Immaterial mind created immaterial math

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
I am not here to fight, but to share a philosophical opinion.

I am open to those who would like to critic it, thanks!

I will listen and ponder the ideas of others, thanks!

Here is the opinion.

When one studies a stapler, cup, or an old typewriter, it is obvious that they were made by a person with reason. Reason was infused into the materials.

One could call that passive reason, that is, the reason infused into the material being.
One could call the reason in the person that made the stapler active reason.

When one studies the material world about them, one can discern its passive reason with one’s ability to reason.

That passive reason was infused into the physical world; one’s reason can be certain of it.

There was at least one agent that introduced reason into the physical world.

One could call that (or those) being(s) active creative being(s).

One might find it interesting that the reason in math has no physical qualities or existence. This immaterial entity, math, is the tool of the physical sciences; it has no mass, volume or any other physical characteristics. It, math, measures and counts the physical world.

In other words, the physical sciences are understood by a product of the human intellect which is beyond the material realm. This math is created by our reason and is immaterial. Our intellect is able to discern passive reason of the physical world by its active reason. And it is also able to recognize the physical world was made reasonable by a being of superior reason and power.

One could find it interesting that our intellect created the immaterial being of math. The physical scientists use math for understanding and describing the physical world. The human intellect that created, developed and employs math can also see that their intellect is immaterial, an immaterial being created an immaterial being. In other words, our intellect is an immaterial being and it created an immaterial being called math.

I am not here to fight, but to share a philosophical opinion and hear the opinion of others concerning it. I will listen or read the opinions and perhaps not even answer. I hope that is okay.
 
Hi Jim! I’m in general agreement with your thoughts, but I’ll write one objection I have.
Jim_Baur said:
When one studies a stapler, cup, or an old typewriter, it is obvious that they were made by a person with reason. Reason was infused into the materials.

One could call that passive reason, that is, the reason infused into the material being.
One could call the reason in the person that made the stapler active reason.

When one studies the material world about them, one can discern its passive reason with one’s ability to reason.

That passive reason was infused into the physical world; one’s reason can be certain of it.
Click to expand...
Why can we be certain that an active reason created the material world by studying it? Because it has a certain order? But tell, what would a material world without such an infused “passive reason” look like? Is it even possible to imagine reality without a certain order?
Therefore, isn’t what you call reason just a feature of reality itself?

(By the way, I agree that the world was created by an “active reason”, to use your words. I just don’t think that observing the order in the universe, and reasoning with an analogy with human artifacts, proves that fact)
 
Our intellect didn’t create math. It was already there. We created a language in which to communicate with each other about it.
 
First, I want to thank you for your critique.

I will try to address, not totally answer or solve, the question: “Why can we be certain that an active reason created the material world by studying it?”

Perhaps I used too strong of word with CERTAIN.

However, I think that the primary analogate in this comparison is the passive physical world, and not the coffee cup. Also, even more primary in the comparison is our immaterial intellect. The property of our intellect is the ability to be an active agent of reason. But we know that no human beings made themselves. They received the property of reason from a being that had to have it.

I hope to reflect on the other suggestions.

Again, I want to thank both of you for your ideas. I will try to get back to this.

THANKS!!!
 
"But tell, what would a material world without such an infused “passive reason” look like?"

First, I am not sure whether there would be any physical beings.

Second, there would be no reasonable order. To say the same thing differently, if there were any physical beings, they would not have a reasonable order.

Presently, the physical world manifests reasonableness.

That reasonableness is or is not an absolute property of the material world.

I do not think it is an absolute property but introduced or infused into the physical world.

I hold that opinion because of our ability to reason.

Our ability to reason is an immaterial phenomenon.

In my judgment it would unreasonable to have reason, in ourselves and the physical world, happen by chance.

Our immaterial reason produced the immaterial tool of math. I find it impossible for a physical world to be ordered by reason and also produce our immaterial ability to reason by chance.

I hold that our creation of math is immaterial because the material or physical sciences are unable to measure it.
 
“Our intellect didn’t create math. It was already there.”
Absolutely speaking, I agree. Math exists on its own.
Although for me, I do not know exactly how to explain it. Any help?

“We created a language in which to communicate with each other about it.”
Relatively speaking, our ability to reason created the language, technique and art of math.

I am not sure how to explain how the two meet. Any help?

Thanks!
 
Jim, I’m reading a very interesting article on Math and Theology a seminarian sent me (we started talking about Science and Religion and it lead to that). I think I might be able to contribute more intelligently to this discussion after reading it (starts from Pythagoras and Plato).

Will post here once I’m done, but let me know if you’re interested in reading it. It’s a PDF file (not sure if these forums allow attachments).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top