Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll also point out to you if you offend someone it isn't your intent that is going
I have been thinking about this recently. Does the truth need protection, and is it ever personal.
Two examples highlighted this for me:
1. On tv, I see that some Muslims in Afghanistan are protesting because somebody burned some Qurans. Their justification is that the Quran is the word of God and is holy. But they seem to take it as a personal insult. ...[text shortened]... truth is deliberately intended as an insult, for example in the case of holocaust denial.
to be brought up but your offence. If I say something at work without intent to
offend someone, and they complain, it could be very meaningless what my
intent was if the offense is thought to be bad. There was recently a blow up at
ESPN where someone wrote something that was offensive and another read it
on TV, the writer was fired and reader was given time off. The defense which
they gave and was rejected, they were not thinking along those lines no insult
was meant. It didn't matter.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd my point in this thread, is that if you believe it is an historical account, then it was not "Gods word" that was being discussed, but history.
I don't like taking God's Word like that,
You would not have taken offence if I discussed an alternative history of World War I.
where we are not to add to or take away from what God says.
So if I said "suppose the Israelites in Egypt had rebelled and conquered Egypt instead of escaping" you would be offended because that is modifying scripture?
Also, although I can understand you choosing not to modify scripture because you believe God has told you not to, but I don't see why you get offended if someone else does. Why do you see someone else's sin as a personal affront?
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I have told you before, if you want to talk about what ifs okay, but when
And my point in this thread, is that if you believe it is an historical account, then it was not "Gods word" that was being discussed, but history.
You would not have taken offence if I discussed an alternative history of World War I.
[b] where we are not to add to or take away from what God says.
So if I said "suppose the Israelites in Egypt had ...[text shortened]... et offended if someone else does. Why do you see someone else's sin as a personal affront?[/b]
you discuss scripture at least with me stick to the text. I believe I'm being
very clear here, if you don't get why I feel strongly about this is really
not all that important to me, just know I do feel this way.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd I repeat, I was not aware I was discussing scripture. I was discussing history. That you get your history from scripture, does not make history scripture, does it?
As I have told you before, if you want to talk about what ifs okay, but when
you discuss scripture at least with me stick to the text.
You are quite happy speculating about the big bang, but surely that too is an historical 'what if' and therefore speculation about scripture by your logic (as scripture also covers the origin of the universe).
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have thought about this and decided it is not the best analogy. Heres a more accurate one:
You are essentially arguing that when I say "all cows are mammals" then you can say "hey, that's relative because fish aren't mammals, so in the 'fish space' your rule is not valid". But nobody said the rule was true for fish. Just because cows and fish are animals does not give you a valid reason for deliberately drawing a parallel and extending the rule then finding exceptions.
Suppose I say "Cows never have more than two horns". Then you reply with "but the cow in my painting has three", or "but rhino cows can have three" or "the cow statue in my room has three".
Although my original statement does not say so, it is clear that it is only intended to apply to domestic cattle and not to paintings of them, statues of them, or other animals that share a similar name. To point out that your paining has three horns, shows that you didn't understand the claim, it does not indicate that truth is relative.
Originally posted by RJHindsA triangle with three right angles is not contained in one plane but it is formed on the surface of a sphere, like the triangle on Earth bounded by the Prime Meridian, 90 degrees W longitude and the equator😵
You are also wrong on a triangle having 3 right angles. This is not true in
any form of mathematics, regardless of how you spell it. 😏
P.S. That would describe an incomplete rectangle or square for your
information.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI see Math as a mapping of the external reality, not the external reality itself. To me, it is nothing but a product of the mind during our struggle to analyze and evaluate our perception. The mathematical structures are not a priori given equal statistical weight to our multidimensional universe, because there is no way of assigning equal nonvanishing probability to the infinite mathematical structures. All we do is to cut the observer universe down and observe its bits and pieces the way we perceive them, never in a holistic order but in a relative (you name it specific) context, as our JS357 noticed.
And I say again - word games. The rule about 180 degrees only applies in Euclidean geometry. You pretend that that this is not the case then point out an 'exception' in another geometry. If you were not doing this pretence, you would not have even mentioned it. And no, Euclidean geometry is not convention. Euclidean geometry and its properties is a univer ...[text shortened]... or deliberately drawing a parallel and extending the rule then finding exceptions.
I agree with Bose de Nage; and I discard the idea that Eucledian geometry, and Math in general, exist “out there” on their own and are, thus, an “absolute truth”. We invented Math for our convenience. Math, and Eucledian geometry as well, consist solely of man-made formal systems understood strictly by human beings. Thinking that these formal systems are understood by non-human intelligent beings and are thus a part of an “objective language”, to me is false😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you would say that "Cows never have more than two horns", I would reply that, indeed, this is the case in general for the time being😵
I have thought about this and decided it is not the best analogy. Heres a more accurate one:
Suppose I say "Cows never have more than two horns". Then you reply with "but the cow in my painting has three", or "but rhino cows can have three" or "the cow statue in my room has three".
Although my original statement does not say so, it is clear that it is o ...[text shortened]... hows that you didn't understand the claim, it does not indicate that truth is relative.
Originally posted by black beetleI agree. But this means that triangles do not exist in external reality as triangles are 'math'.
I see Math as a mapping of the external reality, not the external reality itself.
To me, it is nothing but a product of the mind during our struggle to analyze and evaluate our perception.
Although I haven't read all the Wikipedia page vistesd refereed to, I think I am probably a platonist. ie I believe mathematics does exist, but is independent of time and space.
The mathematical structures are not a priori given equal statistical weight to our multidimensional universe, because there is no way of assigning equal nonvanishing probability to the infinite mathematical structures. All we do is to cut the observer universe down and observe its bits and pieces the way we perceive them, never in a holistic order but in a relative (you name it specific) context, as our JS357 noticed.
I think that here, you are confusing mathematics, with applied maths, or possibly just trying to distinguish between the two. I would say that mathematics in the non applied sense, is independent of the universe or the thinker and more or less follows from logic, or is logic.
We invented Math for our convenience.
So how do you explain independent 'inventions' being identical? It does not matter whether Euclid, or someone else 'invents' the 'plane', the resulting mathematics are the same. Things like the circumference of a circle an pi, or Pythagoras' theorem have been 'invented' independently multiple times. Why do they always come out the same? Would aliens have a different value of pi?
Math, and Eucledian geometry as well, consist solely of man-made formal systems understood strictly by human beings.
So is pi a property of humans? Are triangles? Can my cat never envision a triangle because he is not human?
Thinking that these formal systems are understood by non-human intelligent beings and are thus a part of an “objective language”, to me is false😵
If we develop computer AI, do you think it will be incapable of understanding maths?
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: “I agree… …math.”
I agree. But this means that triangles do not exist in external reality as triangles are 'math'.
[b]To me, it is nothing but a product of the mind during our struggle to analyze and evaluate our perception.
Although I haven't read all the Wikipedia page vistesd refereed to, I think I am probably a platonist. ie I believe mathematics does exist, bu ...[text shortened]... If we develop computer AI, do you think it will be incapable of understanding maths?[/b]
It means that triangles “exist” solely when we define the object we observe as “triangles”, according to our subjective consensus as regards a set of characteristics we attribute to them in order to identify them. We give names to everything, names are part of language, language is mapping and not the territory.
Edit: “Although… …space.”
You are a Platonist alright;
Edit: “I… …logic.”
By any means Math and Logic are merely mental constructions of ours.
Edit: “So… …pi?”
They are “identical” because they are all based on the same mental construction, on the same assumptions according to our consensus as regards the mathematic set of rules (language) we agreed to follow. The circumference of a circle has a meaning solely in this subjective context. And our products come out the same solely when the calculations are performed accurately by persons skilful enough in Math. Do dolphins have a clue about pi?
Edit: “So… …human?”
Pi is a mathematical “notion”, and as such is a product of the human mind that is brought up for our convenience in the context of a given perception. Triangles are a geometrical “notion”, and as such they are a product of the human mind brought up for our convenience in the context of a given perception.
I admit I ignore what a cat envisions; first communicate effectively with your cat about this matter and then proceed.
Edit: “If… …maths?”
If we develop computer AI, all they would do is to run according to the program we implied. All results will still be a product based on their man-made program and not an “absolute truth”.
😵
Originally posted by black beetleI disagree. I think much of math is totally independent of physical space. It may be useful when applied to physical space, but application is definitely not a requirement. Pythagoras theorem is true for a triangle that I imagine, regardless of whether I observed an object that mimics it. Much of math is not a 'map', nor intended to be.
It means that triangles “exist” solely when we define the object we observe as “triangles”, according to our subjective consensus as regards a set of characteristics we attribute to them in order to identify them. We give names to everything, names are part of language, language is mapping and not the territory.
Do dolphins have a clue about pi?
I don't know, but if they do, they will have the same value for it.
If we develop computer AI, all they would do is to run according to the program we implied. All results will still be a product based on their man-made program and not an “absolute truth”.
😵
I disagree. A working computer AI would almost certainly incorporate learning. It would therefore not be entirely a product based on man-made programming. It is theoretically possible to create an AI that works rather like the human brain in that much of its functioning is a result of environment not just DNA. I see no reason why a computer based AI could not learn math or even 'invent' math, and I have no doubt that when it does, the value of pi it gets will be the same as ours.
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: “I… …be.”
I disagree. I think much of math is totally independent of physical space. It may be useful when applied to physical space, but application is definitely not a requirement. Pythagoras theorem is true for a triangle that I imagine, regardless of whether I observed an object that mimics it. Much of math is not a 'map', nor intended to be.
[b]Do dolphins ...[text shortened]... h, and I have no doubt that when it does, the value of pi it gets will be the same as ours.
Yes, much of Math is totally independent of physical shape or material substance –but this is irrelevant (we both acknowledge the value of ideas like Hilbert space) and also I am not talking about its application per se but for the essence, the quality of Math. Pythagoras’ theorem is true for the specific field of our perception that creates “a triangle” (How? Out of our awareness alone), according to our modification of the mind (imagination. We imagine). The formation we call “triangle” cannot and does not exist separated from Our subjective perception (Our mind), and it does not exist “out there” on its own. In fact there are no triangles out there, there is Only Us connecting three dots in order to create a mapping of the specific epistemic object that We are eager to observe. Of course, this does not turn our triangles into being “not true”, whilst on the other hand our triangles cannot be considered some kind of “absolute truth”.
Finally, as Math is just another science (and, as such, just another attempt of structuring and enveloping a theory of everything), to me it is nothing but a mapping.
Edit: “I don't know, but if they do, they will have the same value for it.”
This is just an unjustified assumption since you don’t know in first place if in fact they do. We don’t have the slightest clue about whether or not the dolphins perceive their subjective reality the way we do perceive ours. So, how a dolphin perceives and evaluates Acropolis? How do we perceive the Big Blue, the same way as them? I don't know. Methinks their perception and our Math would anyway differ because the two species are uncovering (by means of the evaluation of their respectful mind) a totally different part of what is in fact a consistent and unified picture (the observer universe), so Math is not converging even in that sense. It seems to me that the “pixels” of this “picture” are connected differently by each different species, and this is the reason why I told you in the past that there are as many realities as many are the sentient beings. The picture remains the same, its evaluation differs; where exactly lays the so called “absolute truth”?
Edit:” I… …ours.”
It will incorporate learning strictly according to its software and its potential. The solutions that it will deploy would be impossible without its prior man-made programming, therefore they would be entirely a product based on its man-made programming (the learning ability is also possible thanks to its man-made programming). This is the reason why a computer based AI could well theoretically learn Math, and in this case its value of pi would be of course identical to ours.
I wonder why you fail to see that a computer based AI is nothing but a multiplier of the abilities of the human mind. For example, a strong chess engine (a multiplier of the calculating abilities of the human mind) drives this task by and large well and wins games thanks to its man-made programming and its calculation ability
😵
Originally posted by black beetleWhether they do or not is not particularly relevant. I said that "if" they do, then they will...
This is just an unjustified assumption since you don’t know in first place if in fact they do.
I think your argument fails completely because it is quite obvious that all humans share the same mathematics. It is your assumption that non-humans would somehow be different that needs justification. What is it about being human that you believe makes mathematics universal amongst humans? Is pi tailored to the structure of our brains? Will manic depressive people get a different value of pi? Does pi vary slightly depending on whether you are European or Chinese by descent?
Quite frankly I find your claim ridiculous.
Originally posted by black beetleThis is simply not true. I don't even know why it needs explaining its so obvious. Its like saying that my University degree or my ability to do maths or read Chinese is entirely a product of my DNA (my programming). Obviously not true.
It will incorporate learning strictly according to its software and its potential. The solutions that it will deploy would be impossible without its prior man-made programming, therefore they would be entirely a product based on its man-made programming (the learning ability is also possible thanks to its man-made programming).
Its like saying that a Word document containing the works of Shakespeare is entirely a product of Microsoft's programming.
Its like saying your post, because it is being produced by the RHP servers is entirely a product of computer programming.