I think the word you’re looking for is “resemblance”.
Wrong; mathematics is a model of necessity. Like every good model, it is simplified.
Also, you’ve got it the wrong way 'round. The structures of the physical world do not correspond to geometry, it is geometry which does or does not correspond to the physical world.
You say the laws of mathematics are discovered by man. But where has man ever found a mathematical 1? (an “infinite amount” of zeroes, then a 1, then a comma, and then again “an infinite amount” of zeroes)?
Maybe we exist in Euclidean space the way we exist in the world of language?
For what it’s worth, early math is about quantity: whether discrete or continuous. In the world are quantities, which I say we measure ideally with regard to the substance measured, but the distances are really there in space. (Is this application or correspondence, I don’t know?) Discrete quantities are in the world too: one apple, two apple, three apple.
Later math is about operations done with natural numbers or treating numbers as ratios. And some maths leave off modeling the world, but are still of use (certain "non-Euclidean"maths) – figure that one out!
No, not at all; resemblance is about appearance. Correspondence about internal structure, law, ‘essence’ if you will.
There is no one or other way round - both way’s round are the same - the worlds ways of becoming equal mathematical necessities.
I can see where you’re coming from now, but that is not mathematics you are talking about, you’re thinking about numbers; a language of calculating quantities. This is often used as a tool within mathematics, but it is not an inherent part of it. Mathematics is a description of the necessities of form, nature. Algebra is derived from geometry, and numbers can be used in algebra. But ideas about quantities, like ‘the perfect one’ are not part of it.
Eh, Snau, is this one of those situations you get into where you lose sight of all rational processes because you feel cornered?
And why do I get the feeling you haven’t the first clue who Euclides is?
I know you are an alpha - but I don’t buy this this complete lack of exact understanding. You cannot actually sit behind a computer and deny that mathematics correspond to reality. It is beyond silly.
And why is it that for the 8 years you’ve been on these fora, everytime someone gives breaks down your argument, you completely ignore it, and move on to your next agenda point, which hasn’t been undermined yet? What happened to your ‘perfect one’? Did you forget you made that mistake about math? Did it occur to you that because you thought this was so and it turned out to be not so, other things might be different as well? If not, what hinders this process? Why do you make it impossibe to reason with you when I don’t share your point of view?
Okay, so this is forms, maybe too platonic for you apply your mind to it because Nietzsche has allready dismissed it. But even in a not so platonic (‘Unnietschean’) topic as nothingness you completely ignore what I explain to you, about what I think no less, and go on to explain to me that what I think is completely different from what I think. What is that? Why do you pursue this utterly irrational course?
Great, Ollie’s pretending to be incapable of perceiving the different points I make game. Yawn.
Yes,
-computers use mathematics. You’re using one. You do not draw consequences from reality when you make your claims.
-You denied Euclidean math corresponds to reality. You didn’t know what Euclidean was, you thought it was adding and dubstracting quantities. You didn’t register you were wrong. Didn’t retrace your steps. You did not draw consequences again.
You mean the last time? It was simple; I told you mathematial law has nothing to do with perfect or exact quantities. You thought it did and based your claim that mathematics does not correspond to reality on it.
Again, what does this juggling with numbers representing quantities and sizes have to do with mathematical law?
Account for your claims and I will stop asking you to.
Yes, computers use mathematics. They assimilate (make similar) electronic signals (or even light) to an already established 1; if the input is not sufficient, they don’t register anything, which is symbolised by 0 (zero). So the computer does the same as its maker, man: it assimilates/simplifies impressions. This proves nothing as to the supposed correspondence of mathematics to the physical world.
How do you know what I thought? As a matter of fact, Euclid is in “The Classical Greek Reader”, which I own. But my example regarded mathematics, not geometry.
I gave an example, which you dismissed as not being an example of what you were discussing (geometry). I promptly came up with another example that was, and you, unable to dismiss or tackle with it, started whining.
Er, no, it was just an example. I promptly provided another. I can provide more, if you want.
It means that the concept of “infinity” is nonsense, for one.
No such thing as an infinitely long line.
No such thing as an infinitely narrow line.
No such thing as a perfectly straight line.
No such thing as a mathematical line.
Valuable time spent reading back old posts. I wasn’t aware anymore that I had been so very close for years before my mind clicked.
See he notion of self-valuing in formation from excess:
Here can be seen the enormous difference between what I mean with self-valuing and its interpretation as self-interest or self-conservation through minimizing harm. But I will readily admit that throughout the process of clarifying the mechanism and the logic, the excess from which it sprung fell to the theoretical background - and this excess is the true ‘logic’ behind the theory - the standard on which the logic relies. Absolute positivity – which is so radically different from the present human condition that the task of connecting the two simply has to start somewhere, anywhere. It is already certain that a dozen chalices will have to be hallowed and broken before the proper drink can be poured.
