So...guess I'm the new guy

[The Grand Nudger]

Everybody else where? The peanut gallery of your mind? Your current objections were handled long ago. You got those chestnuts handy yet, we're gonna do some science right?

[discordianpope]

when you take two chestnuts and describe them as two chestnuts you have already started doing the math though. You have identified a set - a mathematical object - and assigned a cardinality to the set. I think, my maths knowledge in't too good. In the very act of carving up reality into these sets of one things, two things, and tens of things, you are already doing the math though. And then when you add these sets together to get bigger sets of things (like chestnuts) you are doing more maths, whether you use numbers to describe the process or not. All this doesn't mean that science can't confirm mathematics though. Just because we didn't begin with an empirical basis for mathematics doesn't mean we can't use the success of science to say "Gee, I guess those mathematical intuitions must have been right, cos all this physics is basically mathematics and it seems to work pretty well!" That's where Vinny is wrong. I actually, I think he is right about mathematics not being empirically testable, but I wouldn't say that it's all just assumed either.

I'm not saying mathematical truths cannot be confirmed or supported by science. Or more properly, a posteriori knowledge or empirical observation (is science isotropic to empirical observation? I don't think so, but that's another subject).

But so far as "proving numbers and mathematical relations are valid through science", as Hoodie wants to prove, there has to be a hypothesis first. And you cannot make this hypothesis simply by observing the world. Numbers and mathematical relations don't exist in the world in the same way as the objects of scientific inquiry exist.

From this it's almost commonsensical to say that "proving math" lies outside the realm of science, because science, at least hard science, is fundamentally physical, and mathematical quantities and relations are non-physical.

I thought this was fundamental, commonsense knowledge. I can't believe it's being denied that science makes assumptions it cannot prove.

Thing is, your view of the way science works is wrong. Our scientific knowledge is not a set of individual hypotheses which face the tribunal of experience alone. It is a complex network of beliefs, including all that outlying auxillary seemingly non-empirical stuff like maths, logic and metaphysical assumptions. Anything that feeds in to science is indirectly tested by the success or failure of science as a whole. The success of science is thereby an indirect confirmation of those mathematical assumptions you mention. Or so the argument goes. It's called epistemological holism. I don't actually buy it myself (well, not the maths and logic part anyway), but, like much of common sense, the idea that these things are "unprovable" by science is not at all certain.

[Reforged]

Everybody else is getting it. You're the only person here who is still confused.

Assumptions of the kind that is talked about in grade school is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about masters degree level stuff. Where epistemology and science meet. If there is such a thing as meta-science, the assumption of the validity of logic in the absence of scientific evidence is a consideration of meta-science and epistemology, or knowledge.

I honestly think you are just confusing two different concepts. I don't know how old you are, but this stuff just isn't covered in high school and freshman year in college. You just might be out of your depth. And I'm not saying this to be rude. I fully acknowledge that we all are at different stages in our education. We can't be expected to learn everything at once.

The only thing everybody here is getting is that your are an obnoxious little boy who has obtained the tiniest bit of knowledge of philosophy and thinks he can stretch it to imply that science makes meta-physical assumptions. When asked to point them out you produced mathematics as an answer and it has been rejected for many sound reasons. Your retorts have been to resort to ridiculous statements like intuition is more important than rational thinking. Insulting retreats have been the core of almost all of your posts.

From everything you said I'm not sure its even evident you have ever been to high school let alone graduated. You have failed in almost all regards to prove any of what you have stated. You even failed to answer the simplest of questions.

For example when posed the query of how you would describe a chestnut being put in a pocket with another chestnut you completely dodged the question.
I really can't be held responsible for your self-evident limitations Vince, I'm very sorry you can't grasp the concept of physical evidence but that really is your problem and not ours.
The irony is that your using the evidence that these systems work to type posts that reject it as evidence.
I mean, you can't make this shit up. You really are an idiot.

[KichigaiNeko]

http://youtu.be/SxZS-Beu4ss

[discordianpope]

Vinny isn't an idiot. He is raising legitimate questions that aren't answered by talking about having any number of chestnuts (how are we ever gonna prove the mathematical concept of infinity with chestnuts? Seriously, this is getting silly). I think they are answerable questions (for someone who thinks that all our knowledge must somehow be grounded in science - something I couldn't give a shit about), and I have said why.

[Napoléon]

Vinny isn't an idiot.

You haven't been here very long have you?

[jonb]

I have said why.

I hate to admit it, but it seems vinny is right there is one person who does not understand.

To explain the chest nuts were a metaphor they were actually talking about hedge hogs

[discordianpope]

Vinny isn't an idiot.

You haven't been here very long have you?

No, I guess not. But I havn't seen him say anything obviously idiotic.

---

Hedgehogs eh? Well I suppose that's one way of making maths more fun.

[Napoléon]

No, I guess not. But I havn't seen him say anything obviously idiotic.

Stick around my friend, stick around.

[Fryslân]

Hello again,

Cthulhu Dreaming and Stimbo, thanks for your reply (sorry if i forgot anyone).
Maybe im just a bit narrow minded myself thinking that most religious people think they´ve got all the answers in their book. Like i said i´m new here and hoping to see a change globaly here.
The way i´m thinking here, shows you a bit of my background and the area i live. I´m not over exaggerating when i say, the reason i think this way was created by riligious communitys around me. Near my flat is actually the fastest growing church (Bethel Church) in Europe. And yes, they can call it what the want, but it's most definitly a sect. They even wanted their own estate to live on near the church and they have to donate 10% of their income to the reverend (Bottenbley). I think is must be one of the smartest people i've met regarding to communication.
Now i really don't understand how this is possible in the era we live in. It's the most primitive but also one of the scariest things things i've seen. Atheism is not really an accepted thing, so i guess i feel threatend a bit although i don't really do anything with it besides post things on this forum.
Thanks for reading if you did so.