Its the opposite project of Frege, Husserl, Hilbert. But language has been understood to be possible if there are innate structures. This means a monkey s possibility of speaking with its hands its limited. Robin Williams saw Koko a gorilla, he already had inaugurated and patented 🖖 a greeting, a character that spoke an alien language, but this language has a physical counterpart. And yes we can see black holes and inconmensurable parts of them, but they are beyond our capacity to process them, even if we have them in presence as a "whole/part". Realities that seemed mathematical artifacts turned with gravitational waves true physical phenomena. Any physical object is not present as a whole. Its open to future investigations. So i dont have a posture in a realm thats not mine. Thanks for the videos!!
Logic, the foundation of maths, exists in the supreme mind of God who is the ground of all existence. Otherwise logical statements wouldn't be universally true. However, mathematics is about finding out the properties of a system that arises from given axioms.
Fundamentally, this seems to ignore the depth of actual pure mathematics, done for the sake of mathematics and outside of any specific "real" application. As some sort of extension to Quine and Putnam's argument, I would very much argue for the consideration of non physically-derived mathematical concepts. As a research mathematician, the stuff I do is really esoteric. There are maybe 20 other mathematicians that I can talk with in full detail, and conversely, the amount of people who I can understand in full is relatively small. There is a nonzero chance that in 100 years, literally no one living will be able to understand what I am currently doing. While talking about natural numbers, pi, sqrt2 are all worthy mathematical abstractions, they do not represent what actually lies in mathematics. While things I work with are true before I prove them (I don't know how you could argue otherwise), and the things I don't even know about are likewise, they are nothing without a guiding hand. I really don't think schemes, sheaves, and gerbes have much meaning without the theory we have built up around them, but that theory specifically gives the concepts value. They are in a sense very natural, but that doesn't mean that they have an inevitability.
Since they are a logical language/law that exists independent of humans and even the universe...what do you think they could exist from? Not just in the human mind but where? Personally I believe in God but what's your opinion on the ontology of math?
Very interesting, please do more in this topic
Agreed, this topic and this channels others on mathematical fictionalism vs realism is fascinating
Its the opposite project of Frege, Husserl, Hilbert. But language has been understood to be possible if there are innate structures. This means a monkey s possibility of speaking with its hands its limited. Robin Williams saw Koko a gorilla, he already had inaugurated and patented 🖖 a greeting, a character that spoke an alien language, but this language has a physical counterpart. And yes we can see black holes and inconmensurable parts of them, but they are beyond our capacity to process them, even if we have them in presence as a "whole/part". Realities that seemed mathematical artifacts turned with gravitational waves true physical phenomena. Any physical object is not present as a whole. Its open to future investigations. So i dont have a posture in a realm thats not mine. Thanks for the videos!!
Great video man!
Thanks!
Logic, the foundation of maths, exists in the supreme mind of God who is the ground of all existence. Otherwise logical statements wouldn't be universally true. However, mathematics is about finding out the properties of a system that arises from given axioms.
Yes two is real, I have two of lots of things.
Those things existing don't mean that the abstract exists as well, do they?
It's like me saying that weak exists, because I have a weak arm.
I have two things to say about this…
You can’t have two twos though because it becomes four.
But you absolutely can. Both are true. Isnt this just division/multiplication/addition or sets?
@ ok 👍
Conservatives dont want you to know this info 🗣️🔥🔥
What does this have to do with politics?
Fundamentally, this seems to ignore the depth of actual pure mathematics, done for the sake of mathematics and outside of any specific "real" application. As some sort of extension to Quine and Putnam's argument, I would very much argue for the consideration of non physically-derived mathematical concepts.
As a research mathematician, the stuff I do is really esoteric. There are maybe 20 other mathematicians that I can talk with in full detail, and conversely, the amount of people who I can understand in full is relatively small. There is a nonzero chance that in 100 years, literally no one living will be able to understand what I am currently doing. While talking about natural numbers, pi, sqrt2 are all worthy mathematical abstractions, they do not represent what actually lies in mathematics. While things I work with are true before I prove them (I don't know how you could argue otherwise), and the things I don't even know about are likewise, they are nothing without a guiding hand. I really don't think schemes, sheaves, and gerbes have much meaning without the theory we have built up around them, but that theory specifically gives the concepts value. They are in a sense very natural, but that doesn't mean that they have an inevitability.
Since they are a logical language/law that exists independent of humans and even the universe...what do you think they could exist from? Not just in the human mind but where?
Personally I believe in God but what's your opinion on the ontology of math?