Pretty cool how you attack... .
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(21-07-2015 09:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 07:44 AM)Free Wrote:  My point was to demonstrate that according to the concept- which is as true as 1 + 1 = 2, that infinity does indeed exist. If it is true, then it cannot be contained within a finite universe.

Your statement of "only in our minds" does not, in anyway whatsoever, negate the existence, and the statement itself may very well be false. See below.


Just no. Your conclusion simply does not logically follow. Ideas do not create, define, or limit physical reality.

Why do you think it's an idea?

You see, the concept is not the math, but rather the symbols we create to represent the math; 1, 2, 3, one, two, three, i, ii, iii etc.

The math itself has always existed, and it existed without any help from us whatsoever.

The conclusion of "2" in the simple equation of "1 + 1 = 2" could not be reached unless the conclusion preexisted the symbolic equation.

One can not travel to a non existent destination, therefore the destination must, by necessity, pre-exist the journey.

What this means is that the math has always existed, and the "concept' is merely the creation of symbols to represent the pre-existing math.


Quote:
Quote:Do you not think that 1 + 1 = 2 would be true even if there were no minds to conceptualize it? Would the progression of counting numbers to infinity not exist without a mind to conceptualize it?

There are no counting numbers without a mind to conceptualize them.

They exist, and have always existed, without a mind. If this were not true we could not conclude that 1 + 1 = 2, symbolically. The conclusion (2) of the equation must preexist for us to reach that destination.

Quote:
Quote:Was it true before mankind? Will it be true after we are extinct?

It only seems reasonable to me that we- the entire human race- can only arrive at these so-called "concepts" because ... they already existed, and have existed for eternity.

We are not required for them to exist.

Minds are required for concepts to exist.

If, as proposed, that the math pre-existed the concept, then all the concept actually does is make apparent what already existed.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 10:46 AM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(21-07-2015 10:40 AM)Free Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 09:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  Just no. Your conclusion simply does not logically follow. Ideas do not create, define, or limit physical reality.

Why do you think it's an idea?

You see, the concept is not the math, but rather the symbols we create to represent the math; 1, 2, 3, one, two, three, i, ii, iii etc.

The math itself has always existed, and it existed without any help from us whatsoever.

The conclusion of "2" in the simple equation of "1 + 1 = 2" could not be reached unless the conclusion preexisted the symbolic equation.

One can not travel to a non existent destination, therefore the destination must, by necessity, pre-exist the journey.

What this means is that the math has always existed, and the "concept' is merely the creation of symbols to represent the pre-existing math.


Quote:There are no counting numbers without a mind to conceptualize them.

They exist, and have always existed, without a mind. If this were not true we could not conclude that 1 + 1 = 2, symbolically. The conclusion (2) of the equation must preexist for us to reach that destination.

Quote:Minds are required for concepts to exist.

If, as proposed, that the math pre-existed the concept, then all the concept actually does is make apparent what already existed.

You seem to be some sort of Neo-Platonist. Consider

Where exactly did these concepts exist before there were minds?

Arithmetic is a man-made system as are all mathematical systems.

And riddle me this: It is logically possible that the universe is finite even though we can conceive of infinity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-07-2015, 11:03 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015 11:43 AM by Free.)
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(21-07-2015 10:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 10:40 AM)Free Wrote:  Why do you think it's an idea?

You see, the concept is not the math, but rather the symbols we create to represent the math; 1, 2, 3, one, two, three, i, ii, iii etc.

The math itself has always existed, and it existed without any help from us whatsoever.

The conclusion of "2" in the simple equation of "1 + 1 = 2" could not be reached unless the conclusion preexisted the symbolic equation.

One can not travel to a non existent destination, therefore the destination must, by necessity, pre-exist the journey.

What this means is that the math has always existed, and the "concept' is merely the creation of symbols to represent the pre-existing math.



They exist, and have always existed, without a mind. If this were not true we could not conclude that 1 + 1 = 2, symbolically. The conclusion (2) of the equation must preexist for us to reach that destination.


If, as proposed, that the math pre-existed the concept, then all the concept actually does is make apparent what already existed.

You seem to be some sort of Neo-Platonist. Consider

Where exactly did these concepts exist before there were minds?

Arithmetic is a man-made system as are all mathematical systems.

And riddle me this: It is logically possible that the universe is finite even though we can conceive of infinity.

The expression of symbols only represents the arithmetic. We did not create math, but rather we merely discovered what already existed.

The conception of infinity is not the same as its existence.

Modern Neoplatonism may be closer to where my head actually is.

Head over to The Edge and take a look.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(21-07-2015 11:03 AM)Free Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 10:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to be some sort of Neo-Platonist. Consider

Where exactly did these concepts exist before there were minds?

Arithmetic is a man-made system as are all mathematical systems.

And riddle me this: It is logically possible that the universe is finite even though we can conceive of infinity.

The expression of symbols only represents the arithmetic. We did not create math, but rather we merely discovered what already existed.

Where was it before we discovered it? Consider

Quote:The conception of infinity is not the same as its existence.

That has been my point, though I think you mean something quite different.
Outside of our minds, where does infinity exist?

Quote:Modern Neoplatonism may be closer to where my head actually is.

Head over to The Edge and take a look.

Been there, done that. Any kind of Platonism is misguided.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(21-07-2015 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 11:03 AM)Free Wrote:  The expression of symbols only represents the arithmetic. We did not create math, but rather we merely discovered what already existed.

Where was it before we discovered it? Consider

Merely existing, awaiting human minds to discover it. Existence is not dependent on our minds to discover it. The universe itself would exist without any human observation of it.

1 + 1 would equal 2 anywhere in the universe, regardless if humans existed or not.

Quote:
Quote:The conception of infinity is not the same as its existence.

That has been my point, though I think you mean something quite different.
Outside of our minds, where does infinity exist?

Throughout the universe.

Quote:
Quote:Modern Neoplatonism may be closer to where my head actually is.

Head over to The Edge and take a look.

Been there, done that. Any kind of Platonism is misguided.

That's an opinion, I feel, that is based upon its origins, which no longer bear much resemblance to modern thinking.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(21-07-2015 01:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Where was it before we discovered it? Consider

Merely existing, awaiting human minds to discover it. Existence is not dependent on our minds to discover it. The universe itself would exist without any human observation of it.

1 + 1 would equal 2 anywhere in the universe, regardless if humans existed or not.

Quote:That has been my point, though I think you mean something quite different.
Outside of our minds, where does infinity exist?

Throughout the universe.

Quote:Been there, done that. Any kind of Platonism is misguided.

That's an opinion, I feel, that is based upon its origins, which no longer bear much resemblance to modern thinking.

1+1=2 and infinity have no meaning outside of minds. Those things are merely properties of our universe without separate existence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-07-2015, 02:46 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015 02:50 PM by Free.)
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(21-07-2015 02:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 01:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Merely existing, awaiting human minds to discover it. Existence is not dependent on our minds to discover it. The universe itself would exist without any human observation of it.

1 + 1 would equal 2 anywhere in the universe, regardless if humans existed or not.


Throughout the universe.


That's an opinion, I feel, that is based upon its origins, which no longer bear much resemblance to modern thinking.

1+1=2 and infinity have no meaning outside of minds. Those things are merely properties of our universe without separate existence.

If they had no meaning outside our minds, then there could never be any number of objects in the universe, even if we humans did not exist.

How can they be properties of the universe if they exist only in our minds? Consider

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 05:38 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(20-07-2015 09:04 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I am naturally an overthinker.

[Image: 26643-Jump-Out-Window-gif-AT8K.gif]

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
21-07-2015, 06:02 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(16-07-2015 07:30 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If you didn't partake in the bullshit then you should be able to surmise that I wasn't fucking talking to you.

hmmm... mhm... Uhu... Nk. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lienda Bella's post
21-07-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: Pretty cool how you attack... .
(21-07-2015 05:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 09:04 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I am naturally an overthinker.

[Image: 26643-Jump-Out-Window-gif-AT8K.gif]

Winner of best gif ever! Thumbsup

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: