns.
Which means that mathematics isn't based on the real worls and it's not trying to re-model it in any way. It's a separate entity - that also happens to work pretty well in the real world.
That alone still does not separate it from the "real world". Mathematics is all about motion, dynamics, change - all of which are observable qualities of the matter. Just because a concept can be deeply abstract does not mean that it has immaterial roots. It's rather safe, although "crude", to assume that they would've been no mathematics in a completely static world (if such a thing could exist).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 09:18 PM |
|
|
Math isn't dealing with perfection, but only with ABSTRACTIONS, that are well-defined.
A mathematic circle is a PERFECT circle because such a circle is DEFINED in an abstract way. it's an idea - basically a regular n-polygon with n = infinite.
Of course you can construct a circle quite easily with primitive means, but that's not math.
There is of course practical math, but that's more like, well, calculating. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Math isn't dealing with perfection, but only with ABSTRACTIONS, that are well-defined.
Math can be a tool, math can be the meaning of life if you're a mathematician.
What's on the table is idealism.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 10:30 PM |
|
|
Yea, and mathematics is the most pure and abstract idea of them all.
Without an observer there is no object to observe either, because no one is there to tell. There simply is no point of view that would allow to state, that there are objects with this or that properties. The existance of a world without observer is ironically just an idea, and one that makes no sense.
Also, quantum physics established that the act of observing changes the world (the object/properties)
That makes materialism at the least ... incomplete. There is no objective reality in an absolute sense, because if there is only matter there can't be an absolute point of view (one that observes everything simultaneously) - you would need something beyond physical limitations of matter and energy.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 10:59 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:20, 30 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Also, quantum physics established that the act of observing changes the world (the object/properties)
This is one of those moments that I wish I was a physicist because I asked them about that in person many times and they start with Heisenberg and I get the uncertainty principle, but after that, they start talking about how electrons would pass through and also not pass through and honestly that's the part where I'm lost. The important thing is though, when asked about it, all of them especially emphasize that it is still definitely within the the boundaries of scientific method and warn you to never fall for pseudo-scientific trash that has been merchandised around it.
Observing sub-atomic particles change what you observe because you have no instrument nano enough to observe without interfering. It's like trying to take the temperature of a swimming pool when the only thermometer you have is as big as that swimming pool. The heat of the thermometer affects the heat of the water. The part where the sub-atomic stuff acts both as particles and waves is out of my perimeter though, I guess you really need to learn advanced math for that.
All of these are still under the set of materialism. The guys who come up with this stuff say so. I kind of take their word for it. 
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted April 29, 2013 11:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I kind of take their word for it.
Kind of idealism,if you take their words for facts,without making measures yourself.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
