Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
spike wrote:I don't believe you. You are just being argumentative. That's your nature.
And it is in your nature to avoid the truth when you see it.
If you think what I say is untrue then argue against it.
Don't give up so easily.
If you argue in the spirit of enquiry, then you will grow from what you may learn.
I thought that was why people contributed to such Forums are these.
chaz wyman wrote:... There are no integers in nature; ...
Apart from the physical counters when counting was matching sets? Nature can pretty much be described in integers.
no circles, ...
Pebbles in pools?
straight lines, ...
Shadows on tents, poles, the pole star?
no regular polygons. ...
Bees.
Maths comes from the imagination, like fairies and deities. Maths is a model.
I'll give you that the latter of mine were tenuous in the thing you propose but to propose that Maths has not a base in perception, in a way that fairies and deities do, seems wrong to me.
chaz wyman wrote:... There are no integers in nature; ...
Apart from the physical counters when counting was matching sets? Nature can pretty much be described in integers.
You have perhaps not been following the thread. I said nature can be DESCRIBED with integers. Maths is a model.
no circles, ...
Pebbles in pools?
Nope. Reality is 3D, circles are 2D.
straight lines, ...
Shadows on tents, poles, the pole star?
Nope. A tent pole is not strait. Take a look at the microscopic level and you will find it is bumpy. The ground where the shadow falls is also bumpy.
no regular polygons. ...
Bees.
a polygon is 2D. Have you ever seen inside a beehive? I have. Bees make irregular polygonal extruded 3D shapes.
Maths comes from the imagination, like fairies and deities. Maths is a model.
I'll give you that the latter of mine were tenuous in the thing you propose but to propose that Maths has not a base in perception, in a way that fairies and deities do, seems wrong to me.
It is much better than faieries, I agree. More useful for one thing, but it reflects nature in human interested ways, It is apriori, not aposteriori.
chaz wyman wrote:... It is much better than faieries, I agree. More useful for one thing, but it reflects nature in human interested ways, It is apriori, not aposteriori.
Never been to happy about these terms. Are you saying that maths is a Kantian type category? Why is it not built upon experience from the world, you get circles in pools from rain, spiders webs show straight lines, as do claw marks. I accept that symbols are ours but maths appears at source to be the language for describing objects. We counted using heterogeneous sets once, we made right angles with rope and chain, a distance was how far we walked, etc. Not arguing that its not apriori when proving its own theorems, just the idea that it was not experience that gave it its grounds. Just as Logic is entailed by there being objects and states of affairs, why is Maths not the same?
