Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Why does mathematics works?

  1. Top | #41
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,242
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,904
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Of course he knows it. That’s not outlandish in the slightest. He drove to work, and he did so in an automobile (drove, not worked). He worked in the building, and the building is over a hundred years old. What’s not to know? Okay, so let’s say it’s not true the building is over 100 years old and is only a tad over 99. So what, he got that wrong! He thought he knew and didn’t; assuming it’s under 100 years old, it’s not like he knew and then didn’t. He never knew in the first place!

    But what about the rest? If it’s true that he drove in an automobile, then his highly justified belief with no contravening evidence, what’s so scary to an admission that doesn’t merely believe but in fact knows? Because HIS BRAIN doesn’t have direct tactile observatory powers and CAN ONLY detect some model-like mentally internal percept of what MIGHT be a distortion of what’s out there in the world? Silly. Silly, silly, silly.
    I'm sorry you still can't understand this. I've explained this in detail over the years, going back more than ten years, and there is no question that I am right. The only thing you can possibly know is literally your own mind. You can believe that your impression of reality is reality itself, or you can believe that it is a model of reality. Both are fine but whether what you believe or the model you know is like the reality you don't is a vacuous question.

    You are behaving like a child who doesn't want his toy taken away. I know, I know, yes I do!!! LOL, this is pathetic to the last. There's nothing to be discussed that I didn't already explained several times. Those who don't understand don't because they don't want to understand. You have no argument. You're down to making brute assertions only justified by your own ideology. You can keep believing what you pretend to believe but what I say is as old as Plato's metaphor of the cave. You're just stuck in prehistorical time when people thought they saw reality as it was.

    People make fun of Trump but you are behaving like him: make-believe in lieu of rational thinking.

    99.99% of people are like you, which is why we need philosophy to begin with unless we prefer to get stuck in prehistorical times. You want to be able to claim you know the real world and you can't even face the obvious reality that you don't know the material world.

    Again, I don't remember you ever arguing anything. All you can do is repeat your dogma and indulge in fluffy comments which are neither here nor there.

    I thought most people were reasonable. I've realised over the years most people are not. Free thought? My ass. You're all stuck in dogma up to your eyeballs and a rational debate is the last thing you want.

    Now I have to pee.
    EB

  2. Top | #42
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,275
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Now I have to pee.
    And this is coming from someone who doesn’t know he has to pee.

    Purportedly


    If you pick up a ball (oh say, off the ground), then if your brain and central nervous system (whatever you think makes you, you) never comes into contact with the ball, then have you really picked up the ball? Yes! Because you are more than (more than!) just that part of you that you think makes you, you.

    When I speak of knowing things, I’m talking about people, not their internal workings. Brains don’t know crap anymore than eyes can see. People see. People walk. People hear, smell, taste and duck for cover. Just like a clock cannot display time if there were no internal workings, people couldn’t do anything without some vital internal workings, but people sense the world around them. Learning of the internal workings just goes to show HOW we do the very things WE (the people) do.

    When you say we are only privy to what’s in our minds, you are forsaking the big picture for the internal process. Part of how we even come to believe things hinges on our ability to sense (with our senses) the world around us. Did you pee in a toilet? How did you come to believe that? Look out, not inward. Did you see the toilet? Please, for the love of pasta that flies, don’t speak of the brain and any models it perceives. Did YOU (the person) see where you went to pee?

    This conversation is reminiscent of some science guy who has learned how the internal process of vision works and suddenly thinks the common everyday folks really don’t see things. Well, we do see things, and we do a hell of a lot more than just believe things. We know things, and YOU should know whether you actually went to pee or not.

    And don’t bring me that philosophical jive about caves. That’s a completely different issue that only muddies the waters. It’s what philosophical newbies do when they take an idea to their extremes. Philosophical certainty is so far removed from common everyday knowledge that it’s preposterous to conflate them.

  3. Top | #43
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,242
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,904
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Now I have to pee.
    And this is coming from someone who doesn’t know he has to pee.
    What I know is my impression that I have to pee. Whether I really have to is anybody's guess. Wait for when you start to loose your marbles and try to remember what I told you.

    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    If you pick up a ball (oh say, off the ground), then if your brain and central nervous system (whatever you think makes you, you) never comes into contact with the ball, then have you really picked up the ball? Yes! Because you are more than (more than!) just that part of you that you think makes you, you.

    When I speak of knowing things, I’m talking about people, not their internal workings. Brains don’t know crap anymore than eyes can see. People see. People walk. People hear, smell, taste and duck for cover. Just like a clock cannot display time if there were no internal workings, people couldn’t do anything without some vital internal workings, but people sense the world around them. Learning of the internal workings just goes to show HOW we do the very things WE (the people) do.

    When you say we are only privy to what’s in our minds, you are forsaking the big picture for the internal process. Part of how we even come to believe things hinges on our ability to sense (with our senses) the world around us. Did you pee in a toilet? How did you come to believe that? Look out, not inward. Did you see the toilet? Please, for the love of pasta that flies, don’t speak of the brain and any models it perceives. Did YOU (the person) see where you went to pee?

    This conversation is reminiscent of some science guy who has learned how the internal process of vision works and suddenly thinks the common everyday folks really don’t see things. Well, we do see things, and we do a hell of a lot more than just believe things. We know things, and YOU should know whether you actually went to pee or not.

    And don’t bring me that philosophical jive about caves. That’s a completely different issue that only muddies the waters. It’s what philosophical newbies do when they take an idea to their extremes. Philosophical certainty is so far removed from common everyday knowledge that it’s preposterous to conflate them.
    Where are the arguments? You are forever rehashing your belief. You never articulate rational arguments. You are like the old chap who can only mumble "I know what I know". Yeah, sure.

    As to the question of the person v. the internal workings, I already commented on that but you failed to reply. You're rather too selective here. You should know you can't articulate anything like a consistent description of the facts if you restrict yourself to the "person". And if you don't, then you can't articulate the relation between internal workings and the person. Even science can't do it for God sake! The last time you tried it, you failed of course. I told you so, but you failed to reply. You're too selective here.
    EB

  4. Top | #44
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,275
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    60
    You should know you can't articulate anything like a consistent description of the facts if you restrict yourself to the "person".
    What the hell does that mean?

    A thing that is apart of something else is not the something else.
    A brain is a thing that is apart of something else (the person).
    Therefore, <signaling conclusion to argument>
    A brain is not a person

    You believe you’re picking up a ball. Your brain doesn’t belive anything. Brains don’t even think. People think. People use their brain to think. Worded differently, brains function allowing people to think. Therefore (just to let you know there’s an argument in here somewhere), no matter what model manifests, if it represents reality, then it’s you (not some brain that can access only some model) believes you’re picking up a ball. If it doesn’t model reality, then Houston, you have a problem and will only believe in accordance to what is filtered through your brain.

    Now, does the model represent reality? Who gives a donkey’s behind! You have a belief, and you have justification. Leaving out Gettier type situations for now, the only thing left is NOT whether you know the truth condition is met. You don’t need to know that. It just has to BE THE CASE that it’s met. IF (IF IF IF) the conditions are met, THEN (THEN THEN THEN) the conditions are met; trivially true—no argument required.

    PS; math works to describe the universe because it’s the language capable of addressing the fact the universe and it’s parts can be expressed mathematically. It’s a perfect fit. Like a tight pair of jeans on a young hot lass.

  5. Top | #45
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,945
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,158
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    It’s a perfect fit. Like a tight pair of jeans on a young hot lass.
    Yeah. I think he's too cute by half too.

  6. Top | #46
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    Mathematics 'works' because mathematicians need to earn a living.

  7. Top | #47
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,945
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,158
    Rep Power
    53
    Actually what works best for mathematicians is employment in financial markets.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •