Dennis Mahar wrote:algorithims generate structure.
mind generates algorithms.
mind, algorithms, changing appearance (structure) are inextricably bound in possibilities for being.
Mind, algorithms and changing appearance are inextribably bound in manifestation. Being exists regardless of the nature of its derivations.
Where do you claim that mind comes from? For me, mind is an informational phenomenon which occurs within the binary syntax of being and nothing.
bluerap wrote:However, 'math' is a concept that exists only in the mind just as much as 'causation' is. They are both logical discrestions that only exist in congruence with an observer. Math also cannot exist without time because of this.
It is true that math only carries meaning when it is observed, but mathematical truths exist whether they are viewed or not. The truth quality of 1+1=2, within the context of arithmetic syntax, retains its identity no matter how many times it is rediscovered by different observers.
The syntaxes of math exist in the mind of the observer, but every syntax that is called into manifestation has truths that can be discovered. These truths exist no matter who is doing the calculations. It's this discoverability and verifiability that points towards the existence of math outside of mind.
Individual observer variations cannot alter the truth qualities of a given mathematical syntax.
Physical manifestation is a property of mind, mind is a property of math, math is a property of the interaction of being and nothing.
Causation is a property of mind, but there are levels of reality above mind. All things ultimately have only one cause, the interaction of being and nothing.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But these truths could just as well be formulated in terms of properties of subjective human perception. So a systematic categorizing of our own instrument and how it interacts with "the great other". But are we really describing the other or our complex biological instrumentation? Are there any alternative rule sets possible?
All alternative rule sets are not only possible, they are actual. Outside of perspective, being and nothingness have no location and so they interact everywhere. All syntaxes are generated independent of observation. Observation is the experience of a syntax from within. All syntaxes exist, not all syntaxes have observers.
Mathematical truths are not properties of human perception because they can be verified from any perspective. This verifiability transcends all individual perceivers. It applies to all perceivers. What is it that all perceivers are referring to and agreeing upon? An informational existence outside of perception.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Quote:
Math encompasses all possibility.
But this statement itself is not mathematical: its possibility cannot be calculated by the same rules it's examining! Not without asserting some universal axiom first.
I don't know what you mean here. Can you clarify?
Cathy Preston wrote:Eric wrote:
All mathematics can be expressed in binary. A perspectiveless being and nothingness alone produce all mathematics.
But this is perspective, nothingness relies on being. So all you've reduced math to is a another relationship. True nothing is an impossibility because it's always relational.
I agree. Math is relational, being itself is the only thing that doesn't refer to anything else for its existence (as far as I can tell).
It may be that being and nothingness exist dependently upon the other, in which case I want to learn the nature of that dependent origin. The von Nuemann explanation was not helpful as it relies on the prior existence of mind. The question of being itself, outside of mind and math (without relating itself to nothing), is my greatest problem.
Math is the relation of being and nothing, but I don't see that as existing inherently within a perspective. Is the application of nothing automatically a perspective? This is why I said our disagreements may be semantic. That's not the way I define perspective. Being and nothing can interact forming an undifferentiated singularity of all syntax/math but perspective would be the incomplete viewing of that totality.
jupiviv wrote:Quote:
All math exists whether or not anyone is looking at it. Therefore math exists outside of perspective.
That doesn't follow. If it is true that math exists outside your perspective, then you have no grounds for making that very statement, since you can't know that it exists out of your perspective.
Your last sentence= You can't know that anything exists outside of your perspective. Touché.
I'm going to go ahead and acknowledge the epistemological argument for solipsism and admit that I'm basing everything, ultimately, on the assumption of some existence outside of my own mind. If you have a problem with that, then it doesn't matter because your existence proves my assumption correct.
jupiviv wrote:Eric Orwoll wrote:
Mathematical truths exist, they can be discovered, they do not depend upon any mind. Before Pythagoras was the square of a hypotenuse not the sum of the squares of the other two sides?
A mind is required to define mathematical truths, so they most definitely require a mind. A mind doesn't have to exist in all the instances wherein a mathematical truth can be applied in order to create that truth, which is what you seem to believe.
You assert that a mind is required to define mathematical truths. I agree, nevertheless those same truths can be discovered and rediscovered, defined and redefined by all different types of mind. Throughout all that collapse and rebirth of math as idea, how does the nature of truth within a syntax stay consistent? I argue that the nature of truth for a given syntax is consistent because math exists outside of observation. The definition of math is the act of observing not the act of creating.