Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

mathematics discovered or invented?

Page 3 of 5 [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

16 Jan 2013, 10:36 pm

Oh for heaven's sake!

Do you mean the world ceases to exist just because I speak Japanese?



IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

16 Jan 2013, 10:42 pm

I do not know Japanese, but the world as you know it may cease to exist in another language.



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

16 Jan 2013, 10:49 pm

This thread has dropped off the radar of science and entered the realm of speculative philosophy.



IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

16 Jan 2013, 11:31 pm

It's actually linguistic which is an empirical based science.



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

17 Jan 2013, 6:53 pm

IChris wrote:
It's actually linguistic which is an empirical based science.


Language is an invention of the culture to which it applies.



wornlight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 9 Sep 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 396

17 Jan 2013, 7:39 pm

is the discovered/invented distinction a real distinction?



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

17 Jan 2013, 8:06 pm

wornlight wrote:
is the discovered/invented distinction a real distinction?


Yes.
A discovery exists independent of the culture or person whom discovered it.
In invention is the creation of the culture or person whom invented it.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Jan 2013, 8:49 pm

ripped wrote:
wornlight wrote:
is the discovered/invented distinction a real distinction?


Yes.
A discovery exists independent of the culture or person whom discovered it.
In invention is the creation of the culture or person whom invented it.


Yes, but inventions come about because people experience real things in their life. So a discovered (or observed) thing is behind every invention.

ruveyn



wornlight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 9 Sep 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 396

17 Jan 2013, 9:00 pm

ripped wrote:
Yes.
A discovery exists independent of the culture or person whom discovered it.
In invention is the creation of the culture or person whom invented it.


that answer describes the use of the distinction, without supporting the supposed realness of it that you claim. what makes it, or should i say, how have you discovered that it is a real distinction?

do you peer into the unseen and find there un-found distinctions [being distinct]? what is the basis for supposing that anything exists as an inherently discrete 'object,' such as a neutron, independent of being construed as one? does the boundary of the neutron recommend itself independent of a particular language (the language of modern science, for instance)? or is it a handy conceptual imputation made by human minds operating within a particular theoretical framework? does that framework have a basis that is not ultimately self-referential?



Last edited by wornlight on 17 Jan 2013, 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

17 Jan 2013, 10:16 pm

ripped wrote:
IChris wrote:
It's actually linguistic which is an empirical based science.


Language is an invention of the culture to which it applies.


Sure, and language is the base for all science; so all science are culture based.



ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

18 Jan 2013, 2:44 am

wornlight wrote:
ripped wrote:
Yes.
A discovery exists independent of the culture or person whom discovered it.
In invention is the creation of the culture or person whom invented it.


that answer describes the use of the distinction, without supporting the supposed realness of it that you claim. what makes it, or should i say, how have you discovered that it is a real distinction?

do you peer into the unseen and find there un-found distinctions [being distinct]? what is the basis for supposing that anything exists as an inherently discrete 'object,' such as a neutron, independent of being construed as one? does the boundary of the neutron recommend itself independent of a particular language (the language of modern science, for instance)? or is it a handy conceptual imputation made by human minds operating within a particular theoretical framework? does that framework have a basis that is not ultimately self-referential?


I believe you are taking the piss.



Last edited by ripped on 18 Jan 2013, 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

18 Jan 2013, 5:21 am

ripped wrote:
wornlight wrote:
ripped wrote:
Yes.
A discovery exists independent of the culture or person whom discovered it.
In invention is the creation of the culture or person whom invented it.


that answer describes the use of the distinction, without supporting the supposed realness of it that you claim. what makes it, or should i say, how have you discovered that it is a real distinction?

do you peer into the unseen and find there un-found distinctions [being distinct]? what is the basis for supposing that anything exists as an inherently discrete 'object,' such as a neutron, independent of being construed as one? does the boundary of the neutron recommend itself independent of a particular language (the language of modern science, for instance)? or is it a handy conceptual imputation made by human minds operating within a particular theoretical framework? does that framework have a basis that is not ultimately self-referential?


Once again, this is a philosophical question quite apart from the experiential reality of most people.
As a philosophical question it is equally true to every other point of view, the difference in point being that generally people view discrete objects as separate things.
Certainly it is possible to view all of creation as one homogenous entity, and there is a level of consciousness where this is said to be the experiential reality.
In the spirit of making sense to myself at least, I refer to the objects of my senses as being objectively distinct.


My reality (and quite a huge part of others reality; like those who talk language with two tense sentences) are experienced as being qualitative, not as quantitative. So to me, and many others, the reality is not of a philosophical question but a real (not constructed) answer to what is experienced.



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

18 Jan 2013, 11:05 am

Please explain how the fact that there are an infinite number of primes is culture dependent, please.



Trencher93
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Age: 124
Gender: Male
Posts: 464

18 Jan 2013, 11:38 am

ModusPonens wrote:
Please explain how the fact that there are an infinite number of primes is culture dependent, please.


You haven't counted all of them, so that's just your culturally biased opinion. My opinion is that prime numbers are a finite resource, and if we keep factoring them like there's no tomorrow, we're going to run out!



IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

18 Jan 2013, 12:17 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
Please explain how the fact that there are an infinite number of primes is culture dependent, please.


Infinite is a quantitative description of a noun and is not possible in all kind of world view. Some language does not operate with quantitative descriptions since it means to cut up in parts something which is experienced as a whole. Further it require a three tense language with a 'substance' added to the noun. With a two tense language system this sentence would not be possible and one have to talk about either "infinite number" or "infinite primes" which would change the meaning radically; and in yet another fashion a language may not use adjectivals; only verbals and nouns, making the sentence "there are numbers" or "there are primes". This is not only a language feature in some culture but it delve into the whole consciousness of the living being making other things than the real experience fantasy which they do not engange in.

So the posited sentence is just a description of an experience you and others may have, but it would not be possible to experience that in all kind of cultures and would so be seen as pure fantasy in some cultures. In other words do the bongo-bongoism argument reject the possibility of an universal fact in this case as well as many others in science.



Trencher93
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Age: 124
Gender: Male
Posts: 464

18 Jan 2013, 1:26 pm

IChris wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Please explain how the fact that there are an infinite number of primes is culture dependent, please.


... So the posited sentence is just a description of an experience you and others may have ...


Not having the cognitive apparatus to talk about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The world was relativistic before anyone knew about Riemann geometry or Einstein's relativity. Irrational numbers existed before people had the mathematical tools to express them. And so on. So this culturally relative argument is vacuous, which is why I lampooned it above.