Mathematics, Discovered or Invented?

[Heyo]

The universe exists, almost by definition of the term 'exists'. What its nature is, however, is to be determined experimentally. It may well only be relationships between different quantum fields (the word 'invisible' here seems to miss a lot). if so, then that is what it means to 'exist'.

How useful then, that I have already defined what existence means to me:
5 Planes of Existence

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not sure you have this correct. For example, Peter Higg's suggested the existence of a particle. The existence of that particle was considered provisional until it was actually discovered 40 years after he proposed it as a possibility. There are many subatomic particles that have been proposed, but for which no evidence is currently available. Their existence is NOT accepted because of that lack of evidence.

Thank you for that thoughtful reply. Yes, however they only consider the existence of a type of particle within a realm that is presumed to exist. It is all that can be done from a scientific view, because science has no motivation to question whether reality is reality. There's no such hypothesis possible in a universe that is presumed consistent and testable. This is not a flaw in Science but is merely what is required to keep testing relevant, but it does not allow for questions about whether reality is true. That is what we are discussing philosophically. Testing the existence of a type of particle builds upon that which is 'known' (where what is known is presumed to be). All of the sciences presume two things: continuity and reality: that what is true yesterday will be true tomorrow and that it all connects to ourselves in an orderly consistent manner which can therefore be studied to the extent that we are able to measure things.

One big issue I see in philosophy is that it never actually defines the concept of 'existence'. What does it mean for something to exist? How can we go about determining the existence of something? How can we know that something does NOT exist? Other than logical contradiction, which is a very, very minimal criterion, how do we know when something exists or not?

In particular, to stay on topic, what does it mean to say the number 2 exists? At the very least, it is a very different sort of existence than, say, the sun or a table. For those, we have observability and testing to use as criteria for existence. What is a criterion for the existence of a number?

And, to get back to my example, in what sense does the game of chess 'exist'? Was it invented or discovered? Does it exist independent of our minds? In what sense does the solution of a chess problem 'exist'? In what sense does it exist independent of our minds? is it invented or discovered?

And, perhaps, the dichotomy of 'invented or discovered' is a false one. Language, for example, was not invented by any single person, but is also not discovered in any sense I can fathom. Instead, it grows by successive additions allowing greater expressiveness. Sort of like mathematics.

Yes, philosophy begins as a game and that is part of the obstacle to finding out a way to test reality to see if it is true. Games have rules and are based upon rules and can only discover what is at the ends of those rules like the branches upon a tree. I think you have pointed this out already. I add that Science is like philosophy but with the added constraint that everything must correlate to the experienced reality. Even philosophy is at a disadvantage in discovering whether experience is true, but it can question experienced reality.

I admit there are problems. Humans tend to think we are intelligent, when we are barely intelligent. We are impressed with technology or with graduating from school or by clever war strategies, but none of this signals that we have great intelligence but rather that intelligence has been a struggle. Einstein took many years to work out his theories, and then most people couldn't read them. Newton almost didn't publish his Principia. Euler thought his discoveries ought to be obvious to anyone with a shred of mathematical talent, but I who have very little talent can walk up to any window, scribble a few easy formulas and impress 70% of people with it. We presume we have the intelligence, tools and reasons to question whether reality is true. Perhaps we do not.

An infinite number of different game rules always was possible. I don't think there was ever any intrinsic reason that chess could not some day appear, so it always was there as a possibility. Chess was what we named one of the infinite number of games possible. The same thing applies to languages. There have always been infinite kinds of languages possible. The language which came into use was that which was consistent with our ordered reality.

Why I even care: It is a way to both exist and not to, which for some purposes (my feelings) is better than no explanation at all. Here we are, impossibly, all existing it appears. It makes no sense for things to simply be. Why isn't there just emptiness? Its a reasonable question, philosophically. Scientifically, no, because Science is formed to avoid any scrap of possible superstition, to use the physical world to guide all of its researches.

The number 2 is part of our way of talking about order, but perhaps the potential for order always was and did not appear as a result of separate objects appearing. This matters not because of some afterlife wish but because "potential to be something" is a possible explanation for our own existence. It feels right.

That does not mean that Science cannot contradict a philosophical idea. Sometimes it can, even though it has not got a relevant hypothesis. One scientific obstacle to the idea of '2 exists' is chaos. For example in Physics we can see something like chaos at the quantum realm, although we don't know for sure if its absolute chaos or merely the appearance of randomness. Absolute chaos undermines the feeling that the universe is orderly, which undermineschallenges the idea that our reality is one of all possible arrangments of order.

Returning to the comment about dichotomies, I admit that a lot of false dichotomies have caused many problems. I think that an important dichotomy to avoid is that scientists be barred from having extra-scientific thoughts lest they cease to be scientists. That is not a true dichotomy. When they step away from the Science they can have other thoughts. They should only practice science, and they should be careful not to confuse people by confusing two things and not take authoritative positions on topics they aren't trained in. If a scientist wants to believe this or that, they can provided its kept separate from their work. This is what peer review helps with or ought to. Sometimes Science is tainted with nonscience, and I am pleased that you refuse to combine science with non-science. Even if you don't support this idea of '2 exists'.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The atheist falls prey to a type of logic that resides in reality and believes all is physical.

Please do not be deceived by the world around you. It is an illusion. Although it appears genuine. Only the spiritual realm is the real one..

Mmm .. that about sums it up.

Einstein is reported to have said:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."​

Naturally, people will claim that he means 'this', or he means 'that' .. but as far as I understand,
the context was his views on time and relativity.

 

[Polymath257]

..but it really isn't !
That type of authority is only human authority.

The ultimate authority is G-d. We don't need priests or imams to believe in G-d.
We are free to believe anything we like about G-d.

But somehow it is always communicated through humans. And enforced by humans.

 

[Polymath257]

The thing is, I have an illustrated encyclopedia on Quantum Mechanics called the Quantum Physics Bible. It gives bite-sized explanations on Quantum Mechanics. By its complexity and detail I have determined its validity. Have you ever personally witnessed the double slit experiment? If so you would know that single photons build up a wave pattern on the detection screen and this wavefunction collapses when they are being observed or detected. As exemplified by the title "Look and it goes away".

Consciousness has nothing to do with this collapse. Instead, it has to do with the *interaction* with the electrons that is necessary to determine 'which slit' information. It is that information, not consciousness, that collapses the wave function.

The atheist falls prey to a type of logic that resides in reality and believes all is physical.

And what else do you suggest?

Please do not be deceived by the world around you. It is an illusion. Although it appears genuine. Only the spiritual realm is the real one. I can speak with authority on this as I have had a number of spiritual experiences as well as I have written a number of logical proofs to back up my claims.

Death is an illusion of change.

All claims. But claims with no evidence to back them up. The reality of the world is part of the *definition* of the word 'real'.

Please show a spiritual world exists at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Object? No.
Concept? Yes.

Concepts only exist in minds. They have no independent existence.

If the concept did not exist, we would not be able to communicate about what 2 items represents.
We would not understand each other.

We have the concept of counting, which is different than the concept of 2.

 

[Polymath257]

My logic is undefeated by anyone before me.

Only because you ignore any refutation.

 

[Polymath257]

How useful then, that I have already defined what existence means to me:
5 Planes of Existence

So the actual question is which of these only exist in our minds and which are independent of them. As far as I can see, only 1 exists outside of our minds.

 

[Polymath257]

An infinite number of different game rules always was possible. I don't think there was ever any intrinsic reason that chess could not some day appear, so it always was there as a possibility. Chess was what we named one of the infinite number of games possible. The same thing applies to languages. There have always been infinite kinds of languages possible. The language which came into use was that which was consistent with our ordered reality.

So would you say that the English language was discovered? That seems very implausible to me.

Why I even care: It is a way to both exist and not to, which for some purposes (my feelings) is better than no explanation at all. Here we are, impossibly, all existing it appears. It makes no sense for things to simply be. Why isn't there just emptiness? Its a reasonable question, philosophically. Scientifically, no, because Science is formed to avoid any scrap of possible superstition, to use the physical world to guide all of its researches.

I actually don't think it is a reasonable question. Among other things, it assumes that causality makes sense even in the context where nothing exists. I don't see it that way. I see causality (reasons for existing) as being dependent on physical laws and thereby on the universe.

If there is no causality, and thereby no 'why', then 'simply existing' seems the most reasonable position.

The number 2 is part of our way of talking about order, but perhaps the potential for order always was and did not appear as a result of separate objects appearing. This matters not because of some afterlife wish but because "potential to be something" is a possible explanation for our own existence. It feels right.

I've never like that notion of 'possible existence': a thing either exists or it doesn't.

That does not mean that Science cannot contradict a philosophical idea. Sometimes it can, even though it has not got a relevant hypothesis. One scientific obstacle to the idea of '2 exists' is chaos. For example in Physics we can see something like chaos at the quantum realm, although we don't know for sure if its absolute chaos or merely the appearance of randomness. Absolute chaos undermines the feeling that the universe is orderly, which undermineschallenges the idea that our reality is one of all possible arrangments of order.

We know that there can be no 'hidden variables' to explain what we see at the quantum level. So, at least in that sense, the 'chaos' is 'absolute'.

Realism, in the sense of things having definite properties at all times, is simply false at the quantum level.

Returning to the comment about dichotomies, I admit that a lot of false dichotomies have caused many problems. I think that an important dichotomy to avoid is that scientists be barred from having extra-scientific thoughts lest they cease to be scientists. That is not a true dichotomy. When they step away from the Science they can have other thoughts. They should only practice science, and they should be careful not to confuse people by confusing two things and not take authoritative positions on topics they aren't trained in. If a scientist wants to believe this or that, they can provided its kept separate from their work. This is what peer review helps with or ought to. Sometimes Science is tainted with nonscience, and I am pleased that you refuse to combine science with non-science. Even if you don't support this idea of '2 exists'.

Certainly. Having the goal be a search for truth does not mean one won't have opinions, both about the search itself and of other things, like art, music, and tomatoes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Concepts only exist in minds. They have no independent existence.

..and billions of minds just happen to understand the same concept, but it is not real?
Makes little sense..

 

[Alien826]

My logic is undefeated by anyone before me.

 

[Alien826]

So would you say that the English language was discovered? That seems very implausible to me.

Could animal communication (of which the English language is a subset) have been discovered, in a sense? At some point (several points I'm sure) in the evolutionary process communication was "found" to be a survival advantage.

 

[Polymath257]

..and billions of minds just happen to understand the same concept, but it is not real?
Makes little sense..

Everyone understands the concept of a unicorn. But unicorns are not real: they exist only in our minds. In fact, they exist only as concepts and those concepts are in our minds. That is what it means to be 'not real' as far as I can see.

Does the concept of a unicorn exist independent of our minds? If we all suddenly disappeared, would the concept still exist? I would say not. Like other concepts, the concept of a unicorn only exists in our minds.

So, let's adopt a meaning for the term 'real' to be that the subject exists independent of our minds: if all minds disappeared, so would the subject.

In this sense, no concept is 'real': all would go away if there were no minds to think them.

 

[Polymath257]

Could animal communication (of which the English language is a subset) have been discovered, in a sense? At some point (several points I'm sure) in the evolutionary process communication was "found" to be a survival advantage.

I would not say that we discovered English, or any other language. Instead, we found that sounds can carry information (a 'discovery' going back long before language) and invented ways to make sounds to allow information transfer.

This is another aspect of the discover/invent dichotomy: do we invent a car or do we discover how to build a machine for moving around?

 

[Alien826]

I would not say that we discovered English, or any other language. Instead, we found that sounds can carry information (a 'discovery' going back long before language) and invented ways to make sounds to allow information transfer.

This is another aspect of the discover/invent dichotomy: do we invent a car or do we discover how to build a machine for moving around?

I wasn't suggesting that English was discovered fully formed. I just had the thought that there might be an element of discovery embedded there somewhere. Looking at the evolution (lower case "e") of language, where did the discovery end and the invention begin? Ugh the caveman wants to draw his friend Ugh Ugh's attention to something. He has observed that he can get Ugh Ugh's attention by making a grunting noise and that Ugh Ugh will look in the direction of a pointing finger. So he does both and gets the desired result. Discovery or invention? And language advanced as more sophisticated grunts were ... what? Discovered? Invented?

 

[Polymath257]

I wasn't suggesting that English was discovered fully formed. I just had the thought that there might be an element of discovery embedded there somewhere. Looking at the evolution (lower case "e") of language, where did the discovery end and the invention begin? Ugh the caveman wants to draw his friend Ugh Ugh's attention to something. He has observed that he can get Ugh Ugh's attention by making a grunting noise and that Ugh Ugh will look in the direction of a pointing finger. So he does both and gets the desired result. Discovery or invention? And language advanced as more sophisticated grunts were ... what? Discovered? Invented?

My dog has 'discovered' that grunting at me will remind me to get her dinner. But I would say she invented the specific sound she makes.

I think that we discovered that sound can carry information and invented the specific sounds to be used for that purpose.

 

[Heyo]

So the actual question is which of these only exist in our minds and which are independent of them. As far as I can see, only 1 exists outside of our minds.

The question that has to be answered first is if there is a difference between ideals and constructs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, let's adopt a meaning for the term 'real' to be that the subject exists independent of our minds: if all minds disappeared, so would the subject.

No .. that assumes that minds are nothing more than neurons firing.
..and you reply .. do you have any evidence to the contrary?

..and round we go .. do you have evidence that minds are nothing more than neurons firing?
Of course you don't !
You can only assume.

In this sense, no concept is 'real': all would go away if there were no minds to think them.

Pure assumption .. which I do not agree with, naturally.

I believe in the unseen, and have less faith in mankind's limited knowledge than you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I would say she invented the specific sound she makes.

I wouldn't .. I would say that it is "in her nature".

 

[Alien826]

No .. that assumes that minds are nothing more than neurons firing.
..and you reply .. do you have any evidence to the contrary?

..and round we go .. do you have evidence that minds are nothing more than neurons firing?
Of course you don't !
You can only assume.

He may not have specific evidence that minds are no more than neurons firing, but he doesn't need any. All he needs is a lack of evidence for something else. It's an assumption of course, like (say) you have a bucket containing apples. Nobody has ever found anything but apples in the bucket, so the most likely assumption is that there are no oranges in the bucket. You claim that there is a secret compartment in the bucket that contains oranges. If you think so, then show us the compartment and the oranges.

I think it's fair to say (I'm not suggesting it) that neurons don't seem to be enough to produce a mind, but without evidence of either another cause, or a demonstration that neurons cannot produce some quality that the mind has, we are stuck with the neurons I'm afraid, at least for now.