Two questions (sort of)

[vz71]

The number “two”, for example, is not an arbitrary concept but a description of a fact which existed before man appeared on this planet - and certainly **not **a human invention.

It is a description. Not the actual.

And that description is something humans came up with.

 

[vz71]

I disagree. I’m new here in the Philosophy forum, so perhaps this is an old argument that I am unfamiliar with, but I think this is a fascinating question. Does an equation or a number exist in nature, or only in our imagination? Of course there may be two protons, and an electron has two spin states, but that is two of something. Does the number two itself exist in nature? If so, where can the number itself, or the concept of two, be found? I say the universe has no numbers or equations, and it gets along fine without them.

The difference between the reality and what we use to describe it.

 

[vz71]

I would say in the context of your comment that creation gets along fine without man’s knowledge of it, but is completely dependant on God’s Knowledge of it.

Indeed.
The act of creation is an ongoing act.
Were it not for a constant act of will on God’s part, creation would cease.

Much of this was gone over in Frank Sheed’s book ‘Theology and Sanity’

 

[D_Martin]

Is it your contention that dogs talk?

Communication is just that, communication.

---

Language: OED : 1. a. The whole body of words and of methods of combination of words used by a nation, people, or race; a ‘tongue’. dead language: a language no longer in vernacular use. first language: one’s native language. second language: a language spoken in addition to one’s native language; the first foreign language one learns.
b. transf. Applied to methods of expressing the thoughts, feelings, wants, etc., otherwise than by words. finger language = dactylology. language of flowers: a method of expressing sentiments by means of flowers.
c. transf. Applied to the inarticulate sounds used by the lower animals, birds, etc.
d. Computers. Any of numerous systems of precisely defined symbols and rules for using them that have been devised for writing programs or representing instructions and data.

1. a. In generalized sense: Words and the methods of combining them for the expression of thought.

---

What, you never heard of sign language where no sound is used but the position of the hands? Animals use the same method to communicate also, but they might not be using hands. They do use their bodies, and vocally, to communicate a thought like, procreation, or danger, so on and so forth.

I don’t understand why you don’t know these things. Any grade school aged person would know these things.

 

[Beryllos]

If I may, everything seen and unseen in creation that is created is a work of God, hence all that man can know (other than God Himself) is already done. Which includes the methods in which they are fulfilled. Man can only be credited for learning what has been already, and most if not all of that is a revelation. Which includes math and how mathematics works…

Perhaps we are in agreement with each other and with Benedict XVI:

… Our reason could not discover this other reason were there not an identical antecedent reason for both.

… they both really originated in a single intelligence, but it seems to me that this unity of intelligence, behind the two intelligences, really appears in our world. And the more we can delve into the world with our intelligence, the more clearly the plan of Creation appears.

 

[D_Martin]

Perhaps we are in agreement with each other and with Benedict XVI:

I’ am merely stating a observation that this:

(From the OP) “Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: in itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.”

Can’t be correct.

Which would have nothing to do with any desire to agree or not. I do believe it was the poster’s request for some kind of clarification, and though I didn’t offer any clarification, I did offer an observation that may be the reason for some confusion on the poster’s part, in that a portion of the quoted text seems to be in error.

 

[vz71]

Communication is just that, communication.

Perhaps that is where the misunderstanding lies.

We are not discussing simple communication.
We are discussing language. And more specifically, language to convey high concepts, like math, or physics, or love.

This is very far removed from an instinctive utterance of some animal.
It is far different from simple ones and zeroe’s electronic devices transfer information with.

This is an invention of humanity.

 

[vz71]

I’ am merely stating a observation that this:

(From the OP) “Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: in itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.”

Can’t be correct.

Why not?
How exactly can math be anything other than a representation?
The Pythagorean theorem for instance…it simply describes the relationship of the sides of a right triangle. But is itself not a triangle. It is a formula.

Likewise we have Einstein’s famous equation to describe the relationship of matter to energy. But this formula is not either matter or energy. It is simply a description of the two.

One would find it a very tough task to actually find something in math that actually is the object instead of a description of it.

And archeology shows us that this wonderful system we have was not always there.
Pythagoras came up with his formula. Einstein came up with his.
The relationships were always there, but previous to the inventions of these men, we had no way to describe the relationship.

 

[D_Martin]

Why not?

Read the postings in the thread. Mine explain my position.

 

[roselily]

I actually have 2 questions, so here they come…

1. I don’t really get how the following from Benedict XVI makes sense. Maybe someone who gets it could answer?

*Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: in itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.

The surprising thing is that this invention of our human intellect is truly the key to understanding nature, that nature is truly structured in a mathematical way, and that our mathematics, invented by our human mind, is truly the instrument for working with nature, to put it at our service, to use it through technology.

It seems to me almost incredible that an invention of the human mind and the structure of the universe coincide. Mathematics, which we invented, really gives us access to the nature of the universe and makes it possible for us to use it.

Therefore, the intellectual structure of the human subject and the objective structure of reality coincide: the subjective reason and the objective reason of nature are identical. I think that this coincidence between what we thought up and how nature is fulfilled and behaves is a great enigma and a great challenge, for we see that, in the end, it is “one” reason that links them both.

Our reason could not discover this other reason were there not an identical antecedent reason for both.

In this sense it really seems to me that mathematics - in which as such God cannot appear - shows us the intelligent structure of the universe. Now, there are also theories of chaos, but they are limited because if chaos had the upper hand, all technology would become impossible. Only because our mathematics is reliable, is technology reliable.

…

Of course, no one can now prove - as is proven in an experiment, in technical laws - that they both really originated in a single intelligence, but it seems to me that this unity of intelligence, behind the two intelligences, really appears in our world. And the more we can delve into the world with our intelligence, the more clearly the plan of Creation appears.*

Me: ​

Hope you all had a great Christmas!

----I was just reading many good writings of brothers sisters in this thread, but first I will say these words are very natural that it is right to say mathematics is an invention of human spirit, that the mathematics are human observe nature many many years observe and prove by many many peoples if find mistake made change that mathematics surely is always approximated.