On 2 March 2014 00:00, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:27:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 1 March 2014 14:36, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>> >>>> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?" >>>> >>>> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it >>>> is a fact that 1+1=2. >>>> >>>> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All >>>> it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard. >>>> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to >>>> everything. >>>> >>> >> If it's a fact, it's irrelevant whether my brain thinks it's mustard. >> > > Not if you're the only person left in the universe. I don't think that > your brain thinks anything, except maybe about electrochemical ratios and > biochemical synthesis. What decides what is "relevant"? >
No idea, I'm too busy deciding on which electrochemical rations to wear. > > >> >> >>> Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one raining >>>> cloud. Math is about a very specific >>>> >>> >> Please don't come out with the cloud example, I've heard that so many >> times but it's never become any more relevant. Surely you know I'm talking >> about the abstract concepts? >> > > Why would abstract concepts be more relevant than examples from reality? > That question only makes sense if you have already decided that physical reality is real and abstract concepts aren't. (Yet oddly, physics is unprovable, while maths apparently isn't.) But the answer is that we're talking about the origin of maths. In that context it seems rather likely that abstract concepts are more relevant than "reality". > > >> >> >>> aspect of sense - the sense which objects make when we count them. That >>>> sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal objects >>>> to virtual objects, but no matter what you do with math, it has no >>>> subjective interior. It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what >>>> which is already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a >>>> thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or be >>>> anything. >>>> >>> >> Well, that's me told. Next time I want to make a point with you is it OK >> if I quote "I am the Walrus" ? >> > > Is "Well, that's me told." a line in "I am the Walrus"? > > No, it's more of a comment from Jonathan Hoag, the famous art critic. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
