Do you believe in god or math?

[The Grand Nudger]

Gotta say, you've been given some pretty clear explanations as to why we don't have to believe in numbers, why math is not a subjective discipline. Wondering what it is that causes you to hold onto this so tightly. What depends upon this assertion of yours?

(we're talking numbers, so holding up 1 finger would of course mean 1, but here again is a great example of why numbers aren't subjective. You could indeed be flicking me off, had you just held up a card with the number 1 on it, there would be no confusion)

[Modular Moog V]

Gotta say, you've been given some pretty clear explanations as to why we don't have to believe in numbers, why math is not a subjective discipline. Wondering what it is that causes you to hold onto this so tightly. What depends upon this assertion of yours?

(we're talking numbers, so holding up 1 finger would of course mean 1, but here again is a great example of why numbers aren't subjective. You could indeed be flicking me off, had you just held up a card with the number 1 on it, there would be no confusion)

The problem of Induction. One rails at circular reasoning in some areas (theism), but ignores it in others, science, and math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Induction#Hume

You are making a mistake if you think a card with 1 on it always means 1. In a cypher language it could refer to anything, only known by a person with the cypher key. In this case, 1 does not mean 1. If it can fail to hold its meaning, or have other meanings, (thankfully true for spies), it shows the subjective nature of the symbol. If numbers are not subjective, you have proposed an objective "object" in the world that has no matter in it, and would exist whether the physical universe exists or not. Can such an object be "real"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Induction is a problem of logic, and a disputed one at that. It doesn't seem to prevent the machines we build from functioning does it. In any code, the numbers used are agreed on in the key, so your analogy is again insufficient, because this is exactly what the numbers themselves are in the first place. An agreed upon set of symbols. Again, if the numbers were subjective, the key would mean nothing, the code would be undecipherable.

Actually, I think this a great analogy for your current position. You apparently do not have the key, and so numbers appear, to you, to be subjective and undecipherable. Have you noticed that the only way you've been able to provide examples that numbers are subjective is by introducing a ton of other objects into your analogies? You are confusing yourself.

[Modular Moog V]

Induction is a problem of logic, and a disputed one at that. It doesn't seem to prevent the machines we build from functioning does it. In any code, the numbers used are agreed on in the key, so your analogy is again insufficient, because this is exactly what the numbers themselves are in the first place. An agreed upon set of symbols. Again, if the numbers were subjective, the key would mean nothing, the code would be undecipherable.

Actually, I think this a great analogy for your current position. You apparently do not have the key, and so numbers appear, to you, to be subjective and undecipherable. Have you noticed that the only way you've been able to provide examples that numbers are subjective is by introducing a ton of other objects into your analogies? You are confusing yourself.

I am not saying that math is not useful, and the machines we create using aspects of math are indeed in the world. But if numbers are objective, they exist independent of us. (or some of the other animals we have seen to be doing rudimentary counting)

We use math to simplify our understanding of how objects relate in the world. It is a tool from inside. Everything in the objective world has mass, and energy. What mass, and energy do you ascribe to numbers, as you believe them to also be objective?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, the conceptual abstraction of numbers is a uniquely human thing (as far as we know). It is a system of making observations. What could be said about mass without referencing this system? Should have been clear from my first post that numbers themselves are not a thing with mass, or energy. It is a language, designed (and refined) to avoid subjectivity, so that concepts can be communicated between us avoiding any cultural, linguistic, or perceptual differences. The numbers themselves are conceptual abstractions, the things that they are used to describe are not. This is the reason that you do not have to leverage faith in dealing with numbers.

I had exactly this problem btw in high school, so it's kind of a trip back in time for me. I would reference subjectivity in algebra, I wish now that my teacher had explained this to me more thoroughly instead of saying "because it is". Hilariously, her response was factually accurate, even though it was unsatisfactory at the time. Think, 1+1=2 unless we're talking about human beings, then 1+1=3 (or even more). Thing is, the subjectivity in my objection was inherent to the bit about human beings and reproduction, not numbers as conceptual abstractions or what they represent.

[Modular Moog V]

Again, the conceptual abstraction of numbers is a uniquely human thing (as far as we know). It is a system of making observations. What could be said about mass without referencing this system? Should have been clear from my first post that numbers themselves are not a thing with mass, or energy. It is a language, designed (and refined) to avoid subjectivity, so that concepts can be communicated between us avoiding any cultural, linguistic, or perceptual differences. The numbers themselves are conceptual abstractions, the things that they are used to describe are not. This is the reason that you do not have to leverage faith in dealing with numbers.

I had exactly this problem btw in high school, so it's kind of a trip back in time for me. I would reference subjectivity in algebra, I wish now that my teacher had explained this to me more thoroughly instead of saying "because it is". Hilariously, her response was factually accurate, even though it was unsatisfactory at the time. Think, 1+1=2 unless we're talking about human beings, then 1+1=3 (or even more). Thing is, the subjectivity in my objection was inherent to the bit about human beings and reproduction, not numbers as conceptual abstractions or what they represent.

That is extraordinarily clear. Thanks for dealing with my less than clear language on these points. I still hold the opinion that math as a language is still subjective, although it is more pure than any other as a form of communicating. Here is a bit that frames this much better than I can :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:R...jective.3F

[The Grand Nudger]

That wiki link explains exactly why it's the object in question and not the numbers themselves that are subjective. So, god or numbers, goedels. Is this a popular subject recently?

That two people can use different parameters and come up with two different conclusions is obvious, point is that either of these two people can understand precisely what the other is trying to communicate. The rules they follow and the language they use are identical. What is subjective here is the "knowledge" of the person in question, and again, not numbers. If the numbers themselves could be taken to mean anything between the two people in this example then communicating any idea with precision would be impossible.

Must be a simpler way to describe this. Numbers are a "language" that is standardized and free of interpretation, even though the product of those numbers can be interpreted (and often is) in different ways. For example, 50% success can also be 50% failure. It is 50% regardless. Or 1/2. Or .5...so on and so forth. I'm honestly running out of ways to try and explain this.

[Modular Moog V]

No problem, you have explained the position with great clarity.

At issue is the realization that no-one so far has broken the classical skeptical viewpoints on our ability to have knowledge, or the modern BIV versions either.

The only way forward was to say we can have aspects of knowledge, and move forward without solving the issue of our subjectivity. Of course we can't sit there wringing our hands about it, and our progress has been because of the positivist approach. However, there is always a nagging bit of doubt because of this. Even math, coming so tantalizingly close, cant break this shadow. And it will haunt science as well.

The human condition, I guess.

I do understand the positivist approach you so clearly have explained, but obviously need to work on how to express the skeptical position better.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing wrong with being skeptical. There are problems with every system of thought, every language we've come up with so far. Here's another fun wiki link you might enjoy. Voids probably your guy on that count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

[IATIA]

I see the theists have not addressed the OP.

This thread has taken an interesting turn. It would seem that the main problem is semantics which truly can never be overcome.

As the posters are quibbling over definitions, I have noticed one definition that has eluded any discussion. That being the definition of math itself.

If 'math' is strictly defined as a language, then it will always be subjective. 'Math', however, is supposed to be 'objective'. As 'edk141' stated, "If you drop something in a vacuum at constant Earth surface gravity, it will accelerate at 9.8m/s no matter what units you measure the 9.8m/s in.", this is where the semantics comes into play. No matter the language used, the rate of fall does not change. That is 'math'. We have attached a language to the math to be able to communicate our observations and theories, but the language itself is not the 'math'.

'Math' is objective. The language used to describe the 'math' is supposed to be objective, but (as shown in this thread) can be semantically charged with subjectiveness. Ultimately, I see no way around this as it is apparently human nature to create discourse when none is present.

The other problem being, language itself is a poor way of conveying one's own thoughts to another, (as will be shown by responses to this post).

I see RED. Simple enough. Bright red? Dull red? Maybe a little blue in it , but still red. Did i mean brick red? How about burgundy, carmine, madder, maroon, rose, rouge, ruby, russet? What color did I mean?