Re: All knowledge already exists...
Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:48 pm
Never, give a frog hormonal satisfactions.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
This is the wisdom that saves a man from believing he must become something in order to be loved, accepted, etc. It is the wisdom of Self Love and of Self Rest. The man who discovers he is purposed to be the discoverer of God's Spirit of I AM has found the Holy Grail of Himself.Cahoot: When one learns the truth one has discovered the truth, not created it.
You are missing the point, obviously. The Mandelbrot set exists, has always existed, in a Platonic sense, even before there was someone to contemplate it or conceptualize it. There are concepts which can be had in their entirety - these exist at a mental level. Concepts are by nature not timeless; Platonic things are timeless. Infinity is not a well-defined thing like a circle - it would be debatable to call it Platonic the same way as a circle is. Again, this distinction has been adopted by Penrose for utilitarian reasons, and it is not original to him. You can never truly grasp the entire Mandelbrot set, yet it is well defined, even simply defined, much like a circle or a square is simply defined. The idea here is to separate different but equally valid types of discovery. Ideas are mental, for example - Mandelbrot is not. It can never be fully mapped out, but it does not change.eyekwah wrote:Mandelbrot set doesn't exist anymore than infinity exists. It's a concept, and concepts exist at a mental level. It's true you can't possibly think to visualize properly a Mandelbrot set, but that doesn't mean you can't "get it."
You are asserting that as the truth though. Are you sure its not just your perception?eyekwah wrote:Perception defines reality. There is no such thing as absolute truth.
You want a proof? There is none. How can you prove that reality is shaped by our minds when no "real" reality exists to establish definitively the differences present? They say the color yellow is determined by our developing minds as infants. It'd be like determining who's shade of yellow is the "true" shade of yellow. The answer of course is that color is interpreted by our minds from vague photon wavelength input into our eyes.mental vagrant wrote:He is stating his mind, by definition he can only state his perception of the world and by both our perceptions this remains. I'm yet to read a formal proposition by the poster, so that we can try to disect this as a community. Untill then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWwHc-dzU4I
But this point is not true. The natural numbers (positive integers 1, 2, 3, ...) themselves are abstractions, whether that factored in their historical appearance or not. For instance, suppose they arose from counting wives or children or (other) livestock. An organism is clearly not one thing in an absolute sense; neither is anything (physical) else, so the number 1 on which the natural numbers are based becomes an abstraction (i.e., more virtual than real). As facts like this became apparent, mathematicians have had to justify the concept of the counting numbers. There are various ways to do this. Set theory provides one way: First, define the null or empty set Ø={}. Associate this with the number 0. Next, define the set {Ø}. This is not the same as Ø itself, since Ø contains no members, and {Ø} contains one member. Now define the set {Ø, {Ø}}. This has two members, and so on.eyekwah wrote:Mathematics is simply the set of concepts we build on top of number theory, and number theory came from representing quantities of objects which is very much real, not virtual.
You can argue this, but it it difficult to prove. You are saying if one could suddenly be put into another's head and view the world, the color "scheme" might be unrecognizable.eyekwah wrote:Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.
If a frequency can be detected it is imaginary even through extrasensory aparatus this principle remains, doesn't it? Yellow isn't ubiquitous, such a simple definition such as a word is more the bandwidth but even the bandwidths some number of people percieve might differ slightly due some number of factors. cousinbasil please proceed i'm eager to hear.eyekwah wrote:You want a proof? There is none. How can you prove that reality is shaped by our minds when no "real" reality exists to establish definitively the differences present? They say the color yellow is determined by our developing minds as infants. It'd be like determining who's shade of yellow is the "true" shade of yellow. The answer of course is that color is interpreted by our minds from vague photon wavelength input into our eyes.mental vagrant wrote:He is stating his mind, by definition he can only state his perception of the world and by both our perceptions this remains. I'm yet to read a formal proposition by the poster, so that we can try to disect this as a community. Untill then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWwHc-dzU4I
Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.
Well what I said was sort of a half-truth, since number theory came later, though without putting a name to it, that was what it was. A system to represent the quantity of objects. Since the practicality of the system required numbers both large and small, it incorporated the rather simple but genius concept of leaving it open-ended, allowing numbers to be represented without even knowing if there existed that amount of anything in the world.The point is that mathematics is anything but based on number theory, if number theory is considered to be something which issued forth from the physical world.
You make a good point. However, a good argument is far from solid proof. In order to prove what you say is true, not only would one have to actually have the ability to jump into another's head and view the world, but you'd have to prove that you see the world through his or her mind in every sense that matters. Unsurprisingly, I think that proving you were still you and not the person who's head you inhabited would be more complicated still.But consider this: the visible light range of wavelengths is nearly the same for everyone. The reason is that this is the relatively small band of frequencies to which water is not opaque - we all have common ancestors who emerged from the sea, and therefore sight organs would have developed to perceive that range which would be of any use. Hence, we all see water as "clear." In addition, if visible light is made up of a continuous range of wavelengths, why do most if not all humans perceive the spectrum as a series of distinct bands? It is not unreasonable to assume if we see the same number of bands that we perceive the colors themselves the same as well (quality in addition to quantity.)
Colorblindness is an excellent example of your point. Thank you for bringing it up. If someone wanted to pretend to be colorblind, would there ever truly be a way to demonstrate that he is not? At best, you could create a statistical analysis of all the times that person correctly indicated a color and determine the probability of a man who is colorblind being able to casually guess that color correctly and therefore determine the probability of someone lying about being colorblind. That's not defining reality. It's a bit more like stumbling in the dark until you stub your toe.If a frequency can be detected it is imaginary even through extrasensory aparatus this principle remains, doesn't it? Yellow isn't ubiquitous, such a simple definition such as a word is more the bandwidth but even the bandwidths some number of people percieve might differ slightly due some number of factors. cousinbasil please proceed i'm eager to hear.
Not at all. In fact, I recall having the same thought about color perception and realizing almost instantly that it could never be proven or disproven. I was really reacting to what you initially said:eyekwah wrote:You make a good point. However, a good argument is far from solid proof.... Is it such a stretch to claim that such a thing cannot ever be proven or disproven?
Here you say it is a fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different - I took it to mean different from one another's interpretation. If it can't be proven or disproven, then its factuality is in question - that's my only point. I was just suggesting some evidence that one's hard-wiring is similar to another's, which could lead one to suppose the "interpretations" are similar, if not the same.Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.
I agree that zero and negative numbers are bigger abstractions. And of course I wasn't suggesting set theory was behind the discovery of the counting, or natural, numbers. But a little thought shows you just how abstract the positive integers are. If you say there are 2 of anything, for example, you have already abstracted. A tree does not equal another tree. "Two trees" means "two objects we classify as trees." "Object" is then your abstract thing that is being counted, of type "tree." The set theory mention is just to show how the concept of the counting numbers can be motivated without requiring any physical existence of anything - it is one way to generate the counting numbers.While it's true that numbers are an abstraction, we're about as close to the real world as we can be without having to visualize a variable number of goats together in order to see how many there are. Zero and negative numbers are far bigger abstractions than the set of positive integers. I'm pretty sure numbers weren't formed from counting empty sets or there would have been some rather intellectual sheepherders back in the day.
There might be some objects that we can count as one two three. Fundamental things.cousinbasil wrote:Not at all. In fact, I recall having the same thought about color perception and realizing almost instantly that it could never be proven or disproven. I was really reacting to what you initially said:eyekwah wrote:You make a good point. However, a good argument is far from solid proof.... Is it such a stretch to claim that such a thing cannot ever be proven or disproven?Here you say it is a fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different - I took it to mean different from one another's interpretation. If it can't be proven or disproven, then its factuality is in question - that's my only point. I was just suggesting some evidence that one's hard-wiring is similar to another's, which could lead one to suppose the "interpretations" are similar, if not the same.Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.I agree that zero and negative numbers are bigger abstractions. And of course I wasn't suggesting set theory was behind the discovery of the counting, or natural, numbers. But a little thought shows you just how abstract the positive integers are. If you say there are 2 of anything, for example, you have already abstracted. A tree does not equal another tree. "Two trees" means "two objects we classify as trees." "Object" is then your abstract thing that is being counted, of type "tree." The set theory mention is just to show how the concept of the counting numbers can be motivated without requiring any physical existence of anything - it is one way to generate the counting numbers.While it's true that numbers are an abstraction, we're about as close to the real world as we can be without having to visualize a variable number of goats together in order to see how many there are. Zero and negative numbers are far bigger abstractions than the set of positive integers. I'm pretty sure numbers weren't formed from counting empty sets or there would have been some rather intellectual sheepherders back in the day.
I am trying to think of an example of that. What is fundamental? A hydrogen atom? That would have not been known when the counting numbers arose. It would seem that in our macroscopic world of physical things there might be such things that do not require much abstraction, like Coke cans, manufactured things.mental vagrant wrote:There might be some objects that we can count as one two three. Fundamental things.
Then I symbolically shake your hand. My apologies if I misunderstood what you meant.Not at all. In fact, I recall having the same thought about color perception and realizing almost instantly that it could never be proven or disproven. I was really reacting to what you initially said:
Again, good point. I didn't even really think of that, but you're absolutely right. The moment in which you label the number of objects as being "2", you're attributing a value which could be applied to any object like you could call any object blue or "with more than one head."I agree that zero and negative numbers are bigger abstractions. And of course I wasn't suggesting set theory was behind the discovery of the counting, or natural, numbers. But a little thought shows you just how abstract the positive integers are. If you say there are 2 of anything, for example, you have already abstracted. A tree does not equal another tree. "Two trees" means "two objects we classify as trees." "Object" is then your abstract thing that is being counted, of type "tree." The set theory mention is just to show how the concept of the counting numbers can be motivated without requiring any physical existence of anything - it is one way to generate the counting numbers.
Well in the spirit of this post - I can only respond in this way:GGman wrote:All knowledge already exists... do you think this is true or false? Now you may wonder why I'm asking this. Really I'm just trying to get an idea of how intelligent the people here really are.