FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Was mathematics
Was mathematics
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Invented or discovered?" Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. | |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there." Good point but i still hate maths.  | |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there." that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. | |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. " What does one pterodactyl plus 3 pterodactyls make?  | |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. What does one pterodactyl plus 3 pterodactyls make? "a scary picnic! | |||
| |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. What does one pterodactyl plus 3 pterodactyls make? a scary picnic! "True but mathematics was still around then before man. To invent something it has to have not previously existed. We invented the electric light bulb we discovered electricity. | |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. What does one pterodactyl plus 3 pterodactyls make? a scary picnic!
True but mathematics was still around then before man. To invent something it has to have not previously existed.
We invented the electric light bulb we discovered electricity. "But did we? Electricity has been around in nature for eons, lightening, electric eels etc and lighting as a hunting/defence mechanism in sea creatures the same bioluminescent lighting | |||
| |||
| |||
"Invented by Eve to work out how much to charge Adam " Or Adam to impress Eve | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. " The Indians I believe... | |||
| |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. What does one pterodactyl plus 3 pterodactyls make? a scary picnic!
True but mathematics was still around then before man. To invent something it has to have not previously existed.
We invented the electric light bulb we discovered electricity.
But did we? Electricity has been around in nature for eons, lightening, electric eels etc and lighting as a hunting/defence mechanism in sea creatures the same bioluminescent lighting "Lol, that's the point of the reply you quoted, so it was discovered, the inventive part is making it work for us. | |||
| |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. " I heard zero was invented in India. | |||
| |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. What does one pterodactyl plus 3 pterodactyls make? a scary picnic!
True but mathematics was still around then before man. To invent something it has to have not previously existed.
We invented the electric light bulb we discovered electricity. "We invented electricity, or rather, artificially harnessed it before we invented a use for it. | |||
"Invented or discovered? Thats easy it was discovered if we didn't know about it it would still be there. that’s funniness because I thought it was invented. The Saudis (or was it the Egyptians?) invented the number zero. I heard zero was invented in India." I said India. I just spelled it wrong. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Invented or discovered?" Did you watch the programme last night on BBC4 with Hannah Fry? My head was hurting by the end of it. | |||
"Invented or discovered?" Like oxygen or fundamental particles Mathematics is discovered , yet needs to be understood of which methods are invented xxx I love maths | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Mathenmatics started as geometry. Algebra came about half a century later. FYI." Pretty sure algebra didn't rock up (in a codified, recorded sense) until the Islamic Golden Age...so we're talking what - 1300s or so? Think geometry and maths was around a bit before that? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Mathematics is derived from a Greek word that was changed by latin and then old French." Was his name Matheus ? | |||
| |||
"I think it was just Mat." Don't sound very Greek or French though just DULL . I'll get my coat | |||
| |||
"Can't believe I just said all that next to a pic of my knob." You're one of the few posters that has the self awareness to see the humour in that | |||
 | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain " It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths | |||
| |||
"Invented or discovered?" invented | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths " Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post "I'd suggest semantic nonsense Try that view point with a triangle or circle And simply replace the word goat with the word something From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both "Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun "By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
"You're not really getting me. But that's ok. I'm saying that a unique and particular hue exists out in the world beyond us. But that "orange" is entirely a human concept. Maths doesn't work on the level of unique and particular hues. It operates solely on the level of "orange" thinking | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
You're not really getting me. But that's ok. I'm saying that a unique and particular hue exists out in the world beyond us. But that "orange" is entirely a human concept. Maths doesn't work on the level of unique and particular hues. It operates solely on the level of "orange" thinking "Prove that statement I'm saying that maths exists beyond your colour spectrum whatever the hue maths is the glue | |||
"Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both " Zero is not a number, it's an absence of a number. Try explaining that concept to any of the 10 missing goats that Lib has suspicious knowledge of... I blame the werewolf, after every full moon I look out into my garden and notice the absence of goats... coincidence? As I said earlier maths doesn't actually exist, it's just the finite imagination of humans who need to quantify perceptions my measure and scale. A yurt is as impressive a design as a pyramid, and pre-date them by a geological day or 3, but so is a honeycomb and never yet seen a bee at a chalk board working it out. | |||
"Prove that statement I'm saying that maths exists beyond your colour spectrum whatever the hue maths is the glue " As above, does the bee do maths? In actual fact the need to categorise and quantify that drove to the invention of sums is probably down to taxation. | |||
| |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain " Total bullshit! Dolphins are able to do mathematics so if you can get something so simple wrong you loose credibility on any other points made. | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
You're not really getting me. But that's ok. I'm saying that a unique and particular hue exists out in the world beyond us. But that "orange" is entirely a human concept. Maths doesn't work on the level of unique and particular hues. It operates solely on the level of "orange" thinking
Prove that statement
I'm saying that maths exists beyond your colour spectrum whatever the hue maths is the glue
"Prove your statement. Since you can't, neither can be the default hypothesis | |||
| |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
"That doesn't seem to me what he's saying. He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds. If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist. | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist. " | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist.
"It's actually the great medieval nominalists v realists debate. I am surprised to see you in the nominalist camp. | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist. "Humans are not the only creatures than can do mathematical calculations. I would suggest all creatures with a complex mind and nervous system can make calculations either consciously or subconsciously. They may not be able to articulate their understanding but that does not detract from the facts that animals have been proven to be able to count and some solve simple numerical equations. | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist.
Humans are not the only creatures than can do mathematical calculations.
I would suggest all creatures with a complex mind and nervous system can make calculations either consciously or subconsciously.
They may not be able to articulate their understanding but that does not detract from the facts that animals have been proven to be able to count and some solve simple numerical equations."It is an interesting one. I suppose in the age of the dinosaurs all one can logically say existed as a consistent nominalist is something. You can't logically even say dinosaurs existed as "dinosaur" is a concept invented by humans to describe certain things. And when humans didn't exist there was no one to come up with the concept. | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist.
Humans are not the only creatures than can do mathematical calculations.
I would suggest all creatures with a complex mind and nervous system can make calculations either consciously or subconsciously.
They may not be able to articulate their understanding but that does not detract from the facts that animals have been proven to be able to count and some solve simple numerical equations."I have no doubt that some animals succeed in completing puzzle like tasks set by humans. I have no doubt that some animals can count. I don't see why they shouldn't. But neither equate to an argument that maths exists outside the mind, be it human or animal, or prove that animal maths would be in any way anything similar to ours | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist.
Humans are not the only creatures than can do mathematical calculations.
I would suggest all creatures with a complex mind and nervous system can make calculations either consciously or subconsciously.
They may not be able to articulate their understanding but that does not detract from the facts that animals have been proven to be able to count and some solve simple numerical equations.
I have no doubt that some animals succeed in completing puzzle like tasks set by humans. I have no doubt that some animals can count. I don't see why they shouldn't. But neither equate to an argument that maths exists outside the mind, be it human or animal, or prove that animal maths would be in any way anything similar to ours "A point. Given. "dinosaur" is as much a universal organising concept dreamed up by humans as. "shape", in the Triassic period, given there were no human minds around then, would it be correct to say dinosaurs didn't exist then? | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist.
Humans are not the only creatures than can do mathematical calculations.
I would suggest all creatures with a complex mind and nervous system can make calculations either consciously or subconsciously.
They may not be able to articulate their understanding but that does not detract from the facts that animals have been proven to be able to count and some solve simple numerical equations.
I have no doubt that some animals succeed in completing puzzle like tasks set by humans. I have no doubt that some animals can count. I don't see why they shouldn't. But neither equate to an argument that maths exists outside the mind, be it human or animal, or prove that animal maths would be in any way anything similar to ours
A point. Given. "dinosaur" is as much a universal organising concept dreamed up by humans as. "shape", in the Triassic period, given there were no human minds around then, would it be correct to say dinosaurs didn't exist then? "Of course. Since, in the context of this argument, dolphins don't even exist now, why would an extinct animal which pre existed humanity be any different? Indeed, some dinosaurs, known to us only through a few bones, are quite obviously works of fiction far beyond the confines of the point I'm making here. Not only did they not exist as "dinosaurs" but they probably didn't exist in the way we think of them at all | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist.
Humans are not the only creatures than can do mathematical calculations.
I would suggest all creatures with a complex mind and nervous system can make calculations either consciously or subconsciously.
They may not be able to articulate their understanding but that does not detract from the facts that animals have been proven to be able to count and some solve simple numerical equations.
I have no doubt that some animals succeed in completing puzzle like tasks set by humans. I have no doubt that some animals can count. I don't see why they shouldn't. But neither equate to an argument that maths exists outside the mind, be it human or animal, or prove that animal maths would be in any way anything similar to ours
A point. Given. "dinosaur" is as much a universal organising concept dreamed up by humans as. "shape", in the Triassic period, given there were no human minds around then, would it be correct to say dinosaurs didn't exist then?
Of course. Since, in the context of this argument, dolphins don't even exist now, why would an extinct animal which pre existed humanity be any different? Indeed, some dinosaurs, known to us only through a few bones, are quite obviously works of fiction far beyond the confines of the point I'm making here. Not only did they not exist as "dinosaurs" but they probably didn't exist in the way we think of them at all "Your playing philosophical semantics again Either you are accepting things , regardless of their human given name pre existed humans Or you are saying things only exist as a construct of the mind | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist.
Humans are not the only creatures than can do mathematical calculations.
I would suggest all creatures with a complex mind and nervous system can make calculations either consciously or subconsciously.
They may not be able to articulate their understanding but that does not detract from the facts that animals have been proven to be able to count and some solve simple numerical equations.
I have no doubt that some animals succeed in completing puzzle like tasks set by humans. I have no doubt that some animals can count. I don't see why they shouldn't. But neither equate to an argument that maths exists outside the mind, be it human or animal, or prove that animal maths would be in any way anything similar to ours
A point. Given. "dinosaur" is as much a universal organising concept dreamed up by humans as. "shape", in the Triassic period, given there were no human minds around then, would it be correct to say dinosaurs didn't exist then?
Of course. Since, in the context of this argument, dolphins don't even exist now, why would an extinct animal which pre existed humanity be any different? Indeed, some dinosaurs, known to us only through a few bones, are quite obviously works of fiction far beyond the confines of the point I'm making here. Not only did they not exist as "dinosaurs" but they probably didn't exist in the way we think of them at all "My point is, we can say the concept "dolphin" exists now at the very least as an organising concept in the human mind. In a time when no human minds existed, are we not driven to say that it's impossible to say anything at all existed. Sea, land, air, sky or whatever, given all of them are concepts invented by humans. All we can say is that something existed, but it's impossible to say that thing x existed as sea and thing y existed as land. That seems to me consistent with a thorough going nominalism and also rather absurd. Surely we want to say land and sea existed even when there were no human beings around to observe them. (I suppose you can get round this to an extent that saying that objects human beings now distinguish as sea and land existed then, but no one was around to distinguish them. If we go down that route, are we not then forced to say that the concept we now call number existed, even if there were no humans around to formulate the concept). | |||
"Invented. Maths doesn't exist outside the human brain It does but you have been convinced it is a phenomenon called god Ratios and algorithms exist whether the human brain understands them or not If triangles and circles exist without humans existing , then so does maths Maths is based on the abstract awareness of the relations between certain abstract things when seen from a certain perspective. Take that awareness, ability to abstract, and perspective away and none of what it refers to remains. A bunch of goats munch the grass on a hillside. We count 10 goats. How many goats are there? The actual correct objective answer is "none, what the fuck is a 'goat'?". Every animal is uniquely different. There is no repetition at all. We only observe similarities and categorise the universe around us in accord with those similarities. It is those categories, those abstract entities, which then allow calculation and multiplication. Once we problematise the existence of numbers the only thing left in maths are the processes and relationships. These are all clearly part of a logical outlook unique to humans. A goat's maths would likely look entirely different *no goats were harmed in the writing of this post
I'd suggest semantic nonsense
Try that view point with a triangle or circle
And simply replace the word goat with the word something
From the moment something existed it has shape and quantity . Thus maths happens as a default and intrinsic part of something
Even nothing could be deemed as purely mathematical either zero infinity or both
Shape and quantity and all other attributes are only observed by us. Without our recognising them they don't exist. They are all just creations of a brain highly specialised in pattern recognition. You cannot divide maths from the narrative of the human mind. I know this goes contrary to frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and many other thinkers ... But I like being contrary sometimes. It's fun
By that you suggest that all existence is a psychological construct
You are indeed suggesting a tree makes no sound if it is not heard by a human , in fact you suggest x does not exist if the human brain does not exist
I'll suggest shapes exist without the existence of any sentient thing , all the sentient being does is define them , x exists without definition
That doesn't seem to me what he's saying.
He's agreeing that things exist outside of and independent of human minds. What he is saying is that the categories by which we organise that existence do not exist independently of human minds.
If you say they do, then you have to ask where they exist. Plato, Berkley and others said they existed in the mind of god. If you don't believe in God that's obviously a step you can't take. I can't see anywhere else they might exist.
Humans are not the only creatures than can do mathematical calculations.
I would suggest all creatures with a complex mind and nervous system can make calculations either consciously or subconsciously.
They may not be able to articulate their understanding but that does not detract from the facts that animals have been proven to be able to count and some solve simple numerical equations.
I have no doubt that some animals succeed in completing puzzle like tasks set by humans. I have no doubt that some animals can count. I don't see why they shouldn't. But neither equate to an argument that maths exists outside the mind, be it human or animal, or prove that animal maths would be in any way anything similar to ours
A point. Given. "dinosaur" is as much a universal organising concept dreamed up by humans as. "shape", in the Triassic period, given there were no human minds around then, would it be correct to say dinosaurs didn't exist then?
Of course. Since, in the context of this argument, dolphins don't even exist now, why would an extinct animal which pre existed humanity be any different? Indeed, some dinosaurs, known to us only through a few bones, are quite obviously works of fiction far beyond the confines of the point I'm making here. Not only did they not exist as "dinosaurs" but they probably didn't exist in the way we think of them at all
Your playing philosophical semantics again
Either you are accepting things , regardless of their human given name pre existed humans
Or you are saying things only exist as a construct of the mind "Isn't this the solution. A. Things exist outside the human mind B. the terms and organising concepts applied to these things exist only in the human mind There are a large number of mammals that live in seas and are smaller than whales. They each exist as individuals, irrespective of what people think about them. The concept of "dolphin" that we apply to some of those mammals exists only in the human mind | |||
"Who likes watching Hannah Fry explain all this?" I just like watching Hannah Fry, full stop! | |||
"My point is, we can say the concept "dolphin" exists now at the very least as an organising concept in the human mind. In a time when no human minds existed, are we not driven to say that it's impossible to say anything at all existed. Sea, land, air, sky or whatever, given all of them are concepts invented by humans. All we can say is that something existed, but it's impossible to say that thing x existed as sea and thing y existed as land. That seems to me consistent with a thorough going nominalism and also rather absurd. Surely we want to say land and sea existed even when there were no human beings around to observe them. (I suppose you can get round this to an extent that saying that objects human beings now distinguish as sea and land existed then, but no one was around to distinguish them. If we go down that route, are we not then forced to say that the concept we now call number existed, even if there were no humans around to formulate the concept). " I think you're unnecessarily tangling yourself. If you're asking whether it was possible to write anything about anything before written language was invented then the answer is of course not. I know you're not saying exactly that. But what you are saying pretty much equates to it imo | |||
"My point is, we can say the concept "dolphin" exists now at the very least as an organising concept in the human mind. In a time when no human minds existed, are we not driven to say that it's impossible to say anything at all existed. Sea, land, air, sky or whatever, given all of them are concepts invented by humans. All we can say is that something existed, but it's impossible to say that thing x existed as sea and thing y existed as land. That seems to me consistent with a thorough going nominalism and also rather absurd. Surely we want to say land and sea existed even when there were no human beings around to observe them. (I suppose you can get round this to an extent that saying that objects human beings now distinguish as sea and land existed then, but no one was around to distinguish them. If we go down that route, are we not then forced to say that the concept we now call number existed, even if there were no humans around to formulate the concept). I think you're unnecessarily tangling yourself. If you're asking whether it was possible to write anything about anything before written language was invented then the answer is of course not. I know you're not saying exactly that. But what you are saying pretty much equates to it imo " No, I am not saying that, I am asking if we can meaningfully talk now about things when humans didn't exist if, on the strict nominalist argument those things didn't exist at that time. It seems to me the following sentences are mutually contradictory but on the nominalism argument B must be true. A. There were animals that swam in the sea in the jurassic period. B. No human beings existed in the jurassic period, therefore the concepts of "animal" and "sea" did not exist. You'd have to preface "sea" and "animals" in A with. "what we now call", but then they brings in maths as well as existing in the jurassic period in the same way. Hence "things we now say are triangles existed in the jurassic period". | |||
"My point is, we can say the concept "dolphin" exists now at the very least as an organising concept in the human mind. In a time when no human minds existed, are we not driven to say that it's impossible to say anything at all existed. Sea, land, air, sky or whatever, given all of them are concepts invented by humans. All we can say is that something existed, but it's impossible to say that thing x existed as sea and thing y existed as land. That seems to me consistent with a thorough going nominalism and also rather absurd. Surely we want to say land and sea existed even when there were no human beings around to observe them. (I suppose you can get round this to an extent that saying that objects human beings now distinguish as sea and land existed then, but no one was around to distinguish them. If we go down that route, are we not then forced to say that the concept we now call number existed, even if there were no humans around to formulate the concept). I think you're unnecessarily tangling yourself. If you're asking whether it was possible to write anything about anything before written language was invented then the answer is of course not. I know you're not saying exactly that. But what you are saying pretty much equates to it imo No, I am not saying that, I am asking if we can meaningfully talk now about things when humans didn't exist if, on the strict nominalist argument those things didn't exist at that time. It seems to me the following sentences are mutually contradictory but on the nominalism argument B must be true. A. There were animals that swam in the sea in the jurassic period. B. No human beings existed in the jurassic period, therefore the concepts of "animal" and "sea" did not exist. You'd have to preface "sea" and "animals" in A with. "what we now call", but then they brings in maths as well as existing in the jurassic period in the same way. Hence "things we now say are triangles existed in the jurassic period". " I'm not sure how that's different from what I just said. If we agree that the world we talk about and quantify around us is a linguistic/logical construct, that our concept of reality is largely shaped by a vast web of words and ideas encoded into us since birth... then whatever we talk about in that textual space, be it dolphins, extinct dinosaurs, or future alien life, only ever really exists in relation to now. The phenomena may exist, and may have existed, in a certain time frame. But the concepts which denote them are always being used in the present. "Things we now say are triangles existed in the jurassic period" is either wrong (triangles didn't exist... triangular things did... but not triangles) or misses the point (even if a triangle existed it is only now that we conceive of it as a triangle i.e we are applying our maths after the fact) If that doesn't help maybe rephrase what you're trying to say. Because as yet I'm not getting it | |||
| |||
