What is the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe?

[Pfaffenhoffen]

It needs to be proved that persons are no more than animals…

It needs to be proved that persons are animals.
Never saw an animal built Airbus or Boeing, go to the moon, discover E=mc2 or the DNA or even invent a language. A Japanese dogs understand a french dog, no language invented. Never saw an animal go deep the oceans 10 km down or race a car at 900 km/h or make a poem like Shakespeare.
I should like to see a proof that a person is just an animal.
For it is crystal clear that persons are not just animals.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No.
In vitro, has got an ovula and a spermatozoa.
clones not.

You are correct in that that in-vitro processes uses a sperm and egg. Cloning uses somatic-nuclear transfer. I can’t say I understand why somatic-nuclear transfer would imply that the result of a cloned animal/metazoan would be something different than an animal/metazoan.

It needs to be proved that persons are animals.
…]
For it is crystal clear that persons are not just animals.

I think the main clauses in those two statements have different meanings. The first statement contains “persons are animals.” From the standpoint of taxonomy that evaluates as “true” based on the attributes that are necessary for clasifying a life form as a metazoan. Or to copy+paste from wiki:
Wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal:

The word “animal” comes from the Latin word animalis, meaning “having breath”. In everyday colloquial usage, the word sometimes refers to non-human animals. Sometimes, only closer relatives of humans such as mammals and other vertebrates are meant in colloquial use. The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects and humans.

I thought it was pretty clear from my pairing of the word “animal” with “metazoa” that I’m using biological meanings. It should be more clear now.

The second statement contains “persons are not just animals” (or in the case of what tony said “persons are no more than animals”). I get the feeling that the variations with “just” and “no more” are some how associated with some rhetoric or other idiom (where the interpretation is more than what is suggested by the individual words alone).

Of those two phrases I’m only interested in “persons are animals/metazoans.” I’m explitly stating here that the variations of the idioms containing “no more than animals” are not part of what I previously presented. So I won’t be speaking about that idiom phrase any further. But if its of interest to you carry on.

If you need any further clarification let me know.

 

[tonyrey]

It needs to be proved that persons are animals.

There is no doubt that persons on this planet are members of the species homo sapiens.

Never saw an animal built Airbus or Boeing, go to the moon, discover E=mc2 or the DNA or even invent a language. A Japanese dogs understand a french dog, no language invented. Never saw an animal go deep the oceans 10 km down or race a car at 900 km/h or make a poem like Shakespeare.
I should like to see a proof that a person is just an animal.
For it is crystal clear that persons are not just animals.

I stated that “it needs to be proved that persons are no more than animals”. In other words I don’t believe persons are **merely **animals! The onus is on those who do to explain, for example, why animals don’t appear in court.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

There is no doubt that persons on this planet are members of the species homo sapiens.

I stated that “it needs to be proved that persons are no more than animals”. In other words I don’t believe persons are **merely **animals! The onus is on those who do to explain, for example, why animals don’t appear in court.

Sorry.
I took “no more than” as “nothing else but”, and I still cannot see otherwise.
Problems with English as a secondary language.

no more than animals= not+higher than+animals.

Sorry.

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry.
I took “no more than” as “nothing else but”, and I still cannot see otherwise.
Problems with English as a secondary language.

no more than animals= not+higher than+animals.

Sorry.

No need to apologise! Your posts are superior in quality to those of some native speakers of English. And language is often illogical…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Is meaning related solely to physical things?

No. Funny argument. Good !

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If the question is abstract and independent there is no reference to evaluate the answer, so your solution is no more correct or incorrect as all other solutions. So one guy selects 997 another guy may deny it as a prime number, and yet another claim 999 is prime in his system etc., etc.,. It is the link to the real world which evaluates the answers.

I mean what relation to the real world?
In the real world there are no squares, triangles, lines, points, cubes, pyramids, cylinders, all of these as defined by maths.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Thoughts?

Why isn’t maths related to the superior and immaterial God?
Where on Earth, there is the notion of infinite?
Infinite is not only denying the finite!

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Is meaning related solely to physical things?

Absolutely. Meaning is the relationship between the sign and signified.

 

[Jessup]

The Old Testament? A bit exagerated, no?
But nowadays I find more easily God on Science than on Faith.
I know all the parables of the Bible by heart.
Yet I do not know God’s mind when he created the Universe.
I am deeply curious to know: is the Universe endless or has it and end? Which is the last particle to be found? Can man create life? If man was cloned, what would come: a man or an animal?

As for maths, my beloved science, I love it so much. BUT, I am bad at it. Maybe sometime I will take a University Degree on it, my best dream !!!

When I compare mathematics to the old testement I’m making a comparison to the eternal divine universal laws that God created for man.
Whats your math back ground? You mentioned you want a degree in mathematics. I’m pursing M.E. right now, but I want to get a Masters in mathematics.

Cheers!

 

[hecd2]

tonyrey:

Is meaning related solely to physical things?

Absolutely. Meaning is the relationship between the sign and signified.

That is one definition of meaning but even if we accept it as being the only relevant one, why would the signified be limited to physical things? That would imply that these sentences are meaningless: “God is love”, or “Satan is evil”. Are you sure you’re not a logical positivist?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[tonyrey]

I mean what relation to the real world?
In the real world there are no squares, triangles, lines, points, cubes, pyramids, cylinders, all of these as defined by maths.

What about crystalline structures? Are physical constants, ratios and proportions non-mathematical?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

What about crystalline structures? Are physical constants, ratios and proportions non-mathematical?

Yes, they are more or less mathematical. One micron more, one micron less, what matters is that is works…

speed= length/time

Now, what is the gauge to measure speed, length and time. At which point of accuracy will it go? when you treat in terms of years-light do you measure to the micro-second? or is it more or less? And the length, when you measure the frontiers of a country, will you go to microns or is it more or less?

As for speed, it is different the measure of a snail speed or the speed of a Ferrari.

So, Physical constants are more or less, as long as it is acceptable by everybody.

Mathematically, everything is exact.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

That is one definition of meaning but even if we accept it as being the only relevant one, why would the signified be limited to physical things? That would imply that these sentences are meaningless: “God is love”, or “Satan is evil”. Are you sure you’re not a logical positivist?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Signs express reality, hence signified being limited to the physical. Emotions are difficult to define, but abstractions can be made to define them, though these abstractions are still physical. I will admit, it seems that you are suggesting that emotions are not physical, but do you not feel love? Do you not feel hate? Are they not physical reactions to particular stimuli?

I am sure I’m not a logical positivist. While I do agree that advances in the sciences can be pursued through observational methods, I do not believe that philosophy should be pursued only in that way.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mathematical laws cannot be invented, but can be discovered. It’s been done through the centuries. These laws could not be discovered if their terms did not pre-exist before they were discovered. That is why Plato took such an interest in mathematics as proof of the theory that ideals govern the material world. Pascal made pretty much the same argument. Though we cannot prove that God exists, we intuit His existence in the same way that we intuit the existence of the mathematical realities which can be known but cannot be tasted, touched, smelled, or seen with the senses … yet which we nonetheless know to be real.

 

[tonyrey]

Mathematical laws cannot be invented, but can be discovered. It’s been done through the centuries. These laws could not be discovered if their terms did not pre-exist before they were discovered. That is why Plato took such an interest in mathematics as proof of the theory that ideals govern the material world. Pascal made pretty much the same argument. Though we cannot prove that God exists, we intuit His existence in the same way that we intuit the existence of the mathematical realities which can be known but cannot be tasted, touched, smelled, or seen with the senses … yet which we nonetheless know to be real.

If mathematics were an arbitrary set of axioms and rules there would be no reason why it is applicable to reality.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If mathematics were an arbitrary set of axioms and rules there would be no reason why it is applicable to reality.

Maths is not arbitrary. 2+3=/8 or 5 or 545 Once the rule is set it is ruled till the end no matter what.

How that applies to nature, FOR ME, is one of the strongest proves of the existence of God. God makes the bridge between what is merely spiritual and what is material.

Physical laws use maths to rule on physics. But you have got an ideal physic and a material physic. You may imagine the 10th dimension or the Chords of the Universe or worlds being created and destroyed.

But in practice, you must compromise between exactitude and possibility of the material world to reflect the spiritual mind. It is very, very difficult, even for NASA brilliant minds, to make the crafts behave the way the imagine and want and dreamed.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Now, what is the gauge to measure speed, length and time. At which point of accuracy will it go?

In Platonic terms there is no perfect triangle in the material world, however there is such a thing as a perfect ideal triangle that we can represent mathematically. Your comment about accuracy is related to this distinction. When I studied engineering, I came across a mathematical solution to this problem of inaccuracy, namely the introduction of error ranges. Thus I can say

distance (d) = 1561 meters +/- 2 meters
time (t) = 25.3 seconds +/- 1 seconds
speed (s) = (d / t) +/- ((∆d / d) + (∆t / t)) * (d / t)

therefore

s = (1561 / 25.3) +/- ((2 / 1561) + (1 / 25.3)) * (1561 / 25.3)
= 61.7 +/- (0.040806 * 61.7)
= 61.7 m/s +/- 2.52 m/s

The inclusion of the error range makes the mathematical statement entirely valid.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

My opinion is that mathematics is a model expression of the constant nature, in the relationship and unfolding consequence of gravity and density in the universe…relative to our perception.

So we can say the speed of light is the only known constant…although is the physical consequence associated with mass gravity-density not also a constant in which an unfolding reality allows for mathematics , relative to our valued perception? Somewhere you guys were saying there is no master clock…although this would seem to throw havoc into BB…what I’m thinking is there is a master clock although…it is an accelerated version of the typical clock that we like to think on when ticking perfectly. The only way it seems we can detect a constant is with motion (light) …math would seem to be an imagined motion… time would seem to be without motion unless it was in an accelerated state… Not a pro by any means in this area but like thinking on these things. Above ideas seem interesting to me.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

In Platonic terms there is no perfect triangle in the material world, however there is such a thing as a perfect ideal triangle that we can represent mathematically. Your comment about accuracy is related to this distinction. When I studied engineering, I came across a mathematical solution to this problem of inaccuracy, namely the introduction of error ranges. Thus I can say

distance (d) = 1561 meters +/- 2 meters
time (t) = 25.3 seconds +/- 1 seconds
speed (s) = (d / t) +/- ((∆d / d) + (∆t / t)) * (d / t)

therefore

s = (1561 / 25.3) +/- ((2 / 1561) + (1 / 25.3)) * (1561 / 25.3)
= 61.7 +/- (0.040806 * 61.7)
= 61.7 m/s +/- 2.52 m/s

The inclusion of the error range makes the mathematical statement entirely valid.

Weird, I was always told that compounding errors for multiplication/division was

s[sub]x[/sub]=x * ( (s[sub]a[/sub]/a)[sup]2[/sup]+(s[sub]b[/sub]/b)[sup]2[/sup]+…)[sup]1/2[/sup]

where s[sub]x[/sub] is the uncertainty of the total measurement, s[sub]a,b[/sub] are the uncertainty of the individual measurements and a,b are the measurements themselves. So, in my method and with your numbers, the error of measurement would be

s[sub]speed[/sub] = 61.7 ( (2/1561)[sup]2[/sup]+(1/25.3)[sup]2[/sup] )[sup]1/2[/sup]=2.44

A minor change, obviously, but a very different technique.