Aspies For Freedom

A True Monotheist Wrote:

I declare my belief that numbers are cardinal. In other words, I believe that they have a reality in themselves that is not defined by set theory or some other mathematical abstraction.

I may be breaking one of you rules (about refering to liking numbers??), but I hope everyone adheres to the rule about not calling me stupid (which I am at risk), but.....(I feel so like a gate crasher here)

When one considers something such as the Golden Mean, numbers take on a spiritual quality. And I am saying this as an atheist. If I could ask you to speak down to me, does this magnificent organization of the world by numbers reflect a cardinal perspective demonstrating that they have their own reality??

I would at this point say:

Numbers absolutely do not exsist outside of our minds any more than letters do. Numbers are a universal code, while alphabets are varied and wide-open to interpretation.

I believe the patterns that we use numbers to describe exsist outside of human experience. These patterns some how provide me a sense of grand organization that many attribute to 'god(s).' they comfort me. I am calling this grand organization, or at least the comfort of it, 'spirituality.'

EvilZakkie Wrote:

Simen Wrote:

The properties of numbers are only true once we accept the existence of numbers. Things that do not exist have no properties. Hence, it would be circular to say that numbers exist because numbers have properties, without first establishing that numbers exist, so that they can have properties. Really, the has properties argument is never used for things we know to exist. There is no reason to say that elephants exist because elephants have properties that are mind independently true, because we have already established that elephants exist by observing them.

However, all you can say is that numbers, given their existence, have properties, and that is not very enlightening at all. Sure they do, if we accept the language of mathematics. I accept the language of mathematics, since it's very useful and I have an intuitive feeling that the language of mathematics is right. But that does not mean that mathematics is anything but a mental phenomenon.

We seem to be getting back to our first debate. Are we debating whether numbers are mind independant, whether numbers exist, or the combo that "numbers have a mind-independent existence"?

The above arguments were to prove mind-independence, not to prove existence. To summarise the argument statements, numbers are mind-independent because they have mind-independent properties. You are correct that this cannot be used to show existence - I was not attempting to.

My earlier arguments were regarding existence (i.e. conclusion: depends on the definition).

I just went to the dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com) to see if there was an absolute definition, and it seems there's not:

Exists: 1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.

Being: 1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).

Not very helpful. Without a working definition, we can't really debate existence at all - so before we get too far into that debate, what does the word "exist" mean to you?

i think to exsist, something needs to present sense data. We might not currently have ability to sense it, but if there is data that could be sensed had we the technology, it would exsist (such as microscopic organisms before the microscope). Without sense data there is not exsistence. With math (with its differences from other philosophies), I think numbers might be that sense data.

Simen Wrote:

You have no doubt heard some fable that contains a moral at the end. No doubt, some of these morals are true. Just because the fable, by analogy, describes reality, does not mean that the creatures in the analogy are real. There are no talking mice and no intelligent birds. Yet the moral they embody may be true. It should not be hard to conceive of numbers as being akin to talking mice: they teach valuable lessons about reality, but they do not possess any reality outside of our minds.

Surely you can see that this, if you do not accept it as true, is at least logically possible.

While about a half-dozen mathematicians have written disputes to Quine (1976; 1980a; 1980b; 1981a; 1981c) and Putnam (1979a; 1979b), they have not postulated your argument. They have argued that the indispensability of mathematics to empirical science gives us good reason to believe in the existence of mathematical entities (such as sets, numbers, functions). Please go to:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/
to read the arguments against number realism. More entries in this discussion can be found at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=c...tnG=Search

A True Monotheist Wrote:

If we argue that our perceptions are simply creations of the brain, then we can also argue that about material reality itself. But, wait, the brain is a material organ perceived by itself. What if that perceptions is illusion. We have...a paradox. And, Simen, that paradox must be addressed. You have still not offered me an alternative to my notions based on brain chemistry...chemistry itself being defined by mathematical relations.

Optical illusions are but one example of this. Our brains totally create an internal representation of the external world. sensory signals that reflect physical stimulus parameters are transformed into percept-based signals that reflect a person’s conscious perception. In most cases physical and perceptual aspects are highly correlated. These sensory signals initiate a cascade of cellular and molecular processes in the brain that alter neuronal neurochemistry, and, brain structure and function.

Very gentlemanly of you, Zakkie, but it was a wonderful debate and I think we should move on to another topic. any suggestions??

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Janet

Janet

Janet

Janet

Janet

Janet