Prove a point exists

[eucharisteo]

Okay, nothing sounds even remotely familiar to me on here. So I’ve passed the question onto a college professor from where I graduated and hope he actually answers the question or gives me a lead on it. The method used to prove this was really strange. It’s not something I’d have even known to do.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The definition of a point is an axiom of geometry, is it not?

I’m a little rusty on geometry, but I meant that “A = A” is a logical truth applicable to the material world, whereas a point is an abstraction.

Not really.

If you declare that in your thought construction an item “X” with specific properties is to exist (in thought only at this point), but then you identify something outside yourself, in reality, that happens to exactly fit the description of your declared entity, then you have discovered that your declared entity is real or exists in reality/actuality.

An example;
A tree is an abstract idea first. You then find something that actually fits the category name and description (properties) of “tree”. The category of “tree” always existed from the moment you declared it. You find later that an actual tree has also existed even before you declared it.

The tree really only exists because you declared what you observed to be a tree.

I’m don’t fully understand what you mean - are you saying that the object commonly identified as a tree only exists because it has been observed and labeled a “tree”?

This is a necessary process of a functioning and rational mind. It cannot be avoided even by machines.

In the case of a “point in space”, it is first merely a declaration with specific properties. But those particular properties allow for you to find it in reality immediately. You immediately find an infinite number of them between any 2 objects.

In the case of a point, you do not need to physically see them because their properties are such that visible detection is impossible. Thus they must be deduced. Even though this might sound like a cop-out, in reality ALL knowledge is acquired this exact same way.

But if their empirical detection is impossible, their existence would still be a contingent empirical fact, wouldn’t it? That is, even though we, with our limited senses, cannot detect them, they either do exist or they don’t - and as we cannot conclude that pebbles exist through logical deduction, we also cannot conclude that points exist through logical deduction.

You never actually “see” anything. Everything you accept as being seen, is really only a deduction of your mind by it first declaring a category and then deducing that a stimulus pattern fits into that category. This is the nature of ALL sensory and it begins with mere contrast.

But a point in space does not require contrast and thus cannot be seen with an eye of any kind. This was a restriction to the deductive process for visible things, but it is not for things outside any visible potential.

The end result is that you merely have to declare the category and find anything that suits the category and in this case, everywhere represents another item within that category. You have “seen through declaration and deduction” that such things called points actually exist.

Well, I would argue that the mind makes sense of visual (name removed by moderator)ut by categorizing what it sees into various groups - colors, shapes, etc. The basic raw (name removed by moderator)ut is still there, though.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m don’t fully understand what you mean - are you saying that the object commonly identified as a tree only exists because it has been observed and labeled a “tree”?

The actual item, “something” exists without any observation, but it is only a “tree” because we have declared it as such, not merely in language, but in our understanding of what “tree” denotes.

But if their empirical detection is impossible, their existence would still be a contingent empirical fact, wouldn’t it? That is, even though we, with our limited senses, cannot detect them, they either do exist or they don’t - and as we cannot conclude that pebbles exist through logical deduction, we also cannot conclude that points exist through logical deduction.

No They exist merely and only because we declare them to exist as a mental construct that applies to the real universe.

It is very similar to declaring North and South. They do not exist as entities, but they do exist by our declaration of them.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The actual item, “something” exists without any observation, but it is only a “tree” because we have declared it as such, not merely in language, but in our understanding of what “tree” denotes.

No They exist merely and only because we declare them to exist as a mental construct that applies to the real universe.

It is very similar to declaring North and South. They do not exist as entities, but they do exist by our declaration of them.

Problem with this is that a physical object truely exisits regardless of our declaring it in language or understanding it.

A tree is a physical object that is there regardless of what we call it or whether or not we declare it to be there.

While north and south are not physical objects and do depend on our defining them.

 

[liquidpele]

Problem with this is that a physical object truely exisits regardless of our declaring it in language or understanding it.

A tree is a physical object that is there regardless of what we call it or whether or not we declare it to be there.

While north and south are not physical objects and do depend on our defining them.

Which tree? Even physical objects, without explicit specification, are abstract in language.

 

[Shredderbeam]

The actual item, “something” exists without any observation, but it is only a “tree” because we have declared it as such, not merely in language, but in our understanding of what “tree” denotes.

Declaring an object as a tree doesn’t change the object, though. We only call it a tree so that we can better manipulate it as an idea.
James S Saint:

No They exist merely and only because we declare them to exist as a mental construct that applies to the real universe.

It is very similar to declaring North and South. They do not exist as entities, but they do exist by our declaration of them.

Ok, but I am talking about physical, concrete entities. North and South might exist in terms of magnetic polarity, but apart from that, they don’t exist in reality.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Ok, but I am talking about physical, concrete entities. North and South might exist in terms of magnetic polarity, but apart from that, they don’t exist in reality.

I don’t think “points” are made of concrete.

“See that? That’s a tree.”
“How do you know that’ thing is a tree?”
“Because that thing is what we call a tree.”

“Oh, well, see this point between my fingers?”
“I don’t ‘see’ anything. How do you that’s a point?”
“Because that’s what I call a ‘point’”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Which tree? Even physical objects, without explicit specification, are abstract in language.

So are you saying that without an explicit specification made in language that no physical objects exist? That is illogical.

A physical object exists regardless of any definition in language.

While I may look at something and call it a tree and you may look at the same thing and call it a bush, that does not change the fact of the existance of the object in reality.

 

[James_S_Saint]

So are you saying that without an explicit specification made in language that no physical objects exist? That is illogical.

We all know that. You are missing the point.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We all know that. You are missing the point.

I don’t think so.

The point is that a point that only exists in abstraction can not be proven to exist as it has no physical presence but something that has a physical presence can be proven to exist regardless of any abstractions that apply to it.

The other issue I have is that there are philosophical schools that say nothing exists physically. That they only exist within our minds (abstractions) and only have a physical presence when we agree that they exist though their existance may differ for each of us.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What do you call “proof” in this case?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What do you call “proof” in this case?

A physical object has certain accidents that everyone can sense. That would be proof of its existance. While something that is totally an abstraction has no accidents.

 

[James_S_Saint]

A physical object has certain accidents that everyone can sense. That would be proof of its existance. While something that is totally an abstraction has no accidents.

I object a bit of your use of the word “accident” in place of “effect”, but all you have said then is that your proof requires physical effect and that limits anything to only what can be sensed. So by your proof method, a point cannot be proven (along with a great many other rational things).

You have limited existence and Reality to only that which can be physically sensed. Thus logic, in your world, cannot be proven to exist at all. But of course, that means that nothing you observe (perceive) is really anything at all, because without inherent logic, nothing can be perceived.

 

[eucharisteo]

Here’s a math professor’s answer to this question.

" The first step is to have a definition of the word “point”"

 

[James_S_Saint]

Here’s a math professor’s answer to this question.

" The first step is to have a definition of the word “point”"

Agreed (very much so).

 

[eucharisteo]

We all know that. You are missing the point.

Argumentum ad populum

 

[eucharisteo]

I don’t think so.

The point is that a point that only exists in abstraction can not be proven to exist as it has no physical presence but something that has a physical presence can be proven to exist regardless of any abstractions that apply to it.

The other issue I have is that there are philosophical schools that say nothing exists physically. That they only exist within our minds (abstractions) and only have a physical presence when we agree that they exist though their existance may differ for each of us.

Sounding New Age ByzCath

 

[eucharisteo]

All mathematical proofs begin with definitions that we can agree on. as we redefine the proof is modified to reflect these definitions to “tighten up” the proof.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Argumentum ad populum

Huh? What does popular belief have to do with anything stated?

 

[James_S_Saint]

All mathematical proofs begin with definitions that we can agree on. as we redefine the proof is modified to reflect these definitions to “tighten up” the proof.

I seriously wish more people understood that one.