|
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 Mar 10, 2023 18:18:45 GMT
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. When studying I discovered that there's a disciple called logic. It occurred that before 2012 I hadn't heard anything of it, or if I met I paid no attention. So, I decided to find any information about it. I didn't know what to read. Those days Internet was good, but not enough and good, and so the quality. Then spoke to my lecturer of logic what essey or work should I write about logic? In result of talks, briefly said, he recommended me to learn more about Godel. And what book should I read? Nobody gave me advice, and monitoring the web that book came into my sight. About ~150 pages I passed and cut it out. It was not easy for me, honestly saying. Well, I'm not a good reader, and never was him. Philosophy is for tough-minded.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 10, 2023 19:10:44 GMT
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.
If they, i.e. the triangles, existed a priori we would not need to teach them in school with this schooling occurring through the senses. Considering the triangle is taught in school and then is imagined we can argue that language is a priori as well given it is taught then imagined.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 10, 2023 20:22:48 GMT
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.
If they, i.e. the triangles, existed a priori we would not need to teach them in school with this schooling occurring through the senses. Considering the triangle is taught in school and then is imagined we can argue that language is a priori as well given it is taught then imagined.
Can't agree. Then how do you explain Newton, Leibniz, or Ramanujanan, or many others who discovered triangles? So, under such the logic the first who discovered a triangle taught it in school, but this means the school must exist before... Triangles as rectangles, whatsoever exist a priori. And there's a way to prove it: 1) I think of a triangle 2) I divided it into two segments 3) I add the two segments 4) the result equal of it (the square) is the same as in #1.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 10, 2023 20:30:37 GMT
If they, i.e. the triangles, existed a priori we would not need to teach them in school with this schooling occurring through the senses. Considering the triangle is taught in school and then is imagined we can argue that language is a priori as well given it is taught then imagined.
Can't agree. Then how do you explain Newton, Leibniz, or Ramanujanan, or many others who discovered triangles? So, under such the logic the first who discovered a triangle taught it in school, but this means the school must exist before... Triangles as rectangles, whatsoever exist a priori. And there's a way to prove it: 1) I think of a triangle 2) I divided it into two segments 3) I add the two segments 4) the result equal of it (the square) is the same as in #1. The fact that you can think of it and apply it to objects necessitates it as sense both by the mind and by the physical senses. If the triangle was a priori it would not have to be drawn on a chalk board. Dually it may be argued that the geometric shapes are generalizations of physical shapes, i.e. an object in the shape of a triangle is observed and a generalization of this object is thought.
In simple terms I am arguing a priori and a posteriori phenomena are the result of a false dichotomy.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 10, 2023 21:47:17 GMT
Can't agree. Then how do you explain Newton, Leibniz, or Ramanujanan, or many others who discovered triangles? So, under such the logic the first who discovered a triangle taught it in school, but this means the school must exist before... Triangles as rectangles, whatsoever exist a priori. And there's a way to prove it: 1) I think of a triangle 2) I divided it into two segments 3) I add the two segments 4) the result equal of it (the square) is the same as in #1. The fact that you can think of it and apply it to objects necessitates it as sense both by the mind and by the physical senses. If the triangle was a priori it would not have to be drawn on a chalk board. Dually it may be argued that the geometric shapes are generalizations of physical shapes, i.e. an object in the shape of a triangle is observed and a generalization of this object is thought.
In simple terms I am arguing a priori and a posteriori phenomena are the result of a false dichotomy.
Actually it's possible that we are the waves. Like what if our thoughts, words, imagination – are the vibrations of atoms. Then we are and our thoughts, and the surroundings – is the variety of waves. From this point no a priori or a posteriori is needed, because there are no walls behind these things. I would what idea functions like? Can it be that the idea of a teapot repeats the wave of a teapot?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 22, 2023 20:39:29 GMT
The fact that you can think of it and apply it to objects necessitates it as sense both by the mind and by the physical senses. If the triangle was a priori it would not have to be drawn on a chalk board. Dually it may be argued that the geometric shapes are generalizations of physical shapes, i.e. an object in the shape of a triangle is observed and a generalization of this object is thought.
In simple terms I am arguing a priori and a posteriori phenomena are the result of a false dichotomy.
Actually it's possible that we are the waves. Like what if our thoughts, words, imagination – are the vibrations of atoms. Then we are and our thoughts, and the surroundings – is the variety of waves. From this point no a priori or a posteriori is needed, because there are no walls behind these things. I would what idea functions like? Can it be that the idea of a teapot repeats the wave of a teapot? If we are the waves then the observation of waves occurs through waves and everything is self-referential. The dichotomy between a posteriori and a priori is false, in these respects, considering that which is a priori, the wave, occurs as a space just as the wave, the a posteriori, is a space. In other terms the a priori and a posteriori both are space and in these respects are a false dichotomy.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Apr 13, 2023 23:54:30 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. Your senses are a very unreliable source of information. Your eyes see things that are not as they seem or not there at all, while your brain attempts to find a reasonable explanation of what your eyes are seeing. Another example, if you tell a person, "I am going to blindfold you and touch you with either an extremely cold piece of metal or a very hot piece of metal. You tell me which one that I touch you with." Their brain will not be able to distinguish which one you touched them with because it uses the same pain receptors for both stimulations. While I agree that we use our eyes and senses to tell us about the world around us, they can be very unreliable and subject to being error prone. This is why eyewitnesses to a crime can have two very different stories.
|
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Apr 14, 2023 9:04:08 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. this sounds like the tales of mulla naseerudin
|
|