Pythagoras' Theorem. Evidence of elsewhere or our ingenuity.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well for starters there are no straight lines in nature.

[pErvinalia]

Could a mathematic system where addition isn't commutative (e.g. 2+3 is not equal to 3+2) accurately describe the reality? If you have two apples and add three more, the result would be different from adding two apples to your original three?

Now somebody will find a quantum experiment that doesn't abide to commutativity of addition.

Even if entities in nature aren't discrete, I think it would be hard to argue against what you've said. That is, it's hard to see how simple numbers couldn't be based in some sort of reality. Strangely, every time I think about this question, I always envisage a horse counting by stamping its hoof on the ground. I think that is my brain telling me "this question is too fucking hard for you"!

[Mysturji]

Well for starters there are no straight lines in nature.

Ever seen a sunbeam?
A moonbeam?
A spider's web?
A spider's leg?
A pine tree?
A pine needle?
A mosquito's proboscis?
A mosquito's legs?
A crystal?
A porcupine quill?
The San Andreas fault?
...?

[Mysturji]

OK
2L8

[Mysturji]

Define "exist".

Edit:

Let's define "real" too while we're at it.

How many phenomenologists does it take to change a light bulb?

[pErvinalia]

Well for starters there are no straight lines in nature.

Ever seen a sunbeam?
A moonbeam?
A spider's web?
A spider's leg?
A pine tree?
A pine needle?
A mosquito's proboscis?
A mosquito's legs?
A crystal?
A porcupine quill?
The San Andreas fault?
...?

My penis.

[Robert_S]

Define "exist".

Edit:

Let's define "real" too while we're at it.

Okay, though I don't feel it necessary, such things tend to derail the conversation into a more complex one which given enough time is inevitable given the subject. Anway, just because you asked...

Real. That which exists.

Exist. To be Real.

Imagine a stack of bank notes. Now imagine a stack of bank notes which actually exists. Now imagine an imaginary stack of bank notes.

How about "real" and "exist" as stuff that actually involves things made of ass and energy.

In that case, math/s be our clever way of creating an internally consistent (more or less) and simplified realm that approximates certain bits of how physical reality looks to us.

In some cases it has good predictive power.

[Audley Strange]

Could a mathematic system where addition isn't commutative (e.g. 2+3 is not equal to 3+2) accurately describe the reality? If you have two apples and add three more, the result would be different from adding two apples to your original three?

Now somebody will find a quantum experiment that doesn't abide to commutativity of addition.

This is it, it does seem like something that, reasonably, is a universal constant. Certainly as you say the symbols may differ and the base used may change but it would seem like a reasonable assumption that any species intelligent enough could derive Pythagoras theorem, Pi, quadratic equations. However that does lead to objective platonic forms that exist and interact with our consciousnesses, but cannot be apprehended directly.

[pErvinalia]

How about "real" and "exist" as stuff that actually involves things made of ass and energy.

They're the best real things!

[Audley Strange]

Define "exist".

Edit:

Let's define "real" too while we're at it.

Okay, though I don't feel it necessary, such things tend to derail the conversation into a more complex one which given enough time is inevitable given the subject. Anway, just because you asked...

Real. That which exists.

Exist. To be Real.

Imagine a stack of bank notes. Now imagine a stack of bank notes which actually exists. Now imagine an imaginary stack of bank notes.

How about "real" and "exist" as stuff that actually involves things made of ass and energy.

In that case, math/s be our clever way of creating an internally consistent (more or less) and simplified realm that approximates certain bits of how physical reality looks to us.

In some cases it has good predictive power.

So is this simplified realm of which you speak a subset of the tangible domain or a convenient and useful fiction?

[cronus]

Fiction

[MiM]

Define "exist".

Edit:

Let's define "real" too while we're at it.

Okay, though I don't feel it necessary, such things tend to derail the conversation into a more complex one which given enough time is inevitable given the subject. Anway, just because you asked...

Real. That which exists.

Exist. To be Real.

Imagine a stack of bank notes. Now imagine a stack of bank notes which actually exists. Now imagine an imaginary stack of bank notes.

How about "real" and "exist" as stuff that actually involves things made of ass and energy.

In that case, math/s be our clever way of creating an internally consistent (more or less) and simplified realm that approximates certain bits of how physical reality looks to us.

In some cases it has good predictive power.

Yes, but could that be created in a completely different way from ours and still work? According to Alvin Plantiga, it could and therefore God*, but Plantinga has never been able to convince me.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona ... naturalism

[Robert_S]

So is this simplified realm of which you speak a subset of the tangible domain or a convenient and useful fiction?

Yes! Absolutely! Our brains are mass/energy as are all the media that transmit our ideas. Our maths are as real as abacuses (or is that really abaci? my spellchecker could be wrong...)

So some bits of matter make distorted reflections in other bits of matter and those reflected bits react in complicated ways with...

[Audley Strange]

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you approaching a solipsism argument?

[Robert_S]

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you approaching a solipsism argument?

I might be close to that rocky shore, but I hope not.

I am actually more afraid of getting snared in Indra's Net.