Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[Pieman333272]

You can’t…only employ as you say… a standard where it suits.you.
If you do… you have no ethic…you boxed yourself into a corner…

I don’t know how you got that. Since you fail to speak clearly and don’t actually address my arguments, I don’t have much else to say.

 

[greylorn]

Hey I actually like your ponderings here.

However, a question arises. You say that the Creator is responsible for the atoms from which it (the universe ) is constructed.

But earlier you said that God created the world out of energy. So I asked you, did God also create the energy or is energy co-eternal with God?

Reply to Post 16-228

In one sense energy is co-eternal, but in another sense it preceded God. Yes, that sounds pretty cryptic. With luck, statements like that will work up potential readers for my book.

The simplest thing to do here is to repeat myself— following The First Law of Thermodynamics, and treating it as an absolutely general principle, Energy has always existed.

The use of the word “always” in this context is reconsidered in my book. For now it is the best approximation I have.

So why is the Creator you believe in not Omniscient? What is it that precludes Omniscience in the the One who - according to you - created everything?

Or the possibilty that the Creator you speak of has not deemed it time yet to allow its discovery then; that all these move according to the Time of the Creator of time. There is that possibility you know.

I addressed this problem in a thread which I probably initiated a few years ago about omniscience and omnipotence. There may have been separate threads. They were sandbagged by dogmatists and did not develop into the kind of thoughtful discussions I’d anticipated before learning more about how CAF is populated. I’m not going there again, but my book will answer your question.

I don’t know enough about the true nature of time to address your second point. We’d need to define “time” first. Again, I’d regard such a topic as beyond the scope of CAF at this point, as well as being irrelevant to most participants.

That seems to make a good point.

Thank you. An acknowledgment from a detractor is a rare and welcome surprise.

Hmmm that almost dovetails nicely (except for the more advanced beings part) with my proposition that there is no such thing as inventions, only discoveries.

With luck, after reading my book you will not only reconsider your position, you will realize how personally empowering it is to embrace the alternative.

If I can only do that much for you, the annoyance and frustrations of arguing with you will be made worthwhile.

 

[greylorn]

Sounds good, though I prefer a good 18 years old Laphroiag and I don’t smoke any more (unfortunately).

Reply 1 of 2 to Post 16-236

I’ve never seen Laphroiag on a store shelf and don’t travel in the circles of those who can afford to serve it, so I goggled it. Would you settle for a 10 year old bottle?

Even if not, the conversation is fun. I appreciate critical thought.

Why not? Look at all the fairy tales and you will see creatures “who” are simply the product of our imagination. Of course they are still rooted in some real world object to a certain extent. We invented fire-breathing, seven headed dragons, seven-league-boots etc… We invented starships which travel faster than the speed of light, even though we know that it is a physical absurdity. But our imagination is limitless.

We are agreed, then, that the human mind is capable of an absolutely original thought. Good!

Except for the word “discovered” I agree. The geometry of Euclides was firmly held as “true” for a very long time. As you said, about the same time a few people started to ponder, and the new geometries were “born”, or invented - not discovered!

Herein lies our point of disagreement. As a result of my peculiar metaphysical viewpoint, I prefer the idea that math represents a pure abstraction, and as such can exist without being discovered. I’m not smart enough to work up a proof for that, but I’d like to kick around some arguments.

Consider Euclidean geometry as a starting point. It is true! Does it apply to large scale reality, such as general relativity? No! But if a railroad engineer hits the brakes too hard and scrapes a flat spot on some wheels, Euclidean geometry will tell the machinist back at the yards whether or not the wheel-diameter will still be within specs after he grinds it back into round. Riemann geometry will yield the same results, but with more work.

We’re using two senses of the word “true” in this argument. Yours seems to be “true” with respect to our best understanding of reality. However, I’m still dealing with math as an abstraction, and regard a geometry as true if it is consistent with its axioms, and useful if it also applies to reality. It appears to me that, according to your understanding, Riemann geometry wasn’t true until Einstein put it to work.

I can’t see you taking that tack, so I must have misunderstood something.

So far, my best case for the absolute nature of math is that we can only invent axioms. Once a basic set of axioms (at least two, maybe three?) has been chosen, the mathematical or geometrical outcome of the subsequent theorems is fixed. IOW, no other geometry can be developed from Euclid’s axioms,

This is an entirely different situation from, let’s say, automobile engineering or an invention. From the axiom set: A transportation device can be assembled from a stationary frame, at least one wheel and axle assembly, a steering device, a stopping mechanism, and a method of propulsion— an infinite number of functional machines can be invented.

 

[greylorn]

I think it is quite simple. We discovered (not ivented) a long time ago that round objects can be moved along by rolling them and that lead to the concept of the wheel, which was truly revolutionary and which was invented, not discovered.

Reply 2 of 2 to Post 16-236

Here you seem on the verge of agreement. The wheel was discovered in the sense that only an object with a geometrically circular shape will roll easily. From that conceptual discovery, various kinds of wheel (and axle) assemblies were subsequently engineered (invented).

Sure, why not? Shakespeare invented Hamlet, not just “discovered” a hitherto unknown prince. Beethoven created the Ninth Sympony and created it “ex nihilo”. We already agreed that the idea of “abstract objects” is nonsense, and thus we hold that these ideas were not “discovered”, they were created.

Agreed. When someone undertakes to pen a story or compose music, there is no predetermined consequential sequence of words or notes that must follow. However, if one decides to formalize the relationship between the area of a circle and its radius, there is only one valid outcome.

I distinguish these kinds of outcomes with the terms discovery vs. invention. You may choose other terms, but must not the distinction be made?

Even though I do not agree about the existence of a creator as you described it, I see nothing problematic about it. I simply see no reason for that assumption. A self-sustained universe is perfectly sufficient for me. But your creator is at least without contradictions, without nonsensical attributes - and as such it may exist - unlike the Christian God, who cannot exist.

I am delighted to find an atheist whose beliefs are reasonable rather than doctrinal.

Of course. The numbers I mentioned are a new kind of integers, since the values of “a” and “b” are integers. And if “b” happens to be zero, we get back to the old, well-known, garden-variety integers. Those numbers are just one possible generalization of the “good old integers”. I am so glad I do not have to worry about your lack of knowledge of vectors and matrices, complex numbers and the like. All those are simple extensions of the original “number line”. They did not “exist” anywhere until they were created. Now they exist as part of our minds. If, for some unfortunate reason the Sun would go nova, and would extinguish the human race and all of its achievements, then they would cease to exist, along with Hamlet, the Ninth Symphony and all the beautiful, different inventions (not discoveries) we happend to come up with.

Fair enough, although I trust that if the subject arises in future conversations, we don’t need to verbally distinguish between integers and “good old integers!” It’s a cute term though.

Yet I claim that after the sun goes nova and its components become the bodies of a whole new batch of intelligent critters on another planet, four billion years hence, they will discover the same integers as we did, and that as they explore ways to learn about the universe as they perceive it (which may be entirely different from ours) they will come up with complex numbers, vectors, etc. They will also come up with arithmetic forms as needed to manipulate their numbers.

Not so clear is that they will need to come up with the equivalent of integral and differential calculus to describe acceleration or other unstable changes to physical states. There may be a better way.

 

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by ManOnFire
My point is that if science is forever impotent to find the answer to why we exist, then why worry about the exact science behind changing water into wine? Since it’s physically impossible to change water into wine, then either Jesus was a con artist, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. The existence of the universe either has no reason for it’s existence, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. It’s logical to believe that a creatorless universe SHOULD have a scientific explanation for it’s existence, but it never will, since absolute nothing can’t naturally evolve into the first something without a supernatural event. So science is wrong “somewhere” in this argument due to the paradox of the creation of a creatorless existence. Since logic dictates that some supernatural event had to happen, then “miracles” are still on the table of “possible” since science is wrong “somewhere.”

greylorn,

you claimed that my last sentence would be correct if I omitted the word supernatural. Why? As a deist who believes that at least one supernatural event occurred (since it’s scientificially impossible for the universe to magically evolve from a creatorless nothing), how can you claim that the creation of the universe is a valid supernatural event but water into wine is not? Science can’t prove either. You weren’t present for either. What compelling reason do you have to believe in one supernatural event but not the other?

Care to answer?

Reply to Post 17-251

You misunderstood me. I would not believe in one supernatural event, period. My position on miracles is quite simple:

• The existence of anything whatsoever is a Miracle. Given that Miracle, the events commonly regarded by us ignorant humans as “miracles” all have explanations, and therefore are not true miracles.
• One Miracle is insufficient. At least two are required.
• Although these Miracles cannot be explained (which is what defines them as Miracles), they are perfectly natural.

Does this clarify my statement for you? Incidentally, I am not a deist. Those who understand my entire concept-set refer to it as theistic when they are being nice. I regard the notion that anything whatsoever could have come from genuine nothingness as absurd.

Summarizing this subsection of my ideas— We live in a cause-effect universe, with the sole exception of the initial Miracles, which have no cause and are not effects. I also regard disembodied “minds” as the essential causes of some effects.

 

[greylorn]

God could have stopped time, then spilled the water out of the jug, then went to a second man’s home, poured one third of the wine from three jugs into the cana jug,then returned it, then restarted time again. Done. Easier than poofing a universe from nothing.

The father from the second home would then scold his teenage son for camel-riding-while-intoxicated when he discovers that his three jugs are not full.

I like your sense of humor better than your sense of physics. Sorry about that. If Jesus stopped time, he would not be able to empty the water jug (or mop up the obvious mess). Pouring water and mopping floors takes time. The movies you’ve watched were meant to make money, not sense. Entertaining try, nonetheless.

BTW, your method requires that Jesus steals some wine, and might meet with objections from a few Christians on those grounds.

 

[Spock]

I’ve never seen Laphroiag on a store shelf and don’t travel in the circles of those who can afford to serve it, so I goggled it. Would you settle for a 10 year old bottle?

Even if not, the conversation is fun. I appreciate critical thought.

Most certainly it would suffice. The 10 years old is awesome… only once I enjoyed the 18 years old version when my wife surprised me. It was a birthday present (cost her 80 bucks a VERY long time ago) and it lasted well over a year… but it was something to behold. And we can conduct a good conversation with some “virtual” malt Scotch and “virtual” Napoleon cognac.

We are agreed, then, that the human mind is capable of an absolutely original thought. Good!

Yes, we did.

Herein lies our point of disagreement. As a result of my peculiar metaphysical viewpoint, I prefer the idea that math represents a pure abstraction, and as such can exist without being discovered. I’m not smart enough to work up a proof for that, but I’d like to kick around some arguments.

Let’s concentrate on this concept. I agree that math is a pure abstraction of certain parts of reality. But, we agreed that the notion “abstract objects” is nonsensical - and that is the crucial point. So these abstractions cannot exist without a mind which can “make” the abstractions! However, I agree that the parts of reality which can be “abstracted” do exist without our existence. As a result, I differentiate between the “attributes” and the abstractions which are “abstracted” from them. (A cumbersome sentence, I am afraid.)

An example: it is an objective fact of reality that a water molecule contains one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. We do discover this fact. But the mental image (or abstraction) of H2O does not exist if there are minds to perceive it. We discover the physical fact, but we create the abstractions of it. Do I make myself clear? I hope so.

We’re using two senses of the word “true” in this argument. Yours seems to be “true” with respect to our best understanding of reality. However, I’m still dealing with math as an abstraction, and regard a geometry as true if it is consistent with its axioms, and useful if it also applies to reality. It appears to me that, according to your understanding, Riemann geometry wasn’t true until Einstein put it to work.

I can’t see you taking that tack, so I must have misunderstood something.

I think you did. Riemann’s geometry is just as true as Euclid’s and Bolyai’s. They are all mental constructs, with their axioms.

So far, my best case for the absolute nature of math is that we can only invent axioms. Once a basic set of axioms (at least two, maybe three?) has been chosen, the mathematical or geometrical outcome of the subsequent theorems is fixed. IOW, no other geometry can be developed from Euclid’s axioms,

Certainly! The selection of axioms is arbitrary, in the sense that we can select any axioms we want to, as long as they are internally consistent. They are not necessarily applicable to anything. Euclid’s geometery is perfect for a flat surface, and it fails on the sphere, and also fails of the pseudo-sphere en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudosphere On the other hand, Riemann’s is “true” (applicable) on the surface of a sphere and “fails” (false) on a flat surface (also on the pseudo-sphere). And on the surface of an irregular shape there is “no geometry” at all!

I am pretty sure about the nature of our “disagreement”. There is no disagreement, just a slight difference of words. If you agree that there is no abstract object of “one” which exists independently from our minds, we are home, scot free. Suppose, that humans are the only beings in the universe who are able to conceptualize. Before the first human was able to come to the concept of “one apple” versus “two apples” - and it was a huge, incredible breakthrough - there simply was no “one” and no “two” - even though the physical attributes and properties which make these concepts possible were all present. This is the important part I want to emphasize…

As you say, if the sun would go nova, in a few billion years a new set of “beings” would come to the same “result” of “one” and “two”, and I do agree with you. But in the meantime, there would be no “one” and no “two”. The point is that if you start to state the “mind-independent” existence of “numbers”, you will HAVE to accept that the Hamlet, and the Ninth Symphony also have a “mind-indpendent” existence, and they are also “discovered” and not created, which is sheer nonsense.

The numbers seem to lend themselves to be designated as “existing” apart from the mind, but stipulating their “mind-independant” existence will lead to the acceptance of “abstract objects”. Numbers are very unique in the sense that they “seem” to be “obvious”. It seems obvious to stipulate “one apple” and “two apples”… and it is obvious. But there are humans who are incapable of conceptualizing “minus two apples”. Or a distance of “minus three meters”. Zero used to be a huge problem, too. One apple is fine, but “zero” apples??? Or “minus one apple”? The natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc…) seem to exist independently from our mind, but everything else is problematic. As such it makes much more sense to accept that even the simple “one” is an awesome creative abstraction and not a “discovery” of a nebuolus “abstract” one, than the opposite.

Be as it may, I enjoy this conversation tremendously, which is based solely on reason and not “faith”. I am sick and tired of the illogical and irrational “non-arguments” put forth by the plethora of nincompoops around here.

 

[benedictus2]

Reply to Post 16-228

In one sense energy is co-eternal, but in another sense it preceded God. Yes, that sounds pretty cryptic. With luck, statements like that will work up potential readers for my book.

Your metaphysics and your science then is totally askew. Read up on the GBV Theorem.

Thank you. An acknowledgment from a detractor is a rare and welcome surprise.

I call it as I see it. When I like something I say so. When I dislike something, i say so as well and give reasons why.

I don’t think anyone says only wrong things 100% of the time. You’ve said some interesting things on that post.

With luck, after reading my book you will not only reconsider your position, you will realize how personally empowering it is to embrace the alternative.

After reading your reply above regarding energy being eternal, then I don’t think I will be buying your book. You need to read up more on scientific discoveries if you are going to conflate science and metaphysics.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Most certainly it would suffice. The 10 years old is awesome… only once I enjoyed the 18 years old version when my wife surprised me. It was a birthday present (cost her 80 bucks a VERY long time ago) and it lasted well over a year… but it was something to behold. And we can conduct a good conversation with some “virtual” malt Scotch and “virtual” Napoleon cognac.

Yes, we did.

Let’s concentrate on this concept. I agree that math is a pure abstraction of certain parts of reality. But, we agreed that the notion “abstract objects” is nonsensical - and that is the crucial point. So these abstractions cannot exist without a mind which can “make” the abstractions! However, I agree that the parts of reality which can be “abstracted” do exist without our existence. As a result, I differentiate between the “attributes” and the abstractions which are “abstracted” from them. (A cumbersome sentence, I am afraid.)

An example: it is an objective fact of reality that a water molecule contains one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. We do discover this fact. But the mental image (or abstraction) of H2O does not exist if there are minds to perceive it. We discover the physical fact, but we create the abstractions of it. Do I make myself clear? I hope so.

I think you did. Riemann’s geometry is just as true as Euclid’s and Bolyai’s. They are all mental constructs, with their axioms.

Certainly! The selection of axioms is arbitrary, in the sense that we can select any axioms we want to, as long as they are internally consistent. They are not necessarily applicable to anything. Euclid’s geometery is perfect for a flat surface, and it fails on the sphere, and also fails of the pseudo-sphere en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudosphere On the other hand, Riemann’s is “true” (applicable) on the surface of a sphere and “fails” (false) on a flat surface (also on the pseudo-sphere). And on the surface of an irregular shape there is “no geometry” at all!

I am pretty sure about the nature of our “disagreement”. There is no disagreement, just a slight difference of words. If you agree that there is no abstract object of “one” which exists independently from our minds, we are home, scot free. Suppose, that humans are the only beings in the universe who are able to conceptualize. Before the first human was able to come to the concept of “one apple” versus “two apples” - and it was a huge, incredible breakthrough - there simply was no “one” and no “two” - even though the physical attributes and properties which make these concepts possible were all present. This is the important part I want to emphasize…

As you say, if the sun would go nova, in a few billion years a new set of “beings” would come to the same “result” of “one” and “two”, and I do agree with you. But in the meantime, there would be no “one” and no “two”. The point is that if you start to state the “mind-independent” existence of “numbers”, you will HAVE to accept that the Hamlet, and the Ninth Symphony also have a “mind-indpendent” existence, and they are also “discovered” and not created, which is sheer nonsense.

The numbers seem to lend themselves to be designated as “existing” apart from the mind, but stipulating their “mind-independant” existence will lead to the acceptance of “abstract objects”. Numbers are very unique in the sense that they “seem” to be “obvious”. It seems obvious to stipulate “one apple” and “two apples”… and it is obvious. But there are humans who are incapable of conceptualizing “minus two apples”. Or a distance of “minus three meters”. Zero used to be a huge problem, too. One apple is fine, but “zero” apples??? Or “minus one apple”? The natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc…) seem to exist independently from our mind, but everything else is problematic. As such it makes much more sense to accept that even the simple “one” is an awesome creative abstraction and not a “discovery” of a nebuolus “abstract” one, than the opposite.

Be as it may, I enjoy this conversation tremendously, which is based solely on reason and not “faith”. I am sick and tired of the illogical and irrational “non-arguments” put forth by the plethora of nincompoops around here.

So…

The physical attributes and properties of the number 1 for example is a specific expression of what could be questioned? Well it is clearly an expression of relative density realizing the reality of gravitational influence. and therefore a sure concrete reality . Human thought not required…Does gravity need consciousness to express itself I wonder
Lets see if this makes sense.

One star in say 100 sq area would express the number 1 relative to the 100sq area. Two stars in the 100sq area would represent the number 2. . Zero stars would represent the number
Zero in the 100sq area , relative to the density of stars. Minus 500 stars in the 100 sq area would clearly be a reality in the 100 sq area, relative to another 100 sq area.

Is this area limited to negative or positive real numbers relative to its own barriers and other barriors, No…The 100 sq area can have an infinite number of stars creating an infinite amount of density. The 100 sq area can have an infinite amount of minus stars relative to a potential in density which is perfectly available and would physically be expressed in a neighboring or distant galaxie by gravitational influence

So, whats left. The mind only expresses the reality of density in real attributes and properties which factually exist and can exist as long as the setting which man understands is in existence
To say the number 1 does not in fact exist, defies gravity, density, imploding suns, I propose this stuff has nothing to do with the imagination, it has to do with the imagination expressing factual realities of relative density.

 

[Spock]

The physical attributes and properties of the number 1 for example is a specific expression of what could be questioned?

The number “1” is a concept. Concepts do not have physical attributes and properties. Only physical objects can have physical attributes and properties.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Part2 of interesting observation…( read above first or this will make no sense all together(thankyou)

If man ceases to exist will that mean the cougar or the tree will not exist. No, the cougar and the tree can continue to exist. The specific cougar or tree which man has witnessed may not exist in his imagination, but the cougar and tree will continue to in fact exist. Even if the specific cougars and trees man has seen cease to exist the cougar and the tree can still exist independent of mans imagination…

So…while the future trees and cougars that continue while man ceases to exist are not the exact same entity’s, the attributes and properties are continued realities which continue to exist independent of mans imagination

The numbers we use are not exact replica’s of circumstance in the universe but the attributes and properties continue to exist , just as the future cougar and tree which continue.

So, what does this mean?..Numbers are a factual reality that are expressed in the universe through motion and exact replica is not required in order for the expression of density to exist
which is the reality, in which allows numbers to be perceived. No different than the cougar and tree example.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The number “1” is a concept. Concepts do not have physical attributes and properties. Only physical objects can have physical attributes and properties.

Spock says

there simply was no “one” and no “two” - even though the physical attributes and properties which make these concepts possible were all present. This is the important part I want to emphasize…

FS says…

if the physical attributes and properties of a concept continue to exist in reality without mans imagination, then the concept once understood continues to be a reality well represented…by
its influence…so the cougar and the tree continue to exist …just like numbers…the only thing that does not exist is mans specific concept, relative only to himself…

don’t forget spock…your claim is that numbers don’t exist…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

don’t forget spock…your claim is that numbers don’t exist…

I think that is a bad summary of what he has said unless I missed something.

If you agree that there is no abstract object of “one” which exists independently from our minds, we are home, scot free.

I think the following would be less prone to being perceived as a distortion or less likely to cause distortions of her position.

“don’t forget spock…your claim is that numbers don’t exist independently of our minds…”

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I think that is a bad summary of what he has said unless I missed something.

I think the following would be less prone to being perceived as a distortion or less likely to cause distortions of her position.

“don’t forget spock…your claim is that numbers don’t exist independently of our minds…”

yes what you missed is his contradictory statement up-rooted in my last comment …joining his last remark with previous statement…I would recommend reading these posts over a few times …if you come back with something that makes sense , I will honor your idea…other than that I’m simply not interested in your style of nonsense orientated, insinuations

 

[Spock]

I think that is a bad summary of what he has said unless I missed something.

No, you did not miss anything. It is an incorrect summary, and since I already clarified the issue, I am not interested in doing it again.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

numbers have been clearly identified as realities independent of the human mind whether
its one mind, two minds or all minds. it is a concept which is reliant on a physical fact which
contributes, influence’s and allows existence to be… post #285 & #287

there may be concepts which are not realities independent of the human mind but they would be un-realized idea’s…like a square circle…even the triangle is a physical reality without a mind required to promote a concept out of it. for whatever use…big dipper

this is a joke…sure spock jump on the word or sentence , you want to call it summation …well
I got my own summation of that summation…pretty dis-appointing man…its not my fault you contradicted yourself and bumbled this thing up right from the get go

good riddens to all of it…is this weird, or what

 

[greylorn]

Your metaphysics and your science then is totally askew. Read up on the GBV Theorem.

I call it as I see it. When I like something I say so. When I dislike something, i say so as well and give reasons why.

I don’t think anyone says only wrong things 100% of the time. You’ve said some interesting things on that post.
After reading your reply above regarding energy being eternal, then I don’t think I will be buying your book. You need to read up more on scientific discoveries if you are going to conflate science and metaphysics.

Drat! Another 75 cent royalty payment lost.

I’ve never heard of the GBV Theorem, so googled it and found what appear to be several references to different things entirely. Can you be more specific, and explain what it says? If it is strictly mathematical I’ll make no sense of it, since my theoretical math skills suck, so I’ll need a verbal abstract at least.

Thank you.

This weekend another loyal fan sent me a reference to an excellent article in American Scientist (May-June 2011) which discusses the confabulation of physics and math, by a well read and published Princeton prof, Tony Rothman. You might find it engaging. I found it easily on the Am.Sci website, but if you cannot and want to read it, I’ll locate the URL.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Comment is this weird or what had nothing to do with the unusual name spock, obviously but the weird situation

its not my fault 1 serving plus 2 servings of mashed potatoes in a bowl equals 1 serving of mashed potatoes and not 3…

concept…A concept (substantive term: conception) is a cognitive unit of meaning—an abstract idea or a mental symbol sometimes defined as a " concept"

cognitive…: of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)

meaning… the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport

math… the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations

A little rabbit in the woods can and does relate in his own little brain ability the abstract idea of
a big hungry bear by scent before the bear is even seen. Same with thunder…not so…?
well then why does the critter act differently in all of the “relating to circumstance’s”…?
Therefore a concept is in fact by definition not privy to the human faculty of his particular intellectual ability…in fact the animal scores higher points in many area’s of perception in meaning.

So what is the real meaning or actual essence of a concept. Above cognitive asserts “of, relating to” OR involving mental activity…it does not say restricted to mental activity…and why the heck should it

It could be argued that there is nothing to relate to in the activities of outer space perfect operations of mathematics on display, but there is…the presence of light provides a perfect
constant in order to nicely express "meaning in above first cognitive description …
…“of, or relating to”

Therefore without question mathematics is a concept which exists without the need of man
to experience the secondary meaning provided in dictionary word cognitive involving the optional privy human intellectual participation…and why would it? everything is relative…light is the constant not mashed potatoes

i’m pretty much done with this site

 

[greylorn]

…
I am pretty sure about the nature of our “disagreement”. There is no disagreement, just a slight difference of words. If you agree that there is no abstract object of “one” which exists independently from our minds, we are home, scot free. Suppose, that humans are the only beings in the universe who are able to conceptualize. Before the first human was able to come to the concept of “one apple” versus “two apples” - and it was a huge, incredible breakthrough - there simply was no “one” and no “two” - even though the physical attributes and properties which make these concepts possible were all present. This is the important part I want to emphasize…

As you say, if the sun would go nova, in a few billion years a new set of “beings” would come to the same “result” of “one” and “two”, and I do agree with you. But in the meantime, there would be no “one” and no “two”. The point is that if you start to state the “mind-independent” existence of “numbers”, you will HAVE to accept that the Hamlet, and the Ninth Symphony also have a “mind-indpendent” existence, and they are also “discovered” and not created, which is sheer nonsense.

The numbers seem to lend themselves to be designated as “existing” apart from the mind, but stipulating their “mind-independant” existence will lead to the acceptance of “abstract objects”. Numbers are very unique in the sense that they “seem” to be “obvious”. It seems obvious to stipulate “one apple” and “two apples”… and it is obvious. But there are humans who are incapable of conceptualizing “minus two apples”. Or a distance of “minus three meters”. Zero used to be a huge problem, too. One apple is fine, but “zero” apples??? Or “minus one apple”? The natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc…) seem to exist independently from our mind, but everything else is problematic. As such it makes much more sense to accept that even the simple “one” is an awesome creative abstraction and not a “discovery” of a nebuolus “abstract” one, than the opposite.

Be as it may, I enjoy this conversation tremendously, which is based solely on reason and not “faith”. I am sick and tired of the illogical and irrational “non-arguments” put forth by the plethora of nincompoops around here.

I too appreciate this conversation. It seems to have ensnared other great minds as well, and gotten you into disfavor with some, for which I refuse to accept any responsibility.

We are not scot or scotch-free yet. There is something fundamental that I want to get a handle on.

I agree that we have some semantic differences. I don’t have the slightest idea what an “abstract object” might be and am happy to agree that no such things exist. Yet I find a distinction between, let’s say, any group or set (possibly the wrong terms) of numbers and the notes which comprise Beethoven’s 9th.

Here is the difference: We both agree that a future new civilization on an alien planet would, upon reaching a point where its members wanted to digitize their surroundings, discover the integers. They would be the same integers we have discovered— with different symbols and names, but with the same properties.

However, if the same civilization had brains equipped to recognize musical tonality (not all humans do), it is likely that they would discover a set of harmonically related tones, and devise ways of representing them symbolically, and invent musical instruments capable of reproducing them. However, even if they had somehow invented the same harmonic scale as that used by Beethoven, it is extremely improbable that any one of them would have reproduced either the 9th symphony or, Old McDonald Had a Farm. It is certainly not inevitable, like the discovery of the integers.

Therefore there is a distinction between these various sets of abstractions. I just do not know what name to put to this distinction. Help?

Finally, there is another distinction to be made. Hark back to your paragraph,
Before the first human was able to come to the concept of “one apple” versus “two apples” - and it was a huge, incredible breakthrough - there simply was no “one” and no “two” - even though the physical attributes and properties which make these concepts possible were all present. This is the important part I want to emphasize…

This may not be a breakthrough. Crows and other corvids are renowned for the ability to count. If four hunters enter their woods, crows will depart and stand off out of range until the hunters leave. Trying to trick them by sending three hunters out does not work.

Yet this is not true counting, put rather the ability to perceive a quantity. Six hunters in, five out, will fool the crows. It seems plausible that humans have long had the same ability, even before counting, If so, the ability to count might have been just a gradual rollover of a more primitive ability. As language developed, it would have been natural for men to attach different names to the quantities perceived as two-crows, three-crows— just as to old crows. Presto! A system of enumeration that would appear coincident with language.

Don’t even think about asking how language appeared!

 

[Spock]

I too appreciate this conversation. It seems to have ensnared other great minds as well, and gotten you into disfavor with some, for which I refuse to accept any responsibility.

Haha. No one blames you. I have this propensity of making “enemies”, because I don’t like mincing words, and call the spades for what they are.

Yet I find a distinction between, let’s say, any group or set (possibly the wrong terms) of numbers and the notes which comprise Beethoven’s 9th.

Yes, of course there is a difference. But letters, numbers, musical notes are all abstractions. They have no physical existence, they only exist in our mind. We should not confuse the representation “1” with the concept of “one”, just like we must differentiate between the physical “water” and its representation of “H2O”. There is a whole lot of “mutual agreement” out there. Why do we realize that “two” in English is the same as “zwei” in German? There is no “equivalence” between them, except that we agree that they mean the same thing.

And now we arrive at the most interesting part: “the meaning of the meaning”. So sum up my stance on it:

Meaning only gains ‘meaning’ in a communication channel. There is a sender, a receiver and some medium of exchange. The sender sends signals, the receiver gets them, and if the two parties develop the same mental image, then we have agreement, a mutually accepted “meaning”.

Here is the difference: We both agree that a future new civilization on an alien planet would, upon reaching a point where its members wanted to digitize their surroundings, discover the integers. They would be the same integers we have discovered— with different symbols and names, but with the same properties.

I am sure they would.

However, if the same civilization had brains equipped to recognize musical tonality (not all humans do), it is likely that they would discover a set of harmonically related tones, and devise ways of representing them symbolically, and invent musical instruments capable of reproducing them. However, even if they had somehow invented the same harmonic scale as that used by Beethoven, it is extremely improbable that any one of them would have reproduced either the 9th symphony or, Old McDonald Had a Farm. It is certainly not inevitable, like the discovery of the integers.

I keep agreeing. Highly unlikely, for sure. But what does that matter? They would devlop different symbols to designate a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom. As such their “symbols” to designate “water” would be different from ours. However, we can agree with them, that they mean the same thing. It is all “agreement” based mutual acceptance that these symbols have the same referents in reality.

Therefore there is a distinction between these various sets of abstractions. I just do not know what name to put to this distinction. Help?

Well, if the difference would be that one is likely and the other one is unlikely, that is not much of a difference.

Finally, there is another distinction to be made. Hark back to your paragraph,
Before the first human was able to come to the concept of “one apple” versus “two apples” - and it was a huge, incredible breakthrough - there simply was no “one” and no “two” - even though the physical attributes and properties which make these concepts possible were all present. This is the important part I want to emphasize…
This may not be a breakthrough. Crows and other corvids are renowned for the ability to count. If four hunters enter their woods, crows will depart and stand off out of range until the hunters leave. Trying to trick them by sending three hunters out does not work.

Yet this is not true counting, put rather the ability to perceive a quantity. Six hunters in, five out, will fool the crows.

Agreed. Funny thing, however, that some people never got past the ability to “count” as “one”, two" and “many”. To arrive at the idea of “positive integers” (no wonder they are also called: “natural numbers”) is a relatively simple task. But there the simplicity stops. For many centuries people could not cope with the concept of “zero”. It was meaningless to them. Not to speak of “negative” numbers. The fractions were somewhat easier. I used to tutor math for many years. I recall some very “un-bright” ones, who simply could not fathom the intricacies of “percents”. No matter how hard I tried, they could not understand that concept. Now imagine vectors, matrices, complex numbers. None of those are “obvious”. Even the simple square root of minus one is “mindboggling”. After all we “know” that multiplying either two positive or two negative numbers will “always” result in a positive result.

Also important to note that the Arabic representation of numbers allowed a huge breaktrough in mathematics. Imagine the usage of Roman numerals in calculus. Makes one shiver, doesn’t it? There is nothing “obvious” in using the positional notation. It was not a “discovery” it was an invention! (You know that the Arabic representation of zero is simply a dot “.”? It was ingenious. To make up a representation of “nothing”.)

It seems plausible that humans have long had the same ability, even before counting, If so, the ability to count might have been just a gradual rollover of a more primitive ability.

I am sure that is very reasonable.