|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 24, 2023 21:10:30 GMT
1+1=2 and the triangle both apply to an infinite number of things thus are paradoxically indefinite truths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 24, 2023 21:48:59 GMT
First of all, '1+1=2' and 'a triangle' is different not only via geometry/math, but via the point of definition/statement. By '1+1=2' one is claiming something, but by 'a triangle' it is not definite what one is trying to say.
Okay, let's say that there are things (particulars) for the case that '1+1=2'. These particulars must fit to this description. But there are no need for each of it particular to be completely fit to it. Let's say there are two sheep in the field. Can '1+1=2' be applied to this case? - Yes. But doesn't it say that 'two sheep' is true? I doubt.
The same is about 'a triangle'. Let's say that one stuck three pipes into the ground and tied them with a wire. Is this an example of a triangle? - Yes, but does it limit by only one truth? - No.
There is no need to accept any ideas or concepts over things. So, there are wires, pipes, sheep... but there are no 'concepts of sheep', 'concepts of wires', whatsoever. Adding this things create all the problems you mentioned. So, if you refuse the idealism, there would be no problem for geometry or math.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 25, 2023 8:21:33 GMT
What is true should be what my senses tell me it is true. I should not be making judgments on things beyond my senses. Like a folktale in Sudan that tells the story of a wise man who never says but truth. A man thinks to himself that he can figure out a trick to make the wise man tell a lie. He shaves the wool from one side of a goat, leaves the other side unshaved, and sends it a cross the wise man with the shaved side of the goat facing him. He then comes to the old man and asks him if he has seen a shaved goat pass by. The old man says to him, yes, I have just seen a goat. the side that faces me is shaved by but i don't know about the other side HAHAHAHAHA. He wants the old man to generalize what he has seen to what he has not seen. The old man is wise enough to believe that truth is what his senses convey to him as true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 25, 2023 8:39:01 GMT
What is true should be what my senses tell me it is true. I should not be making judgments on things beyond my senses. Like a folktale in Sudan that tells the story of a wise man who never says but truth. A man thinks to himself that he can figure out a trick to make the wise man tell a lie. He shaves the wool from one side of a goat, leaves the other side unshaved, and sends it a cross the wise man with the shaved side of the goat facing him. He then comes to the old man and asks him if he has seen a shaved goat pass by. The old man says to him, yes, I have just seen a goat. the side that faces me is shaved by but i don't know about the other side HAHAHAHAHA. He wants the old man to generalize what he has seen to what he has not seen. The old man is wise enough to believe that truth is what his senses convey to him as true. Indeed. Both sides of a coin. However, must say that for the senses or for the empirical studies it doesn't block them or deny. No, the story says that we cannot rely upon senses only. Of course, without measuring or counting, or whatsoever applying of geometrical and mathematical procedures is needed along with perceiving the image. The most an object is measured, calculated, thought, etc, the better. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 1, 2023 20:42:40 GMT
First of all, '1+1=2' and 'a triangle' is different not only via geometry/math, but via the point of definition/statement. By '1+1=2' one is claiming something, but by 'a triangle' it is not definite what one is trying to say. Okay, let's say that there are things (particulars) for the case that '1+1=2'. These particulars must fit to this description. But there are no need for each of it particular to be completely fit to it. Let's say there are two sheep in the field. Can '1+1=2' be applied to this case? - Yes. But doesn't it say that 'two sheep' is true? I doubt. The same is about 'a triangle'. Let's say that one stuck three pipes into the ground and tied them with a wire. Is this an example of a triangle? - Yes, but does it limit by only one truth? - No. There is no need to accept any ideas or concepts over things. So, there are wires, pipes, sheep... but there are no 'concepts of sheep', 'concepts of wires', whatsoever. Adding this things create all the problems you mentioned. So, if you refuse the idealism, there would be no problem for geometry or math. 1. 1+1=2 defines an infinite number of things thus the definitive statement becomes indefinite.
2. A triangle is a shape which defines an infinite number of things thus the definitive observation becomes indefinite.
3. Geometry and math is idealism. If one refuses idealism then one must refuse geometry and math.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 1, 2023 22:30:41 GMT
What is true should be what my senses tell me it is true. I should not be making judgments on things beyond my senses. Like a folktale in Sudan that tells the story of a wise man who never says but truth. A man thinks to himself that he can figure out a trick to make the wise man tell a lie. He shaves the wool from one side of a goat, leaves the other side unshaved, and sends it a cross the wise man with the shaved side of the goat facing him. He then comes to the old man and asks him if he has seen a shaved goat pass by. The old man says to him, yes, I have just seen a goat. the side that faces me is shaved by but i don't know about the other side HAHAHAHAHA. He wants the old man to generalize what he has seen to what he has not seen. The old man is wise enough to believe that truth is what his senses convey to him as true. And yet this results in a paradox where the senses must be sensed by a sense beyond them and a sense beyond them and a sense beyond them so on to infinity. In this case the senses become non sensical as the infinite regress results in an indefinite state. However if we are to ignore this infinite regress and argue that there is only the one set of senses then these senses have no foundation and become empty in themselves, sensing the senses in these respects becomes 'non-sensical'.
Another final point, and this is a 'finalizing' point, is the very fact that the senses can be decieved as evidenced by the contradictions we see in people's interpretations of events. One thing is seen one way and this same thing can be seen in another way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 2, 2023 7:41:55 GMT
First of all, '1+1=2' and 'a triangle' is different not only via geometry/math, but via the point of definition/statement. By '1+1=2' one is claiming something, but by 'a triangle' it is not definite what one is trying to say. Okay, let's say that there are things (particulars) for the case that '1+1=2'. These particulars must fit to this description. But there are no need for each of it particular to be completely fit to it. Let's say there are two sheep in the field. Can '1+1=2' be applied to this case? - Yes. But doesn't it say that 'two sheep' is true? I doubt. The same is about 'a triangle'. Let's say that one stuck three pipes into the ground and tied them with a wire. Is this an example of a triangle? - Yes, but does it limit by only one truth? - No. There is no need to accept any ideas or concepts over things. So, there are wires, pipes, sheep... but there are no 'concepts of sheep', 'concepts of wires', whatsoever. Adding this things create all the problems you mentioned. So, if you refuse the idealism, there would be no problem for geometry or math. 1. 1+1=2 defines an infinite number of things thus the definitive statement becomes indefinite.
2. A triangle is a shape which defines an infinite number of things thus the definitive observation becomes indefinite.
3. Geometry and math is idealism. If one refuses idealism then one must refuse geometry and math.
1+1=2 bases on 1=1, 2=2, the link between deities, and their correspondence. Without it 1+1=2 is meaningless. Any triangle has quite the same abilities as identity to itself. Math and geometry is not necessary idealistic. For primitive tribes there are some math, and they are unaware of abstractions. Since 1+1=2 is applying to different situations means all those situations are not - all - the situations. And since 1+1=2 overtake infinite situations of a certain type doesn't make it be indefinite; or else anyone would pass by that statement. The same is about triangles. Until it can be applied for many cases, it is still not indefinite. Moreover both of them extra definable: for any enough powerful system there's a way to find there a triangle or 1+1=2. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 3, 2023 19:04:46 GMT
1. 1+1=2 defines an infinite number of things thus the definitive statement becomes indefinite.
2. A triangle is a shape which defines an infinite number of things thus the definitive observation becomes indefinite.
3. Geometry and math is idealism. If one refuses idealism then one must refuse geometry and math.
1+1=2 bases on 1=1, 2=2, the link between deities, and their correspondence. Without it 1+1=2 is meaningless. Any triangle has quite the same abilities as identity to itself. Math and geometry is not necessary idealistic. For primitive tribes there are some math, and they are unaware of abstractions. Since 1+1=2 is applying to different situations means all those situations are not - all - the situations. And since 1+1=2 overtake infinite situations of a certain type doesn't make it be indefinite; or else anyone would pass by that statement. The same is about triangles. Until it can be applied for many cases, it is still not indefinite. Moreover both of them extra definable: for any enough powerful system there's a way to find there a triangle or 1+1=2. 1. 1=1 and 2=2 applies to an infinite number of things thus what it means is indefinite. What 1 and 2 mean means an indefinite number of things thus the statements, as being universals, result in non-sense. They are paradoxical. If I have something that can mean everything it means nothing.
2. Counting and the application of shapes is dependent on thought, it is an idea. If idealism is wrong then so is math and geometry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 3, 2023 20:47:07 GMT
1+1=2 bases on 1=1, 2=2, the link between deities, and their correspondence. Without it 1+1=2 is meaningless. Any triangle has quite the same abilities as identity to itself. Math and geometry is not necessary idealistic. For primitive tribes there are some math, and they are unaware of abstractions. Since 1+1=2 is applying to different situations means all those situations are not - all - the situations. And since 1+1=2 overtake infinite situations of a certain type doesn't make it be indefinite; or else anyone would pass by that statement. The same is about triangles. Until it can be applied for many cases, it is still not indefinite. Moreover both of them extra definable: for any enough powerful system there's a way to find there a triangle or 1+1=2. 1. 1=1 and 2=2 applies to an infinite number of things thus what it means is indefinite. What 1 and 2 mean means an indefinite number of things thus the statements, as being universals, result in non-sense. They are paradoxical. If I have something that can mean everything it means nothing.
2. Counting and the application of shapes is dependent on thought, it is an idea. If idealism is wrong then so is math and geometry.
I agree that their abstractiveness leads to paradoxes (as many other abstractions also). Cannot agree that math or geometry is idealism. They appear to be or pretend to be, but really they are not. Let's say if children should have studied abstractions to get math or geometry this would be bad. I don't think they have to. Just pointing at cows and pronounciating words at the same time - this is the whole math. Drawing lines or curves - it is geometry. When a child spots some patterns - it's already discovering few math/geometry properties. The abstractiveness of them - this is what the academics science is trying to do, for the academics aren't interested that many knows what only the chosen has to know. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 3, 2023 20:52:04 GMT
1. 1=1 and 2=2 applies to an infinite number of things thus what it means is indefinite. What 1 and 2 mean means an indefinite number of things thus the statements, as being universals, result in non-sense. They are paradoxical. If I have something that can mean everything it means nothing.
2. Counting and the application of shapes is dependent on thought, it is an idea. If idealism is wrong then so is math and geometry.
I agree that their abstractiveness leads to paradoxes (as many other abstractions also). Cannot agree that math or geometry is idealism. They appear to be or pretend to be, but really they are not. Let's say if children should have studied abstractions to get math or geometry this would be bad. I don't think they have to. Just pointing at cows and pronounciating words at the same time - this is the whole math. Drawing lines or curves - it is geometry. When a child spots some patterns - it's already discovering few math/geometry properties. The abstractiveness of them - this is what the academics science is trying to do, for the academics aren't interested that many knows what only the chosen has to know. To commit to an action requires a thought as one uses their body and mind when acting. Because thought is a necessary part of action the idea is necessary. However if idealism is bad, and I am not saying it is, then math and geometry are wrong as well. If one is to practice non-conceptual meditation, i.e. a movement towards 'no-thingness' then math and geometry must go out the window. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 3, 2023 22:17:54 GMT
I agree that their abstractiveness leads to paradoxes (as many other abstractions also). Cannot agree that math or geometry is idealism. They appear to be or pretend to be, but really they are not. Let's say if children should have studied abstractions to get math or geometry this would be bad. I don't think they have to. Just pointing at cows and pronounciating words at the same time - this is the whole math. Drawing lines or curves - it is geometry. When a child spots some patterns - it's already discovering few math/geometry properties. The abstractiveness of them - this is what the academics science is trying to do, for the academics aren't interested that many knows what only the chosen has to know. To commit to an action requires a thought as one uses their body and mind when acting. Because thought is a necessary part of action the idea is necessary. However if idealism is bad, and I am not saying it is, then math and geometry are wrong as well. If one is to practice non-conceptual meditation, i.e. a movement towards 'no-thingness' then math and geometry must go out the window. Have you read "Godel, Esher, Bach" by Hofstadter? He also liked zen-buddhism cohans. Again, I cannot disagree: concepts are also important. If we go without them, we also loose something important... Nothingness, by the way, isn't less important. If we would stick with an idea that the world or universe is limited to itself we might loose the idea of nothingness. And who knows maybe the nothingness isn't so empty as some yell. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 5, 2023 12:14:46 GMT
1+1=2 and the triangle both apply to an infinite number of things thus are paradoxically indefinite truths.
Math assumes solidity. Its the laws of solid objects in space.
But liquid, gas, plasma, fields, and consciousness,
only yield to math when examined on a scale that offers solidity; like atoms or Plank energy quanta.
1 pool of water + 1 pool of water = 1 pool of water.
1 person + 1 person = an entire planet full of endlessly breeding people...
Did I just identify the 7 primary states of existence?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 8, 2023 17:06:47 GMT
To commit to an action requires a thought as one uses their body and mind when acting. Because thought is a necessary part of action the idea is necessary. However if idealism is bad, and I am not saying it is, then math and geometry are wrong as well. If one is to practice non-conceptual meditation, i.e. a movement towards 'no-thingness' then math and geometry must go out the window. Have you read "Godel, Esher, Bach" by Hofstadter? He also liked zen-buddhism cohans. Again, I cannot disagree: concepts are also important. If we go without them, we also loose something important... Nothingness, by the way, isn't less important. If we would stick with an idea that the world or universe is limited to itself we might loose the idea of nothingness. And who knows maybe the nothingness isn't so empty as some yell. Yes I have read the book. It is good. Emptiness is fundamentally everything and everything is nothing. This is a paradox as emptiness is not empty. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 8, 2023 17:08:28 GMT
1+1=2 and the triangle both apply to an infinite number of things thus are paradoxically indefinite truths.
Math assumes solidity. Its the laws of solid objects in space.
But liquid, gas, plasma, fields, and consciousness,
only yield to math when examined on a scale that offers solidity; like atoms or Plank energy quanta.
1 pool of water + 1 pool of water = 1 pool of water.
1 person + 1 person = an entire planet full of endlessly breeding people...
Did I just identify the 7 primary states of existence?
Or does solid objects in space result in the laws of math? It is relative, as either math or the "solid objects in space" can be viewed as the starting point. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 9, 2023 20:01:45 GMT
Math assumes solidity. Its the laws of solid objects in space.
But liquid, gas, plasma, fields, and consciousness,
only yield to math when examined on a scale that offers solidity; like atoms or Plank energy quanta.
1 pool of water + 1 pool of water = 1 pool of water.
1 person + 1 person = an entire planet full of endlessly breeding people...
Did I just identify the 7 primary states of existence?
Or does solid objects in space result in the laws of math? It is relative, as either math or the "solid objects in space" can be viewed as the starting point. This is why there is a foundational difference between statistical math, and fundamental logical math.
Pythagorean triangles exist a priori to any material universe. But the number of sands on the beaches of Sparta, emerge from that which lies a posteriori to this material universe.
|
|
