Another to ruin....what fun Welcome! (sorry for being last to the party.)

(September 9, 2012 at 6:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 9, 2012 at 9:11 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Er... no, you were attempting to misrepresent me and it was obvious to anyone capable of reading.

Actually I think your claim was that mathematics is a metaphysical assumption and it demonstrably isn't.
Mathematics has an incredible amount of physical evidence to back-up its validity as a system that yields accurate results.
It cannot be defined either as metaphysical or assumptions. If you disagree buy yourself a dictionary and see if you can troll that.
Thanks for playing.

---

(Totally worth it.)

That's not me. I wear top hats.

But even when you claim "incredible amount of physical evidence", you are implying a second assumption of science. It's the problem of induction. Again.

Yet another scientific assumption.

Sorry but how much scientific background do you think you need to notice that a chestnut is physically different from multiple chestnuts in a very noticeable and easily definable way?
I think you'll find thats whats referred to in certain circles as "common sense".

If you mean that the rational thinking involved mirrors scientific reasoning in many ways then you would be right. So what? You want people to cast aside all evidence, reasoning and pretty much anything they could use to discern reality? Then what? They rely on people like you who have the slightest knowledge of metaphysical philosophy? Is that it? Because that seems to of been what you have been trying to drive toward this entire time. Well I'm very sorry but the majority of sane people do not wish to live in a world where people can pull claims out of their assholes and not need to prove them. Even if this reality were nought but a dream it would still follow that this dream has preset parameters as is evident from the fact you are not flying above a volcano and fucking wonder woman. There is cause and effect here. Logic is not simply a comfortable choice that has been created to please the masses. It is a finely tuned instrument to determine more about the strange world we live in and it gets more finely tuned everyday we live in it. It works, until it does not work it is simply not excusable to use a substandard version of a rather flawed line of reasoning as a replacement. You do not use a feather duster for an autopsy, you use a sharp instrument capable of making controlled and calculated incisions.
You seem to have forgotten that philosophy is not about exploring the uncharted and the unknown to find the answers, it is about exploring the uncharted and the unknown to find the questions and this question you are posing already has a sound answer that is thoroughly within the realms of the knowledge possessed by almost every single human being living on this planet today. Is it a guarantee mathematics works in all circumstances? Impossible to tell, we will likely never experience all circumstances but it has been physically proven to work in all circumstances we have encountered so far and it should not be assumed it is faulty when there is so much physical evidence to the contrary. That is more than we could say for the lines of reasoning you have attempted in this thread.

You're attempting to use metaphysics where it simply does not belong and it shows. You lost this one a while ago, let it go and stop embarrassing yourself.

---

Also, I demand my warning level be increased to 50% right this instant.
That meme was well worth a warning and I'm alittle insulted it did not receive one. -.-

(September 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(September 9, 2012 at 6:02 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: That's not me. I wear top hats.

But even when you claim "incredible amount of physical evidence", you are implying a second assumption of science. It's the problem of induction. Again.

Yet another scientific assumption.

Sorry but how much scientific background do you think you need to notice that a chestnut is physically different from multiple chestnuts in a very noticeable and easily definable way?
I think you'll find thats whats referred to in certain circles as "common sense".

If you mean that the rational thinking involved mirrors scientific reasoning in many ways then you would be right. So what? You want people to cast aside all evidence, reasoning and pretty much anything they could use to discern reality? Then what? They rely on people like you who have the slightest knowledge of metaphysical philosophy? Is that it? Because that seems to of been what you have been trying to drive toward this entire time. Well I'm very sorry but the majority of sane people do not wish to live in a world where people can pull claims out of their assholes and not need to prove them. Even if this reality were nought but a dream it would still follow that this dream has preset parameters as is evident from the fact you are not flying above a volcano and fucking wonder woman. There is cause and effect here. Logic is not simply a comfortable choice that has been created to please the masses. It is a finely tuned instrument to determine more about the strange world we live in and it gets more finely tuned everyday we live in it. It works, until it does not work it is simply not excusable to use a substandard version of a rather flawed line of reasoning as a replacement. You do not use a feather duster for an autopsy, you use a sharp instrument capable of making controlled and calculated incisions.
You seem to have forgotten that philosophy is not about exploring the uncharted and the unknown to find the answers, it is about exploring the uncharted and the unknown to find the questions and this question you are posing already has a sound answer that is thoroughly within the realms of the knowledge possessed by almost every single human being living on this planet today. Is it a guarantee mathematics works in all circumstances? Impossible to tell, we will likely never experience all circumstances but it has been physically proven to work in all circumstances we have encountered so far and it should not be assumed it is faulty when there is so much physical evidence to the contrary. That is more than we could say for the lines of reasoning you have attempted in this thread.

You're attempting to use metaphysics where it simply does not belong and it shows. You lost this one a while ago, let it go and stop embarrassing yourself.

---

Also, I demand my warning level be increased to 50% right this instant.
That meme was well worth a warning and I'm alittle insulted it did not receive one. -.-

You're still going to deny well-accepted scientific consensus?

Tell you what. Before I take you seriously, I'll ask that you define science and the scientific method. That way it will be obvious to all, as well as yourself, how wrong you truly are.

(September 8, 2012 at 10:56 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Keeping the focus on the topic though. The question was whether mathematics can be proven within science.

Mathematics is a science. In fact, it is often referred to as the language of science. You may well have asked if yeast can be proven by a proper cake.

Something tells me that one of the people here shouldn't be allowed science.

(September 9, 2012 at 9:59 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Sorry but how much scientific background do you think you need to notice that a chestnut is physically different from multiple chestnuts in a very noticeable and easily definable way?
I think you'll find thats whats referred to in certain circles as "common sense".

If you mean that the rational thinking involved mirrors scientific reasoning in many ways then you would be right. So what? You want people to cast aside all evidence, reasoning and pretty much anything they could use to discern reality? Then what? They rely on people like you who have the slightest knowledge of metaphysical philosophy? Is that it? Because that seems to of been what you have been trying to drive toward this entire time. Well I'm very sorry but the majority of sane people do not wish to live in a world where people can pull claims out of their assholes and not need to prove them. Even if this reality were nought but a dream it would still follow that this dream has preset parameters as is evident from the fact you are not flying above a volcano and fucking wonder woman. There is cause and effect here. Logic is not simply a comfortable choice that has been created to please the masses. It is a finely tuned instrument to determine more about the strange world we live in and it gets more finely tuned everyday we live in it. It works, until it does not work it is simply not excusable to use a substandard version of a rather flawed line of reasoning as a replacement. You do not use a feather duster for an autopsy, you use a sharp instrument capable of making controlled and calculated incisions.
You seem to have forgotten that philosophy is not about exploring the uncharted and the unknown to find the answers, it is about exploring the uncharted and the unknown to find the questions and this question you are posing already has a sound answer that is thoroughly within the realms of the knowledge possessed by almost every single human being living on this planet today. Is it a guarantee mathematics works in all circumstances? Impossible to tell, we will likely never experience all circumstances but it has been physically proven to work in all circumstances we have encountered so far and it should not be assumed it is faulty when there is so much physical evidence to the contrary. That is more than we could say for the lines of reasoning you have attempted in this thread.

You're attempting to use metaphysics where it simply does not belong and it shows. You lost this one a while ago, let it go and stop embarrassing yourself.

---

Also, I demand my warning level be increased to 50% right this instant.
That meme was well worth a warning and I'm alittle insulted it did not receive one. -.-

You're still going to deny well-accepted scientific consensus?

Tell you what. Before I take you seriously, I'll ask that you define science and the scientific method. That way it will be obvious to all, as well as yourself, how wrong you truly are.

Didn't even read a word of that did you?
Tell you what, how about we give you a second so you can actually take the time to read what I put as opposed to skimming through it as you so clearly must have done to come to such a stupid and misinformed conclusion.
I'll wait.

Also, what scientific consensus is this? Theres one which clearly states maths is metaphysical is there? Ok, lets see it.

I already have defined science in many previous posts, this is like watching a headless chicken run around in circles.

(September 9, 2012 at 9:59 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You're still going to deny well-accepted scientific consensus?

Tell you what. Before I take you seriously, I'll ask that you define science and the scientific method. That way it will be obvious to all, as well as yourself, how wrong you truly are.

And before you tell anyone that you will take them seriously, you need to gain some credibility for yourself, odd ball.