For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
And it is in your nature to avoid the truth when you see it.spike wrote:I don't believe you. You are just being argumentative. That's your nature.
Never mind a circle. I'd like to show you the door!Show me a circle!
Close your eyes if you are happier doing that. It seems you have stopped learning.spike wrote:Never mind a circle. I'd like to show you the door!Show me a circle!
I think about practical and pragmatic things. You think about flying shit! I'm not into that.
Makes me wonder too because it is often so dumb and stupid. To bad there weren't more professionals on board, like people from the magazine.Makes me wonder why you bother to contribute to this forum.
I think you mean "Too bad". People from the magazine would have you for breakfast.spike wrote:Makes me wonder too because it is often so dumb and stupid. To bad there weren't more professionals on board, like people from the magazine.Makes me wonder why you bother to contribute to this forum.
Apart from the physical counters when counting was matching sets? Nature can pretty much be described in integers.chaz wyman wrote:... There are no integers in nature; ...
Pebbles in pools?no circles, ...
Shadows on tents, poles, the pole star?straight lines, ...
Bees.no regular polygons. ...
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.Maths comes from the imagination, like fairies and deities. Maths is a model.
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.Arising_uk wrote:Apart from the physical counters when counting was matching sets? Nature can pretty much be described in integers.chaz wyman wrote:... There are no integers in nature; ...
You have perhaps not been following the thread. I said nature can be DESCRIBED with integers. Maths is a model.Pebbles in pools?no circles, ...
Nope. Reality is 3D, circles are 2D.
Shadows on tents, poles, the pole star?straight lines, ...
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.
Bees.no regular polygons. ...
a polygon is 2D. Have you ever seen inside a beehive? I have. Bees make irregular polygonal extruded 3D shapes.
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.Maths comes from the imagination, like fairies and deities. Maths is a model.
Sounds like a knock, knock joke: k=(qu<>qu):-)Rortabend wrote:How do you use an Ancient Egyptian doorbell?
Is that like the girl who never was breast fed, but bottled fed.Rortabend wrote:Toot-and-come-in!
(I'm trying to cheer up Chaz. He seems to be a bit grumpy at the moment and I know he likes jokes about Ancient Egypt.)
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?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.