Hello Linuxboy
See what happens when you are bored? Threads like can pop up seemingly at random.
In response to you points...
Are equations "real"?
Only if I'm real. The sufficient proposition "I exist" enables the formulation of various rules stemming from a system of knowledge acquisition. That is, a system of mathematics and associated equations enable a symbolic grasp of our existence and phenomenology
>Let me state some things that I will declare as axiomatic.
We exist.
We are creatures that use symbolism to describe observed reality.
This is not trivial. We need to agree on these points for meaningful discussion to take place. If not then we can fall from discussion to argument in a manner like this.
"I exist therefore I am"
Oh yeah? Well how do you know you think you are?
At this stage, we take our respective ball and glove and go home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, are they discovered or created?
Why stop there? We can add on a bunch more disjunctions or not limit ourselves to a dualistic system at all or...
> The why is that the general discussion on this subject gives these two choices. You are correct in saying there are more possibilities, but unless you have the correct one, we ought to limit ourselves somewhere. After all for FULL debate you would have to list all the choices, and that could take quite awhile and the salt would have lost it's savor.
___________________________________________________________
If they are created, why do different cultures come up with the same rules of mathematics independently?
In this case, one could posit the universality of a species discovering a certain repeatable occurence contingent upon the sufficient social advances of the group.
>True, but in years past communication between societies was limited, if it occured at all. So why do isolated groups come up with the same systems, albeit using different symbols. Perhaps it is due to the common neurological structure we share?
------------------------------------------------------------
If they exist, where are they?
Your guess is as good as anyone else's. I have trouble with the whole notion that I'm not really real so I'll worry about that for awhile instead of mathematics.
>I feel the same way 😀 But there are times when I am less self absorbed, so I let my intellectual curiosity stray beyond the hows and whys of my personal existence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they representative of a object in a "higher" reality that is forever inaccessible? Some of the Greek philosophers argued along these lines.
One cannot place relative valuations on a supposedly absolute order. That is, by assuming a higher realm, one perhaps more pure, we judge in human terms. If mathematics do represent something else, a different reality, then I don't see how it would be inaccessible forever. I question the motivation for your words.
>My words echo the thoughts of those Greek philsophers. Granted that this statement could be seen as rhetorical, but the geometers of old took this seriously. I do not mean that I do. Though I might. Here is something to consider. For arguments sake I posit an elementary particle that does not feel gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, or the strong force. Is such a particle impossible? You cannot say that. What is its nature? Well you would have to observe it. How? It doesn't interact with any of the 4 fundamental forces that "normal" matter. Now you cannot detect, observe, measure this H-particle as I shall name it. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Well it may or may not. It is forever inaccessable. It would be as irrevelant a thing as I can imagine, but that does not affect its personal reality. Mathematical concepts could (emphesis on could) exist in an analogous manner. Yes I know it is futile to debate this as it is forever unknowable, IF were but trying to determine definitively the answer to this age old question here, but the discussion of the thing is the point. Likewise my statement. My motivation is to illicit a response, which I have. Discourse has its own rewards.
-------------------------------------------
In either case an equation is not something concrete. How can an abstraction define reality?
There we are. Upon recognizing that reality is a pretty good illusion, people often go about understanding just what the illusion is. To do that, systems are needed of order and classification. Classification usually brings about systematization and modeling of experiential truths. This in turns leads to inferential conclusions about system interrealtions and leads to basic relationships being formed between objects, thus forming abstractions or a self-imposed system that is used to manipulate the environment
>If reality is an illusion, what is the reality behind that principle? We could get into what I call the Russian Doll syndrome. The illusion of one level is merely representitive of the reality of the next higher one. Of course that reality would be the illusion of a still higher plane. For a given reality then, I agree with your statement as it defines what an abstraction is useful for, but that leads to the question of HOW that happens. I am now too tired to consider the answer to that question. 😉
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Equations can predict reality with a degree of precision that seems unreasonable to many. There are systems of mathematics that are independent of physical reality as we understand it and are internally consistent, but there is a "set" (in a very informal sense) of equations, that can predict unobserved effects. This has been seen in Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, where theory correctly predicted a particle or phenomenon. Of course I have my own opinions on these things, but I was wonder what you thought of all this.
A theory can model observable reality pretty well. It can formulate the future based on empirical evidence and pattern matching. But this is still only an approximation. The real experience must be total.
>Agreed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can't really be sure of anything...
I question that. Alot of liberals assert these things and follow up with "live and let live". It seems to me that an attitude that we know nothing is just as faulty as some sort of absolutism. We can know something about the reality in which we live. There may be something higher and better but I'm stuck here and I have trouble finding socks to wear in the morning, let alone contemplate what this glorious sort of thing that I am unsure about is. The thing is, even though Sokrates' and all that are sure pithy, I still gotta live with myself and with others. I do know that. And I'm sure of that. Whether it fails on some higher abstract level of purity doesn't matter. I still gotta live here. And as long as I choose to do that, I might as well have a go at what a good sort of life is.
>Define your personal absolutes. You define yourself. NO ONE knows what goes on inside of you. Decide what is good and right. You might disagree with me, but if you have no moral center and a sense of self, you will flounder. Be sure of yourself, and you will be much happier.
Know what the correct answer to "Why" is? "Because". My 3 year old knows this. Eventually everything comes down not to what you know, but what you believe. Linuxboy, myself and others can come here and discuss the most abtruse things, but we all know (or ought to know) that the development of the individual comes not by finding the answer to the questions, but by the asking and debating. In the end, we say what we believe, and I am sure of that. Do keep an open mind, but not so much so that your brain falls out.
