So...guess I'm the new guy

[Napoléon]

Lol, it's funny having vinny on ignore. It's like you guys are just arguing against a brick wall.

I suppose that's not too far from the truth

[Reforged]

NP Vinny. Take "1" chestnut...put it in your hands....now, take "1" more chestnut....put it in your hands. Now, you have "2" nuts. Solving both your problems with the assumptions of math and other, more serious, issues. I'll do the same thing here, on my end (if you absolutely need me to), we'll have anyone else who cares to involve themselves do the same, lets see if our results are similar?

IOW 1+1=2......christ almighty, I'm so embarrassed that I had to explain this to anyone.....

No, that doesn't work.

Adding 1+1 chestnuts to make 2 chestnuts presupposes that 1+1=2, ie it presupposes the validity of mathematics in order to prove the validity of mathematics. Arguing in a circle.

Try again, won't ya?

Are you saying if you put one chestnut with another chestnut you don't have two chestnuts?
Because if thats what you're saying do be very clear about it.

[discordianpope]

I agree that you can't empirically prove the existance of mathematical objects. Mathematical objects (numbers, sets etc.) are not physical objects. The ontological status of such things is pretty tricky. For me anyway. I know Quine regarded himself as a physicalist, but also had a place in his ontology for these kinds of non-physical things.

There are really two sepperate issues here. It is perfectly possible to say that mathematical objects are non-physical (in that they are eternal, non spatial and do not enter in to causal relationships etc.) but also take the line that they are confirmed by science. Science makes reference to theoretical unobservable entities all the time. Like subatomic particles. If the theories work, the unobservables can be considered proven to exist. The same kind of deal could be used to confirm the existence of these weird non-physical objects, based on the success of science as a whole. I'm not sure about this tact myself, since it kind of suggests that some weird scientific discovery could prove that 2+2 does not in fact equal 4. But even you're like me, and you dont really buy the physics confirms mathematics line, I'm not sure it matters. Yeah, so there are these mathematical objects, which are abstract, non-physical, and eternal, which we have an intuitive grasp of and we use them to do science. What are the implications for anything?

Also, kinda nitpicky maybe, but, physicalism is a philosophical position, and not a scientific paradigm.

[Reforged]

Lol, it's funny having vinny on ignore. It's like you guys are just arguing against a brick wall.

I suppose that's not too far from the truth

Brick walls can be broken with consistent pressure.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, that doesn't work.

Adding 1+1 chestnuts to make 2 chestnuts presupposes that 1+1=2, ie it presupposes the validity of mathematics in order to prove the validity of mathematics. Arguing in a circle.

Try again, won't ya?

LOL..... Why doesn't that work for, do you have two chestnuts on hand? I think that the mathematical community s a whole would be greatly in your debt if you could show that 1+1=2 "doesn't work". Am I in the company of genius? I don't know....I'm pretty skeptical....

[Reforged]

No, that doesn't work.

Adding 1+1 chestnuts to make 2 chestnuts presupposes that 1+1=2, ie it presupposes the validity of mathematics in order to prove the validity of mathematics. Arguing in a circle.

Try again, won't ya?

LOL..... Who doesn't that work for, do you have two chestnuts on hand? I think that the mathematical community s a whole would be greatly in your debt if you could show that 1+1=2 "doesn't work". Am I in the company of genius? I don't know....I'm pretty skeptical....

Its not even as if its not physically demonstrable.
It is.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

No, that doesn't work.

Adding 1+1 chestnuts to make 2 chestnuts presupposes that 1+1=2, ie it presupposes the validity of mathematics in order to prove the validity of mathematics. Arguing in a circle.

Try again, won't ya?

Are you saying if you put one chestnut with another chestnut you don't have two chestnuts?
Because if thats what you're saying do be very clear about it.

Oh look the English teacher is suddenly curious as to the conundrum of assumptions!

What I'm saying is that the chestnut case is not scientific proof or evidence of the truth of the mathematical proposition 1+1=2.

There is no scientific evidence for 1+1=2. Science has to just assume fundamental axioms of mathematics are true.

[Reforged]

Are you saying if you put one chestnut with another chestnut you don't have two chestnuts?
Because if thats what you're saying do be very clear about it.

Oh look the English teacher is suddenly curious as to the conundrum of assumptions!

What I'm saying is that the chestnut case is not scientific proof or evidence of the truth of the mathematical proposition 1+1=2.

There is no scientific evidence for 1+1=2. Science has to just assume fundamental axioms of mathematics are true.

The statement that I am an English teacher is an admission that you are in need of one. Its good to see you are coming to terms with your self-evident limitations.

You're saying the two chestnuts would not be physical proof that putting one chestnut with one chestnut will inevitably lead to a very specific and easily predictable amount of chestnuts?
Again, be very clear about this.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no scientific evidence for 1+1=2. Science has to just assume fundamental axioms of mathematics are true.

Sure there is. It's demonstrable, falsifiable, and subject to replication by anyone who has chestnuts. No assumptions required.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Oh look the English teacher is suddenly curious as to the conundrum of assumptions!

What I'm saying is that the chestnut case is not scientific proof or evidence of the truth of the mathematical proposition 1+1=2.

There is no scientific evidence for 1+1=2. Science has to just assume fundamental axioms of mathematics are true.

The statement that I am an English teacher is an admission that you are in need of one. Its good to see you are coming to terms with your self-evident limitations.

You're saying the two chestnuts would not be physical proof that putting one chestnut with one chestnut will inevitably lead to a very specific and easily predictable amount of chestnuts?
Again, be very clear about this.

Whoa, wait a second, Hoodie McGee!

Putting chestnuts together to get specific and easily predictable amounts of chestnuts is not the same as putting 1+1=2.

Now you're confusing one concept with another. Probably because you don't want to admit that science can't prove mathematical truths. Think about it McGee- why would we need axioms in math if we had science? Because science can't prove math, that's why.

Stick to the concept we're talking about. Don't go off into another direction just because you don't like your ass being handed to ya!