Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: The Real & the "mathematical world" are both DISCRETE
Thread: The Real & the "mathematical world" are both DISCRETE This thread is 6 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 01, 2020 09:28 PM

Yeah, mathematics are so about reality.
Is 0 part of the reality or is it just an idea?
Is "infinite" part of the reality or is it just an idea?
What do you think reality is, finite, countably infinite or uncountably infinite or something else entirely - and why would that be important for mathematics when it can describe them all and work with all?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted September 01, 2020 10:07 PM

Probably because mathematics wouldn't exist without "a reality" and wouldn't have a meaning outside of it. Even the most transcendent math you can imagine still depends on motion and correlations between different particles (the latter is not necessarily in the physical sense but more like entities which can be distinguished from each other) and the very idea about math would not appear if you had no motion and no differentiation. Actually, you wouldn't have any idea at all without these as nothing would "exist".

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 01, 2020 10:56 PM

That is actually not true.

I repeat the link I gave on page 1.

Solipsism has never been disproven either.

Reality isn't more than an assumption.

Phrased differently, we don't know what "reality" is, whether there is an "objective" reality or whether it's entirely subjective, but the main thing here is, that reality is completely irrelevant for maths. As I said, mathematics don't care about "reality" other than the mathematical one (which doesn't mean that apllied math isn't a great thing).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted September 01, 2020 11:57 PM

JollyJoker said:
What I wanted to say is, that since mathematics are pursued SYSTEMATICALLY, it's ONE invention that is constantly developed and expanded.

So you’d call a raft  and a steam ship just different developments of one big invention?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted September 02, 2020 12:00 AM

Zenofex said:
Probably because mathematics wouldn't exist without "a reality" and wouldn't have a meaning outside of it. Even the most transcendent math you can imagine still depends on motion and correlations between different particles (the latter is not necessarily in the physical sense but more like entities which can be distinguished from each other) and the very idea about math would not appear if you had no motion and no differentiation. Actually, you wouldn't have any idea at all without these as nothing would "exist".

This holds true for anything though, myths, fiction, idealist philosophy...
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted September 02, 2020 08:14 AM

JollyJoker said:
That is actually not true.

I repeat the link I gave on page 1.

Solipsism has never been disproven either.

Reality isn't more than an assumption.

Phrased differently, we don't know what "reality" is, whether there is an "objective" reality or whether it's entirely subjective, but the main thing here is, that reality is completely irrelevant for maths. As I said, mathematics don't care about "reality" other than the mathematical one (which doesn't mean that apllied math isn't a great thing).

That's because you're talking about "reality" in an everyday sense while I'm talking about the inability of mathematics to exist outside of the world and therefore being a byproduct of that world rather than something having its own, completely separate existence. Quantum physics as well as pure mathematics require motion to have any meaning at all and motion is derived from the world, no matter if it's objective, subjective, deterministic, probabilistic or whatever. Motion is ultimately the reason why anything exists, including differentiation. Saying that "math cares only about math" also means nothing in this sense because math doesn't exist without a mind to process it (whereas mind does not necessarily mean "human mind"), even if you assume that it provides the perfect description of everything, including "reality".

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted September 02, 2020 09:27 AM

Btw, solipsism can not be disproven anyway. it is unfalsifiable.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 02, 2020 09:31 AM

@ Zenofex
That's just an assumption based on an idea of reality that might be true or not true

"Motion" is a pretty relative thing, actually, and in the sense you mean it, it needs space and time. So motion needs actually a certain reality already to take place at all.

But be that as it may, again, this is unrelated to the issue here. "Reality" is undefined. It means, what "REALLY" exists - which is unlike what SOMEHOW exists. Math existing independently from reality just means, that it doesn't matter HOW reality actually looks like (which means in practise, what this universe actually is, whether there are more than one and so on) - math is still math, no matter how reality looks.

Yeah, well, except, if Tegmark is right, which would be ironic, since it's radical platonism and would mean that even and especially math is a discovery.

@ artu
That's a bad comparison. I'd think LEGO, instead. The company goes back to 1932, but was mainly wooden stuff. In 1958 they patented their plastic bricks. In 1960 the wooden toy part left and built their own company, and from then on it's basically development. Lego

So it's one powerful invention, and from then on it's basically development.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 02, 2020 09:47 AM

artu said:
Btw, solipsism can not be disproven anyway. it is unfalsifiable.
Personally, I think if Philosophy were Math and we'd define philosophies by defining their "basic axioms" (out of which the actual specific content could be derived), we'd see that solipsism simply has a very small (and quite probably too small) set of dead end axioms, ending up useless.
For example, if you take the axiom: Other minds do not exist (since there is no way I can experience them) - as opposed to Other minds do exist (in an inductionist kind of assumption) - it follows that every interaction with other minds is ultimately futile. So why actually openly opine on a philosophy or explain and discuss it?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baronus
Baronus


Legendary Hero
posted September 02, 2020 02:54 PM
Edited by Baronus at 14:56, 02 Sep 2020.

Baronus

If reality not existing or we know nothing about it our discussion has no sense. Because whe talking about what?!
Its like paradox ,There is no truth'.
If ,There is no truth' this words are true or false?! Cant be true becouse ,not truth' :0))) So only solution is TRUE EXIST!
So objective reality exist because obj. real. and truth is the same. We have problems to discover but it exist.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 02, 2020 03:26 PM

I would politely ask you to stop trolling.

"There is no truth" is a nonsensical statement: 1=1 is a true statement - and you conclude, because of that there is an objective reality?

Which has to do with math and the initial question what exactly?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baronus
Baronus


Legendary Hero
posted September 02, 2020 04:40 PM

Accuratly it tell us that true existing because ,There is not true' is nonsense so only with sense is -True exist. If true exist maths is mirror of this true. Objective reality. Its not hard to understand.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 02, 2020 05:08 PM

I'd point you to the philosopher Wittgenstein who  wrote a lot about how problems would arise from the faulty structures and application of language, but that's probably pointless. It should suffice to say, that "true" and "objective real" are not the same thing a priori. It would need proof.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baronus
Baronus


Legendary Hero
posted September 02, 2020 05:47 PM

I know that language is important. Must be precised. But I dont see difference between true and objective reality.
True in language is compliance of the court with reality.
True is of course language reality is all around. But its detail.
Most important is are you a realist or irrationalist?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 02, 2020 07:32 PM

"true" is a property that can be applied to statements. Since the elements and syntax of math as a language are well-defined, most statements (but not all) statements in maths can be proven to be true or false.

With "normal" language this is different (it should be clear why).

Reality is - as far as we know - utterly subjective; everyone lives in their own reality. The human mind communicates with "the environment" via their senses, and as much as humans are experiencing roughly the same "picture" of the environment it would seem that this environment has a grade of "reality". But that's not strictly true. It MIGHT be that as "mass" is warping "space", "observation" is actually CREATING reality, at least on a quantum level, which would mean, the actual reality is UNDECIDED until it is observed.

You believe in an absolute god, so the idea will seem alien to you - but obviously, if there is a god, there is a lot more to "reality" as we can observe, so that shouldn't be new to you.

Question: If there WAS this god - how would they know that he wasn't created either? That there wasn't a reality "above" them?

And I'm certainly NOT a realist, simply because there is no proof for all this being real. It could all just be a quite sophisticated game, for example.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Gandalf196
Gandalf196


Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
posted September 02, 2020 08:27 PM

JollyJoker said:


With "normal" language this is different (it should be clear why).

Reality is - as far as we know - utterly subjective; everyone lives in their own reality.


How many fingers do I have here?


____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baronus
Baronus


Legendary Hero
posted September 02, 2020 08:36 PM

"true" is a property that can be applied to statements. Since the elements and syntax of math as a language are well-defined, most statements (but not all) statements in maths can be proven to be true or false.

...
..


Of course not!

untruth is a property that can be applied to statements. Since the elements and syntax of math as a language are well-defined, most statements (but not all) statements in maths can be proven to be true or false.

...

So its not a precise definition of truth.

...

Reality is - as far as we know - utterly subjective; everyone lives in their own reality.

...

Mistake.
expectation as far as we know - utterly subjective
reality is objective
everyone lives in reality.
everyone lives HAS their own expectation about reality.
...

The human mind communicates with "the environment" via their senses,

...

Its ok.

...

the actual reality is UNDECIDED until it is observed.

...

UNOBSERVED dont mean UNDECIDED! If I dont see Australia doesnt mean Au dont existing. I have no expectation.
Once again mistake reality/expectation. You can create your expectation not reality.
Quantum physic is rather about probability something happen. Not abuot thats its not happen if we dont look :0)))

...

You believe in an absolute god, so the idea will seem alien to you - but obviously, if there is a god, there is a lot more to "reality" as we can observe, so that shouldn't be new to you.

:0))) Hahaha! You tell mee that.
there is a lot more to "reality" as we can observe :0)))
Im talking about it all the time :0))) I see it all the tme behind material world! A dont believe I see God! Since I was a child. Its not optical vison. Clen spirit.

Question: If there WAS this god - how would they know that he wasn't created either? That there wasn't a reality "above" them?
...

Because its logical. In definition of God is a person who is CREATOR! Creator cant be created. If someone is created cant be named God. If you find someone who is created its not a God you must search again to point when you will find Uncreated. This is God.
Creation is only ex nihilo! So must be nothing after that. If something is it means its not moment of creation. So there wasnt reality above God. This is known since ancient ages.

...

And I'm certainly NOT a realist, simply because there is no proof for all this being real. It could all just be a quite sophisticated game, for example.

...

Its game ofcourse:0))) but real game. Its not opposite. God tell me lets play :0))) Life is game for me.
If you are not a realist its basic problem because hard to talk in this case. All is uncertainty. Cant talk nothing etc.
Im a realist and only truth interesting me.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 02, 2020 08:46 PM

*Sigh*
I hate partial quotations.

That's you? A hand making a victory sign? Crazy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted September 02, 2020 08:49 PM

Baronus said:

Im a realist and only truth interesting me.

Good one.

No, I mean, how does GOD know, there is no higher god "above him"? No higher reality?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Gandalf196
Gandalf196


Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
posted September 02, 2020 09:49 PM

JollyJoker said:
*Sigh*
I hate partial quotations.

That's you? A hand making a victory sign? Crazy.


No. I'm just showing two fingers and I assure you that everyone sees two fingers, not one, not three, not ten. Ergo, nothing subjective about that. the macroscopic world is purely objective.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 6 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0581 seconds