March 21, 2005
WHOOO hooooo…
I think i may have figured out my objection to the book and arguments put forth by the book. I just have to figure out how to work it out in my mind. To begin, i think my primary function of disproving the book is to deny a major premise running through the book. In several points he offers this argument:
P1 Human mathematics is the mathematics of the Humans can concieve of.
P2 Humans’ knowledge can only be derived from scientific understanding.
C1 Human mathematics is only understood through scientific understanding.
I know this might be simplified but i’m on a blog and i’m working this out with my mind.
March 23rd, 2005 at 11:10 pm
you left out the word “only” in P1 what is your objection to this argument? possible objection to P2 (not sure if it relates to your argument): human knowledge can also be experiential (not scientific)?
March 24th, 2005 at 2:26 am
but you can have knowledge about something that isn’t experiential/scientific… i.e. a triangle has three sides… or a circle is round… a bachelor is an unmarried man… this kind of knowledge seems valid and yet relies on no external knowledge…
March 24th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
it is manmade knowledge. it is true because we have defined it as true.
March 24th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
ignoring language… If all of humanity were to vanish in an instant, a circle will still be round, and a triangle will always be an closed shape with three straight lines. Another example would be color, even if no one percieved the colors of the world they would still exist. What is more is since color exists, redness would still be a color absent human intervention. The reason for this is because we did not bring these properties into existence, and so our lack of existence should not hinder those properties from being in existence. You are correct that linguistically, we defined the phrase ‘circle’ as a line that continues in such a direction as to consistently remain a solid distance from the radial point throughout its travel until meeting the point from where it began in one plane of existence. of course meriam defines it as: a: closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve b : the plane surface bounded by such a curve Linguistically speaking the circle is defined by us, but ontologically speaking an argument for us having created the objects and properties around is seems absurd.
March 24th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Are there circles only because we are equip to notice circles? It has been proven that a part of our brain maps out edges between two points. We really do not take notice of the space between the two points only the two points and then we fill in an edge or line between the two. My only reason for bringing up this is that it again shows we limit the input into our minds. If there is a limit, then could a circle really be something else we are just limiting to be a circle? If that is the case, then the predictions we make based on those limitations are also limited to our cognitive abilities. Wilbur