Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The sensation of the color 'blue', as agreed upon by convention, is qualia. The electromagnetic radiation that gives rise to our experience of the color blue is a 'property of objects'. These are fundamentally different categories, ontologically speaking.
There is some depth and nuance to this topic that is already covered in other threads such as:
Right. So the perception/sensation of the number/quantity "2" is qualia, the quantity of 2 is NOT. The space-time designation that gives rise to our experience of the quantity of 2, is a "property of objects." Same with sums and other mathematical projections.
Quote:
Logic and mathematics aren't classified as qualia. They are what we refer to as rationally intuitive knowledge.
This is a fundamentally different 'way of knowing' to physical perception. It may appear that we learn mathematics when we study the topic at school, but what school is actually teaching us is to apply that knowledge to practical situations. The Stanford:
I can guarantee you that logic and mathematics are not "intuitive" even in most part.
Imaginative/conceptual "Modeling" is, of course, a different "way of knowing" than physical perception. Applying knowledge to practical situations is exactly what aesthetics is about. One can just as easily say: "it may appear that you learn art at a school, but it is just application."
Quote:
This does seem counter-intuitive to those who haven't had the opportunity to think about the subject at depth. However, scholars have tried for decades to try to define logic and mathematics the way you do, as human inventions or conventions.
All the time they run into the same problem. The theories and mathematical calculations ultimately turn out to be self-refuting.
Saying that mathematics holds true in all possible worlds isn't undermining mathematics. It's the exact opposite.
Roger Penrose's views on mathematics relating to the universe, to bring this thread on topic.
Looks like he's a Platonist with regard to mathematical objects (believes they have a literal existence in some type 'higher realm').
If a world existed, where 1+1=3, there would be nothing wrong with that world so as to be impossible. In fact, they would probably view our world as a weird deviation with a half/almost sum of 1+1=2.
The "observer effect" when then be yours. They might even view their math to be as "null in effect" as we view ours.
Right. So the perception/sensation of the number/quantity "2" is qualia, the quantity of 2 is NOT. The space-time designation that gives rise to our experience of the quantity of 2, is a "property of objects." Same with sums and other mathematical projections.
I can guarantee you that logic and mathematics are not "intuitive" even in most part.
Imaginative/conceptual "Modeling" is, of course, a different "way of knowing" than physical perception. Applying knowledge to practical situations is exactly what aesthetics is about. One can just as easily say: "it may appear that you learn art at a school, but it is just application."
Logic and mathematics are as much "human inventions and conventions" as evolution, gravity, classical and quantum mechanics.
These first two are merely human "hypotheses and theories of the nature of concepts and quantities"
If logicians, mathematicians and other theorists have already tried and failed to prove what you claim (not only that, they went on to disavow it as nonsense), you'll need better arguments than "just so" claims if you want to disprove their conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
If a world existed, where 1+1=3, there would be nothing wrong with that world so as to be impossible. In fact, they would probably view our world as a weird deviation with a half/almost sum of 1+1=2.
The "observer effect" when then be yours. They might even view their math to be as "null in effect" as we view ours.
The very notion of a 'possible world' among a world ensemble requires logical operations concerning possibility, identity, discretization, quantification, and so on, the way we understand them in our world. This means that, to even postulate a world with different laws of logic/mathematics, we must first assume that the same laws of logic/mathematics hold true in that world as our own.
Your idea is what we refer to as a self-referentially incoherent claim. It refutes itself by virtue of its own meaning.
Last edited by Hightower72; 03-28-2018 at 04:35 PM..
The anthropic principle, it answers so many questions it almost feels like it's cheating to use it.
The universe is 13+ billion years old. Where are the other sentient life forms/machines that might take advantage of the this simple explanation offered under the anthropic principle? Statistics is a cruel mistress, you can't have it both ways.
Formally, Minsky's argument has two components to it:
1. The concept of the world ensemble (multiverse). The idea that our universe is one among a vast or infinite number of universes existing in parallel that vary in certain parameters, such as the fundamental constants or other physical properties.
2. The observer selection effect, also referred to as anthropic bias (or the anthropic principle). The idea that we happen to be in a universe with eccentric or extraordinary properties because we would otherwise not be around to make observations at all.
This means that Minsky is arguing that it's possible for worlds to exist in which the laws of nature are not describable by logic and mathematics. According to his definition, logic and mathematics are not necessary truths.
The universe is 13+ billion years old. Where are the other sentient life forms/machines that might take advantage of the this simple explanation offered under the anthropic principle?
LOL do you realize how large the Universe is? There is no doubt there are other life forms in the Universe. The fact that space is so vast is the reason why we have not encountered other life forms.
Are you aware that there are 300 billion stars in the Milky Way? If only 10% of these stars have planets around them..this means there are at least 30 Billion planets just in the Milky Way galaxy. There are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe.
Space is not an easy frontier to cruse around and do field trips in. Do you realize that we can't even reach the closest Goldilocks planet in our Milky Way because it's over 4 Light Years (24 trillion miles) away from earth?
This is just one galaxy out of the 100 billion observable galaxies in our Universe.
The building blocks for life on earth all came from space. If evolution can occur on earth there is no reason to think that it's not occurring on other Goldilocks planets...keep in mind that whatever life is evolving elsewhere in the Universe will not necessarily look just like us. It could be another planet full of Dinosaurs or some other creature!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
