|
On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person  that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life).
with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids.
as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem).
Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ...
@DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic.
|
On May 01 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life). with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids. as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem). Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ...
I never said that. In fact, what I've been saying all along is that the facts will exist regardless of whether or not that group ever discovers them... which it seems you're suddenly in agreement with now, since you think- much like I do- that the sound was always there. It wasn't false to say that a sound occurred until we could verify that it actually did. That's what I've been arguing against all along... so are you agreeing with me (us... since it wasn't only me) now?
As an aside, I'm not really concerned about what's "damn boring" in your opinion  I didn't drag you into the conversation!
@DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic.
Okay, thanks
|
On May 01 2016 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life). with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids. as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem). Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ... I never said that. In fact, what I've been saying all along is that the facts will exist regardless of whether or not that group ever discovers them... which it seems you're suddenly in agreement with now, since you think- much like I do- that the sound was always there. It wasn't false to say that a sound occurred until we could verify that it actually did. That's what I've been arguing against all along... so are you agreeing with me (us... since it wasn't only me) now? As an aside, I'm not really concerned about what's "damn boring" in your opinion I didn't drag you into the conversation! Show nested quote +@DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic. Okay, thanks
These are actually the exact same concepts explored in humanities--or specifically, the dialogue within the humanities about how do you observer, understand, or comprehend an object or work with other people. The core essence of why it is or isn't relevant will still be there no matter how bad you are at trying to talk about it, but at the same time, no matter how much you know what that truth is, being unable to discuss it with others means that it will never truly be known.
Mathematics explores this via reduction through translating ideas, concepts, and axioms into core symbols that forms its new language, that way, instead of describing the coexistence between objects understood to be similar to each other--we simply say there are two of them. Humanities goes the opposite route where one has to explicate the totality of all the reasons why we know, or can know, that of things before us, that there are more than just the individual one, but less than thrice of that same one.
|
On May 02 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 01 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life). with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids. as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem). Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ... I never said that. In fact, what I've been saying all along is that the facts will exist regardless of whether or not that group ever discovers them... which it seems you're suddenly in agreement with now, since you think- much like I do- that the sound was always there. It wasn't false to say that a sound occurred until we could verify that it actually did. That's what I've been arguing against all along... so are you agreeing with me (us... since it wasn't only me) now? As an aside, I'm not really concerned about what's "damn boring" in your opinion I didn't drag you into the conversation! @DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic. Okay, thanks These are actually the exact same concepts explored in humanities--or specifically, the dialogue within the humanities about how do you observer, understand, or comprehend an object or work with other people. The core essence of why it is or isn't relevant will still be there no matter how bad you are at trying to talk about it, but at the same time, no matter how much you know what that truth is, being unable to discuss it with others means that it will never truly be known. Mathematics explores this via reduction through translating ideas, concepts, and axioms into core symbols that forms its new language, that way, instead of describing the coexistence between objects understood to be similar to each other--we simply say there are two of them. Humanities goes the opposite route where one has to explicate the totality of all the reasons why we know, or can know, that of things before us, that there are more than just the individual one, but less than thrice of that same one.
You guys are faaaar into the misty philosophical valley of this now...
Maths is a set of rules that we made up, and a lot of them happen to describe empirical measurements if you apply the rules in the right way. How to correctly apply the maths rules to describe measurements is what we call physics, chemistry, biology and so on.
That's all there is to it. No more, no less.
|
During a Bank Holiday, like the one during FDR at the start of his Presidency during the Great Depression, no cash is being circulated or offered or even accepted. Right? So during that time is Credit still being used/offered during shopping for groceries etc.?
|
At 1:00 a.m. on Monday, March 6, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039 ordering the suspension of all banking transactions, effective immediately. He had taken the oath of office only thirty-six hours earlier
www.federalreservehistory.org
If that source js correct there'd be no credit.
edit: It wouldn't make sense either since credit is a drain on liquidity and the whole point of the bank holiday is to stop the liquidity drain that is happening on banks.
|
On May 02 2016 16:06 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2016 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 01 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life). with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids. as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem). Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ... I never said that. In fact, what I've been saying all along is that the facts will exist regardless of whether or not that group ever discovers them... which it seems you're suddenly in agreement with now, since you think- much like I do- that the sound was always there. It wasn't false to say that a sound occurred until we could verify that it actually did. That's what I've been arguing against all along... so are you agreeing with me (us... since it wasn't only me) now? As an aside, I'm not really concerned about what's "damn boring" in your opinion I didn't drag you into the conversation! @DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic. Okay, thanks These are actually the exact same concepts explored in humanities--or specifically, the dialogue within the humanities about how do you observer, understand, or comprehend an object or work with other people. The core essence of why it is or isn't relevant will still be there no matter how bad you are at trying to talk about it, but at the same time, no matter how much you know what that truth is, being unable to discuss it with others means that it will never truly be known. Mathematics explores this via reduction through translating ideas, concepts, and axioms into core symbols that forms its new language, that way, instead of describing the coexistence between objects understood to be similar to each other--we simply say there are two of them. Humanities goes the opposite route where one has to explicate the totality of all the reasons why we know, or can know, that of things before us, that there are more than just the individual one, but less than thrice of that same one. You guys are faaaar into the misty philosophical valley of this now... Maths is a set of rules that we made up, and a lot of them happen to describe empirical measurements if you apply the rules in the right way. How to correctly apply the maths rules to describe measurements is what we call physics, chemistry, biology and so on. That's all there is to it. No more, no less.
Humanities is the rules we make up to discuss and explicate how we talk about or observe the world around us. It uses abstracted objects as examples to exercise those rules. With it, we get law, politics, social conduct, redefined forms of ethics, concepts of person-hood, accountability, and a host of other "normalized" and everyday interactions that seem "natural" but are merely byproducts of what humanities research births everyday.
|
On May 02 2016 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 16:06 Cascade wrote:On May 02 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2016 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 01 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life). with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids. as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem). Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ... I never said that. In fact, what I've been saying all along is that the facts will exist regardless of whether or not that group ever discovers them... which it seems you're suddenly in agreement with now, since you think- much like I do- that the sound was always there. It wasn't false to say that a sound occurred until we could verify that it actually did. That's what I've been arguing against all along... so are you agreeing with me (us... since it wasn't only me) now? As an aside, I'm not really concerned about what's "damn boring" in your opinion I didn't drag you into the conversation! @DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic. Okay, thanks These are actually the exact same concepts explored in humanities--or specifically, the dialogue within the humanities about how do you observer, understand, or comprehend an object or work with other people. The core essence of why it is or isn't relevant will still be there no matter how bad you are at trying to talk about it, but at the same time, no matter how much you know what that truth is, being unable to discuss it with others means that it will never truly be known. Mathematics explores this via reduction through translating ideas, concepts, and axioms into core symbols that forms its new language, that way, instead of describing the coexistence between objects understood to be similar to each other--we simply say there are two of them. Humanities goes the opposite route where one has to explicate the totality of all the reasons why we know, or can know, that of things before us, that there are more than just the individual one, but less than thrice of that same one. You guys are faaaar into the misty philosophical valley of this now... Maths is a set of rules that we made up, and a lot of them happen to describe empirical measurements if you apply the rules in the right way. How to correctly apply the maths rules to describe measurements is what we call physics, chemistry, biology and so on. That's all there is to it. No more, no less. Humanities is the rules we make up to discuss and explicate how we talk about or observe the world around us. It uses abstracted objects as examples to exercise those rules. With it, we get law, politics, social conduct, redefined forms of ethics, concepts of person-hood, accountability, and a host of other "normalized" and everyday interactions that seem "natural" but are merely byproducts of what humanities research births everyday.
Ok? I though the topic was to what extent math is "truth" or not. Don't see how your post is related to that.
But maybe you guys moved into a new topic, and I didn't understand, sorry.
|
On May 03 2016 01:32 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 16:06 Cascade wrote:On May 02 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2016 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 01 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life). with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids. as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem). Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ... I never said that. In fact, what I've been saying all along is that the facts will exist regardless of whether or not that group ever discovers them... which it seems you're suddenly in agreement with now, since you think- much like I do- that the sound was always there. It wasn't false to say that a sound occurred until we could verify that it actually did. That's what I've been arguing against all along... so are you agreeing with me (us... since it wasn't only me) now? As an aside, I'm not really concerned about what's "damn boring" in your opinion I didn't drag you into the conversation! @DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic. Okay, thanks These are actually the exact same concepts explored in humanities--or specifically, the dialogue within the humanities about how do you observer, understand, or comprehend an object or work with other people. The core essence of why it is or isn't relevant will still be there no matter how bad you are at trying to talk about it, but at the same time, no matter how much you know what that truth is, being unable to discuss it with others means that it will never truly be known. Mathematics explores this via reduction through translating ideas, concepts, and axioms into core symbols that forms its new language, that way, instead of describing the coexistence between objects understood to be similar to each other--we simply say there are two of them. Humanities goes the opposite route where one has to explicate the totality of all the reasons why we know, or can know, that of things before us, that there are more than just the individual one, but less than thrice of that same one. You guys are faaaar into the misty philosophical valley of this now... Maths is a set of rules that we made up, and a lot of them happen to describe empirical measurements if you apply the rules in the right way. How to correctly apply the maths rules to describe measurements is what we call physics, chemistry, biology and so on. That's all there is to it. No more, no less. Humanities is the rules we make up to discuss and explicate how we talk about or observe the world around us. It uses abstracted objects as examples to exercise those rules. With it, we get law, politics, social conduct, redefined forms of ethics, concepts of person-hood, accountability, and a host of other "normalized" and everyday interactions that seem "natural" but are merely byproducts of what humanities research births everyday. Ok? I though the topic was to what extent math is "truth" or not. Don't see how your post is related to that. But maybe you guys moved into a new topic, and I didn't understand, sorry.
Math is neither "true" nor "untrue". It's the first logical toolset mankind designed to break down questions, which can only be answered by defining their nature in numbers. In fact math is the very first programming language. Every calculation, every basic definition is code and the first hardware required to run it was---->the human brain.
edit:
However math is restricted to it's own "defined" world and cannot directly be applied to the real world. For example 0 does not exist in our universe. Because of the so called >>smallest distance<<(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length check it out it's quite fascinating actually). And of course, then there is also the problem with infinity, which mankind will probably never solve, because we can never grasp the 4th dimension (space/time as a whole).
|
On May 03 2016 02:03 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 01:32 Cascade wrote:On May 02 2016 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 16:06 Cascade wrote:On May 02 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2016 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 01 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life). with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids. as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem). Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ... I never said that. In fact, what I've been saying all along is that the facts will exist regardless of whether or not that group ever discovers them... which it seems you're suddenly in agreement with now, since you think- much like I do- that the sound was always there. It wasn't false to say that a sound occurred until we could verify that it actually did. That's what I've been arguing against all along... so are you agreeing with me (us... since it wasn't only me) now? As an aside, I'm not really concerned about what's "damn boring" in your opinion I didn't drag you into the conversation! @DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic. Okay, thanks These are actually the exact same concepts explored in humanities--or specifically, the dialogue within the humanities about how do you observer, understand, or comprehend an object or work with other people. The core essence of why it is or isn't relevant will still be there no matter how bad you are at trying to talk about it, but at the same time, no matter how much you know what that truth is, being unable to discuss it with others means that it will never truly be known. Mathematics explores this via reduction through translating ideas, concepts, and axioms into core symbols that forms its new language, that way, instead of describing the coexistence between objects understood to be similar to each other--we simply say there are two of them. Humanities goes the opposite route where one has to explicate the totality of all the reasons why we know, or can know, that of things before us, that there are more than just the individual one, but less than thrice of that same one. You guys are faaaar into the misty philosophical valley of this now... Maths is a set of rules that we made up, and a lot of them happen to describe empirical measurements if you apply the rules in the right way. How to correctly apply the maths rules to describe measurements is what we call physics, chemistry, biology and so on. That's all there is to it. No more, no less. Humanities is the rules we make up to discuss and explicate how we talk about or observe the world around us. It uses abstracted objects as examples to exercise those rules. With it, we get law, politics, social conduct, redefined forms of ethics, concepts of person-hood, accountability, and a host of other "normalized" and everyday interactions that seem "natural" but are merely byproducts of what humanities research births everyday. Ok? I though the topic was to what extent math is "truth" or not. Don't see how your post is related to that. But maybe you guys moved into a new topic, and I didn't understand, sorry. Math is neither "true" nor "untrue". It's the first logical toolset mankind designed to break down questions, which can only be answered by defining their nature in numbers. In fact math is the very first programming language. Every calculation, every basic definition is code and the first hardware required to run it was---->the human brain. edit: However math is restricted to it's own "defined" world and cannot directly be applied to the real world. For example 0 does not exist in our universe. Because of the so called >> smallest distance<<( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length check it out it's quite fascinating actually). And of course, then there is also the problem with infinity, which mankind will probably never solve, because we can never grasp the 4th dimension (space/time as a whole).
Fairly certain I currently have 0 apples. Now we can argue whether "having" is a concept that has (hurr durr) any meaning in the "real world" (good luck defining real world first).
Saying math has no representation (that we know of) outside of the human mind (and its extension on paper, computers, and a golden record flying off into space on a voyager spacecraft) of course true, but saying it is just "one out of many" tools is ignoring a lot of the beauty in math, and its relation to the real world. For instance, fibonacci's numbers, pi, or prime numbers. While numbers do not really exist, 0 exists no more or less than 3. And numbers were primarily invented to keep track of things in the real world; whether that thing is how many apples I have, or how to compute the circumference of a circle, given that I know its diameter.
|
I'd argue that zero is not the best example. If I were to pick something rather simple as an example I'd rather use negative numbers.
|
On May 03 2016 06:14 Khalum wrote:
I'd argue that zero is not the best example. If I were to pick something rather simple as an example I'd rather use negative numbers.
Desire/Debt/Needing/Wanting/Seeking are all real world parallels to negative numbers.
|
You all think that down the line games will have options to play with people in a similar age range but for adults? Like in game, intramural leagues but for people with less time to play than a student say.
|
On May 03 2016 06:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 06:14 Khalum wrote:
I'd argue that zero is not the best example. If I were to pick something rather simple as an example I'd rather use negative numbers. Desire/Debt/Needing/Wanting/Seeking are all real world parallels to negative numbers.
And all completely related with or fabricated by mankind.
While, for instance, you can't say negative mass exists in the universe. One could argue antiparticles exists, but it really doesn't work the same way because energy is still released upon annihilation.
On May 03 2016 06:55 ThomasjServo wrote:
You all think that down the line games will have options to play with people in a similar age range but for adults? Like in game, intramural leagues but for people with less time to play than a student say.
Could you elaborate?
You mean games that are adjusted to the level of people with less time? Isn't that already done in a sense by putting you in an elo relating to your skill?
|
On May 03 2016 06:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 02:03 thePunGun wrote:On May 03 2016 01:32 Cascade wrote:On May 02 2016 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 16:06 Cascade wrote:On May 02 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2016 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 01 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On May 01 2016 22:28 farvacola wrote:So long as we're talking about practical, functional, or "soft" truth, then yeah, DPB summmarizes things nicely. Absolute, abstract, or "hard" truth is a much more finicky concept relative to symbolic prepositions because of the unavoidable Eiffel Tower problem that comes with self-reflexive truth statements ("one cannot see the Eiffel Tower from the Eiffel Tower"=a language can never super-impose the truth of itself upon its expressions). Luckily, the former is all that really matters for the average person that's just to damn restrictive and boring, it also misses the most important issue here: based on what kind of interaction, does evolution bestows the brain with the ability to gradually grasp more and more concepts/universal truths?(finding that would be a worthy goal in ones life). with the tree and the sound - the sound was always there; later, you evolved the ear to hear it and now are just abusing hindsight thinking you are one of the cool kids. as a general rule, i assume infinity exists and we're just evolving the tools to grasp it; still, having the certainty that it will happen is to presumptuous(almost looks like a white man's problem). Pirahãs will evolve to know numbers and do math because DPB said so; sure ... I never said that. In fact, what I've been saying all along is that the facts will exist regardless of whether or not that group ever discovers them... which it seems you're suddenly in agreement with now, since you think- much like I do- that the sound was always there. It wasn't false to say that a sound occurred until we could verify that it actually did. That's what I've been arguing against all along... so are you agreeing with me (us... since it wasn't only me) now? As an aside, I'm not really concerned about what's "damn boring" in your opinion I didn't drag you into the conversation! @DPB - you don't understand the perspective needed here; i'll try and see if i can came up with one based on your used logic. Okay, thanks These are actually the exact same concepts explored in humanities--or specifically, the dialogue within the humanities about how do you observer, understand, or comprehend an object or work with other people. The core essence of why it is or isn't relevant will still be there no matter how bad you are at trying to talk about it, but at the same time, no matter how much you know what that truth is, being unable to discuss it with others means that it will never truly be known. Mathematics explores this via reduction through translating ideas, concepts, and axioms into core symbols that forms its new language, that way, instead of describing the coexistence between objects understood to be similar to each other--we simply say there are two of them. Humanities goes the opposite route where one has to explicate the totality of all the reasons why we know, or can know, that of things before us, that there are more than just the individual one, but less than thrice of that same one. You guys are faaaar into the misty philosophical valley of this now... Maths is a set of rules that we made up, and a lot of them happen to describe empirical measurements if you apply the rules in the right way. How to correctly apply the maths rules to describe measurements is what we call physics, chemistry, biology and so on. That's all there is to it. No more, no less. Humanities is the rules we make up to discuss and explicate how we talk about or observe the world around us. It uses abstracted objects as examples to exercise those rules. With it, we get law, politics, social conduct, redefined forms of ethics, concepts of person-hood, accountability, and a host of other "normalized" and everyday interactions that seem "natural" but are merely byproducts of what humanities research births everyday. Ok? I though the topic was to what extent math is "truth" or not. Don't see how your post is related to that. But maybe you guys moved into a new topic, and I didn't understand, sorry. Math is neither "true" nor "untrue". It's the first logical toolset mankind designed to break down questions, which can only be answered by defining their nature in numbers. In fact math is the very first programming language. Every calculation, every basic definition is code and the first hardware required to run it was---->the human brain. edit: However math is restricted to it's own "defined" world and cannot directly be applied to the real world. For example 0 does not exist in our universe. Because of the so called >> smallest distance<<( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length check it out it's quite fascinating actually). And of course, then there is also the problem with infinity, which mankind will probably never solve, because we can never grasp the 4th dimension (space/time as a whole). Fairly certain I currently have 0 apples. Now we can argue whether "having" is a concept that has (hurr durr) any meaning in the "real world" (good luck defining real world first). Saying math has no representation (that we know of) outside of the human mind (and its extension on paper, computers, and a golden record flying off into space on a voyager spacecraft) of course true, but saying it is just "one out of many" tools is ignoring a lot of the beauty in math, and its relation to the real world. For instance, fibonacci's numbers, pi, or prime numbers. While numbers do not really exist, 0 exists no more or less than 3. And numbers were primarily invented to keep track of things in the real world; whether that thing is how many apples I have, or how to compute the circumference of a circle, given that I know its diameter.
Well, we evaluate the amount of apples in your example as 3 because we define them as 3 in the decimal system. But in binary that decimal 3 is defined as 11. It's all about the definition and how we use math as a tool, just like we use physics to proof our math.
The physical definition of 0 in the real world, is based on physically nothing(not literally), which does not exist. There's always something and I didn't mean apples, I meant quantums. That's why I posted the links regarding the "smallest distance" and the Planck length. That's not just math, it's physics and we need physics to proof those mathematical theories (and according to quantums physics' "smallest distance" 0 does not exist, even though we cannot measure it yet).
Apologies if this was too dry and theoretical... I just love math and physics 
Desire/Debt/Needing/Wanting/Seeking are all real world parallels to negative numbers.
All of those examples are interpretations of reality in our minds and are not measurable in nature/our universe like mass, heigth, speed, etc. Money does not count, because it's also a manmade tool for trade. It does(as paradox as this may sound) not exist, just because we print numbers on a piece of paper or add them to a bankaccount on a hard drive.
|
On May 03 2016 07:01 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 06:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 03 2016 06:14 Khalum wrote:
I'd argue that zero is not the best example. If I were to pick something rather simple as an example I'd rather use negative numbers. Desire/Debt/Needing/Wanting/Seeking are all real world parallels to negative numbers. And all completely related with or fabricated by mankind. While, for instance, you can't say negative mass exists in the universe. One could argue antiparticles exists, but it really doesn't work the same way because energy is still released upon annihilation.
None of those things are unique to mankind. And if you only want "non-living things" negative pressures exists in all things and is how many processes occur. Negative pressures moving objects from point A to point B and the resulting movement creating other systemic shifts that moves things back to where they were from.
Zero as a concept in reality happens all the time. While people's concept of zero took thousands of years to develop--reality has had non-presence of objects all the time. "How many humans were there before humans existed? 0" "How many humans were left after humans stopped existing? Zero"
|
|
|
|
|
On May 03 2016 07:11 Naracs_Duc wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 03 2016 07:01 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 06:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 03 2016 06:14 Khalum wrote:
I'd argue that zero is not the best example. If I were to pick something rather simple as an example I'd rather use negative numbers. Desire/Debt/Needing/Wanting/Seeking are all real world parallels to negative numbers. And all completely related with or fabricated by mankind. While, for instance, you can't say negative mass exists in the universe. One could argue antiparticles exists, but it really doesn't work the same way because energy is still released upon annihilation. None of those things are unique to mankind. And if you only want "non-living things" negative pressures exists in all things and is how many processes occur. Negative pressures moving objects from point A to point B and the resulting movement creating other systemic shifts that moves things back to where they were from. Zero as a concept in reality happens all the time. While people's concept of zero took thousands of years to develop--reality has had non-presence of objects all the time. "How many humans were there before humans existed? 0" "How many humans were left after humans stopped existing? Zero"
The universe doesn't work in past-presence-futures like we, humans, do. The universe only operates in the present and what is currently happening. Just because we have a way of holding on to what happened before and that we can extrapolate from what has happened before doesn't mean that this works the same way as "the nothing" as a concept in reality.
The entire question of howmany humans there are is a human interpretation of the universe and has absolutely nothing to do with how energy/mass and the way they work/interact with eachother.
And the only reason these things you've described exist at all in the first place in living beings is because they would die off if they didn't have these properties.
|
On May 03 2016 06:55 ThomasjServo wrote:
You all think that down the line games will have options to play with people in a similar age range but for adults? Like in game, intramural leagues but for people with less time to play than a student say.
I've seen many hierarchies of sports/ activities in order of available time/ ability/ age: professional, semi-pro, varsity, junior varsity, intramural, club, casual, filthy casual, bronze league, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
