Aug 1, 2020
MalakasHow? Not saying you're wrong I'm just curious about your reasoning.
In my view, all of the non-physical phenomenon that humanity interacts with, had to exist before us
Language, math, music, electricity, internet, etc are all invisible in nature, until we come up with man made ways to visualize. So the concept of language was discovered, but development into hundreds of languages was manmade work. And plus We arent the first species to use sound to communicate too
Aug 1, 2020·editedI think if you're looking at the real interactions of nature like if you're studying physics in a very real way you're discovering things. It's just the way we choose to quantify those interactions is up to us and that's where the "made up" part comes in
For instance there are multiple ways to model a system you can use differential equations some people use statistics and probability those individual systems are sort of contrived but they can be used to discover relationships and dynamics within systems that are real. So with math you're kinda creating alternate realities that occasionally line up with reality
Aug 1, 2020
ARCADE GOONYes, those are abstractions that we create to make sense of it, with various social conventions used to formalize said abstractions. But you are mistaking the map for the territory. The world was a round planet before maps and globes were made. If I create a map of the world, it is an "invention", my interpretation of the data, but even if I never drew the map, the world would still exist. The same logic applies to science.
you wrote this really well, great stuff
Aug 1, 2020·1 replynotesfromphiloyou will have 2 rocks, yes
but without understanding the lanaguage how would you be able to know or prove that?
With your eyes? If I take two rocks to hunt, and I use one, I wouldn't suddenly think I have 5 more in my bag just because I didn't have the language for it.
Aug 1, 2020gh0stmanLanguage was discovered too but idk if everyone’s ready for that one
This isn’t controversial is it?
- Aug 1, 2020·1 replyTIIMMY BURNER
With your eyes? If I take two rocks to hunt, and I use one, I wouldn't suddenly think I have 5 more in my bag just because I didn't have the language for it.
i'm not saying you'd think you had a random number
but i am saying you wouldn't be able to define what you have without introducing the language
i guess what i'm getting at is
for me, the language is EVERYTHING
we all have a basic understanding of 1+1
but who are we to say it's the only way to look at it?
what would happen if we were raised to believe 1+1=3
(as in, they decided to name what we know as 2 as 3)
then what?
would we still have 2 rocks? or 3?
the language determines that
- Aug 1, 2020notesfromphilo
i'm not saying you'd think you had a random number
but i am saying you wouldn't be able to define what you have without introducing the language
i guess what i'm getting at is
for me, the language is EVERYTHING
we all have a basic understanding of 1+1
but who are we to say it's the only way to look at it?
what would happen if we were raised to believe 1+1=3
(as in, they decided to name what we know as 2 as 3)
then what?
would we still have 2 rocks? or 3?
the language determines that
The name doesn't matter, it's just a name. Those two rocks exist as two rocks regardless if you called the two rocks 5 rocks. If 5 was the language for 2 then that would just be that. Language is only important to communicate ideas to other people. But math is objective regardless if you can communicate it or not.
- Jul 12, 2021
discovered