Does Math Exist Independent of Our Minds?

[blü 2]

Yet the shapes we are speaking of are not as subjective as a park. We are talking about definitive structures that exist. While you can widen or narrow the frame of reference, we are discussing distinct objects, where those distinctions hold relevance.

No matter how much you widen or narrow the frame a molecule remains distinct from those surrounding it. That molecule has a definitive structure that is a shape.

That's not quite right ─ molecules hang together in many particular situations ─ but I see what you mean. One difference is that our understanding of molecules is derived from our sensory perception of our education, rather than directly of the molecules themselves.

But I'm not sure that I've understood the point you're making. Not only can we widen or narrow the sensory field of relevance depending on our intention / purpose, but no matter what our sensory input is, we gather its meaning relevant to us by interpretation ─ or we pay it no attention, just edit it out, like the other conversations in the room when we're at a party, or the seats in front of us when we're watching a movie. Even when we sleep, we can respond to particular sensory cues, waking up or occasionally incorporating them into dreams.

 

[Curious George]

That's not quite right ─ molecules hang together in many particular situations ─ but I see what you mean. One difference is that our understanding of molecules is derived from our sensory perception of our education, rather than directly of the molecules themselves.

But I'm not sure that I've understood the point you're making. Not only can we widen or narrow the sensory field of relevance depending on our intention / purpose, but no matter what our sensory input is, we gather its meaning relevant to us by interpretation ─ or we pay it no attention, just edit it out, like the other conversations in the room when we're at a party, or the seats in front of us when we're watching a movie. Even when we sleep, we can respond to particular sensory cues, waking up or occasionally incorporating them into dreams.

The point is that regardless of how we widen or narrow our frame of reference a particular molecule will have a particular shape. This shape gives the molecule particular properties that would be present whether or not a mind was there to comprehend the shape. Indeed, our minds are arguably here because of this fact. The molecules amd their shapes care naught about human perspective and frame of reference.

 

[blü 2]

The point is that regardless of how we widen or narrow our frame of reference a particular molecule will have a particular shape. This shape gives the molecule particular properties that would be present whether or not a mind was there to comprehend the shape. Indeed, our minds are arguably here because of this fact. The molecules amd their shapes care naught about human perspective and frame of reference.

The brain continuously monitors sensory input, filtering it for relevance (a criterion that's likely to differ from brain to brain). While I'd continue to argue about how we perceive molecules as such, I agree that objective reality is out there. Meanwhile the question of the interpretation of eg perceived shape is one which the brain constantly deals with.

 

[PureX]

So atoms bond differently when people are not around?

How they bond is not a "shape".

 

[Curious George]

How they bond is not a "shape".

Sure it is. It is a structure, structures are shapes.

 

[PureX]

Sure it is. It is a structure, structures are shapes.

Well, I will leave you to your ignorance. You clearly intent to maintain it.

 

[Polymath257]

How they bond is not a "shape".

Yes, how they bond *is* a shape. Atoms often bind together in very specific orientations. For example, the hydrogen atoms in water bind at an angle of 104 degrees apart. The two oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide bind along a straight line.

Longer molecules like proteins will spontaneously fold into complex structures by turning arouns some of their bonds so as to minimize total energy.

So, yes, how the atoms bond *does* produce the shapes.

 

[Nous]

And if you are talking to a convinced creationist living in a virtual reality kinda hard to get through to a religious fanatic now isnt it? We see the world as we see it. The model is not reality its bozo and mickey mouse very accurately rendered thats an emperical fact or pandora is real. Ok you are right pandora is real and exists.

I'm thinking you've probably never actually formulated a valid and sound argument. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with a lot of modern philosophers. That's why I gave you references to some of the intelligent philosophers who have stated actual arguments, where they have drawn a valid deduction from true propositions.

 

[PureX]

Yes, how they bond *is* a shape. Atoms often bind together in very specific orientations. For example, the hydrogen atoms in water bind at an angle of 104 degrees apart. The two oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide bind along a straight line.

Longer molecules like proteins will spontaneously fold into complex structures by turning around some of their bonds so as to minimize total energy.

So, yes, how the atoms bond *does* produce the shapes.

These orientations are only "shapes" in the minds of those who ascribe shape to orientation. Like looking at the stars and seeing representational configurations.

 

[atanu]

Sorry, but Platonism isn't very convincing to me. In fact, from what i can see, Platonism is one of the fundamental mistakes of western philosophy. I prefer Hume.

WHAT are the key differences between Platonism and Hume-ism?

 

[Revoltingest]

These orientations are only "shapes" in the minds of those who ascribe shape to orientation. Like looking at the stars and seeing representational configurations.

That is different from seeing the shapes created.
It's to make analogues. Could be called "art".

 

[David T]

I'm thinking you've probably never actually formulated a valid and sound argument. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with a lot of modern philosophers. That's why I gave you references to some of the intelligent philosophers who have stated actual arguments, where they have drawn a valid deduction from true propositions.

Indeed i have!! ! i know what is objective you have zero clue. Math most absolutely is not. I mean i guess i could frame a whole statement that would lead you to believe what you are saying makes sense i can do that. What you cant possibly do is understand what actually is objective. I am the sociopath in regards to other people in perceptions.

 

[Curious George]

Well, I will leave you to your ignorance. You clearly intent to maintain it.

That is certainly not helpful.

 

[Skwim]

A bit late to the math party here, but I feel everyone can benefit from my wisdom.

In the universe there exists relationships between quantities. Mathematics is simply the expression of these relationships.

Okay, where's the cake and ice cream? Ah ha . . . . . .

.

.

 

[1137]

I mean, mathematical platonism seems pretty obviously true and is well accepted. Before there were minds there were quantities of things interacting to the best of our knowledge. If I have 3 balls and we change the word for that quantity to "seventeen" I still am holding the same quantity of balls.

 

[blü 2]

If I have 3 balls and we change the word for that quantity to "seventeen" I still am holding the same quantity of balls.

Yes indeed.

But to say that, you have to impose a set of conditions which otherwise don't exist ─ first, that we're talking about balls, and second, that our interest is limited only to those balls you happen to be holding at the particular time. Otherwise there's no category whose elements are for counting, and no definition of the field containing what's to be counted.

 

[PureX]

That is different from seeing the shapes created.
It's to make analogues. Could be called "art".

And we all know that art happens in the eyes of the beholder. Art does not occur outside the human mind. And neither does mathematics, or morality, or 'meaning and purpose'. Because these are the products of human reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

And we all know that art happens in the eyes of the beholder. Art does not occur outside the human mind. And neither does mathematics, or morality, or 'meaning and purpose'. Because these are the products of human reason.

Rather than solely being the product of reason,
math is also waiting there for us to discover it.
Thus, it comprises structures which exist largely
independently of us.

 

[PureX]

A bit late to the math party here, but I feel everyone can benefit from my wisdom.

In the universe there exists relationships between quantities. Mathematics is simply the expression of these relationships.

But you haven't addressed the real issue. The "quantities" of which you speak only exist as differentiations in the human mind's perception of existence.

 

[PureX]

Rather than solely being the product of reason,
math is also waiting there for us to discover it.

...To "discover it" within ourselves. Yes. Within the machinations of our own minds.

Thus, it comprises structures which exist largely independently of us.

It "comprises" nothing. Any more than "blue" comprises the sky.