|
Doodsrsly (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
(3) who's ever read higher text on mathematics, these higher branches simply deal with the concept of relationships, and mappings between abstract objects.
Reality is TANGIBLE, and EXTRINSIC.
That being said, I'd like to mention a quote I once read. I can't remember the philosophers, but I remember the argument.
One of them was a skeptic, and speculated that all reality was simply his imagination. The other philosopher replied, "I refute it, thus." and kicked a rock.
Doodsrsly (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
(2) Further-more, the nature of reality is well beyond the scope of human language and bounded, tautological systems. Mathematics, while beautiful, majestic, and awe-inspiring, is merely a description, or prescription of human thought upon reality. Numbers are not inherent in nature. Differential equations are not tangible things. No; these things are, themselves, simply a more accurate linguistic representation of reality. They are symbolic of all forms of length and magnitude, and for anyone
Doodsrsly (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
(1) Regarding the discussion below about a dichotomy between scientific investigation, and scientific interpretation; Science is based off of measurability and statistical trends. A scientist does not say linguistically speaking on a fundamental level, when he makes a measurement,, "What is a measurement?". He may take into account that his measurement can disturb his accuracy, but this can be reconciled through multiple testing and has nothing to do with the metaphysical aspect of measurement.
bahramf (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
There is no progress in analytic philosophy by definition.
damage9000 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I think there is someone like you in every period. The thought expressing an inability to conceive any future progress in a discipline indicates a deficit of creativity and patience.
0011010001 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
maths? 0.9=1?
no way dude
PointedSphere (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Induction is a mode of inference, and I don't understand what you mean by "justified as long as you have a certain set of objects".
How do we know deduction works? It has worked in the past, should work in the future too. How do we know induction works? You cannot rely on deduction here, because it supervenes upon induction's justification. And you cannot justify induction via induction, as that's question begging.
Science, nor math, nor formal logic can help here - they are what's at stake.
sajlovesam (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
nothing mysterious here!
sajlovesam (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
both of arisen problems have answer in logical context. Interpretation refers to the proof theory in which you use some elementary rules for deduction. and induction is justified as long as you have a certain set of objects. for both to be meaningful, we must first choose the world, the objects of which are discussed and a collection of axioms!
PointedSphere (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Two philosophical problems (at least) arise: Scientists perform tests and gain results via their instruments.
1) Data does not speak for itself; results must be interpreted. (What is the nature of interpretation?)
What evidence does a scientist have to justify their interpretation? They could say, the world has mathematical/logical structure. But how do they justify that? Induction.
2) But how is induction justified? (Cf. Hume)
Without answering these questions, science remains ungrounded. |
