Actual Infinities

[Mudhammam]

Which logical necessity are we talking about here?

The necessity that characterizes logical and mathematical operations.

[Mudhammam]

Also, I JUST realized you are Alex K! Lol. I was wondering how it was that I had already given you kudos. :-)

[I_am_not_mafia]

Humans invented the symbols. They did not invent the correlation that exists between what those symbols represent - which are abstract objects - and the operations of nature.

Agreed. But the correlations and operations between what those symbols represent is not Maths. Maths and logic are languages used to represent those correlations. They are more suited to describe some applications than others.

That nature can be described as a mathematical structure may say just as much about the world and the nature of abstract entities as it does about our ability to engage it via mental processes.

If you think this then please explain specifically how this can be so.

The thing is that we could use a wholly different language to describe nature. And in fact we do. Natural language for example. When we discover something new about the world we then have to find the most efficient and effective way to describe it. The language does not come first. And sometimes we find that the language we do come up with does not scale or is limited in ways that we did not fully appreciate. For example, how the artificial intelligentsia tried to explain intelligence in terms of logic.

Stephen Wolfram came up with his own kind of Maths to describe emergent phenomena and complex processes for example. It is still not clear whether this is the most useful way to describe these Mathematical processes.

They can look very similar to what happens when biological structures grow (e.g. L-systems), but this is an entirely different phenomenon that has occurred for entirely different reasons. So a biologist may need to use a different language because Wolfram's abstractions leave out important details. In the same way I can provide three different rules for emulating flocking behaviour in birds but that does not mean to say that birds themselves use those very same rules or that a neuroscientist would find them useful.

Ultimately all these languages are useful because it often becomes too cumbersome to describe the constituent ingredients of the universe in terms of energy flows, thermodynamic gradients and entropy. We choose the most appropriate language to abstract the features that we are interested in at the time.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Gee, I didn't know there were multiple kinds of integers. Do those vary from 'maths' to 'maths' ? Perhaps 1 is not always followed by 2 using some advanced Jethro theory of numbers. Mr. Math, you're talking complete nonsense. Changing methods of calculation or models has no effect on the actual nature of the reality described. Your position is basically that we live in a world without facts.

[Alex K]

Also, I JUST realized you are Alex K! Lol. I was wondering how it was that I had already given you kudos. :-)

Sorry, that stupid IroscatoKaiser, in a weak moment, talked me into changing my Name a coupla days ago. Also, I went with the general Halloween trend.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Gee, I didn't know there were multiple kinds of integers. Do those vary from 'maths' to 'maths' ? Perhaps 1 is not always followed by 2 using some advanced Jethro theory of numbers.  Mr. Math, you're talking complete nonsense. Changing methods of calculation or models has no effect on the actual nature of the reality described. Your position is basically that we live in a world without facts.

You are deliberately misunderstanding what I said because you cannot find a valid arguement.

Let's change what you said to refer specifically to natural languages so that you can see how stupid your objection is.

Gee, I didn't know there were multiple kinds of words. Do those vary from 'languages' to 'languages' ? Perhaps a postposition is not always followed by preposition using some advanced linguistic theory.  Ms. Language, you're talking complete nonsense. Changing methods of communication or models has no effect on the actual nature of the reality described.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers

Your position is basically that we live in a world without facts.

Typical binary thinking displayed by a theist who is unable to comprehend degrees of correctness, evidence or probability. The lack of comprehension is yours.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-37549.ht...y+thinking

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nestor, do you have any questions about my position?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Gee, I didn't know there were multiple kinds of integers. Do those vary from 'maths' to 'maths' ? Perhaps 1 is not always followed by 2 using some advanced Jethro theory of numbers.  Mr. Math, you're talking complete nonsense. Changing methods of calculation or models has no effect on the actual nature of the reality described. Your position is basically that we live in a world without facts.

You are deliberately misunderstanding what I said because you cannot find a valid arguement.

Let's change what you said to refer specifically to natural languages so that you can see how stupid your objection is.

Gee, I didn't know there were multiple kinds of words. Do those vary from 'languages' to 'languages' ? Perhaps a postposition is not always followed by preposition using some advanced linguistic theory.  Ms. Language, you're talking complete nonsense. Changing methods of communication or models has no effect on the actual nature of the reality described.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers

Your position is basically that we live in a world without facts.

Typical binary thinking displayed by a theist who is unable to comprehend degrees of correctness, evidence or probability. The lack of comprehension is yours.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-37549.ht...y+thinking

Please take some time to read up on nominalism. It might help you understand the extreme position you have taken.

[Mudhammam]

Nestor, do you have any questions about my position?

In what fashion do abstract objects exist? Are principles and universals in the same category of being? How do they relate to physical objects? Are they separate realities that interact, in and/or outside of minds, or two sides of the same neutral substance?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Please take some time to read up on nominalism. It might help you understand the extreme position you have taken.

Nominalism is a metaphysical view in philosophy according to which general or abstract terms and predicates exist, while universals or abstract objects, which are sometimes thought to correspond to these terms, do not exist.

In other words, utter bollocks and like most philosophy mental masturbation not based on evidence, observation or the scientific method.