/lit/ - Literature

>independent of the mind
[citation needed]

Mathematical Objects only exist in a Mind-Thought relationship.

Imagine believing this

>>12495244
>[citation needed]
No it isn't, because this is not an Empirical claim, it is more fundamental than that.
>>12495280
The Truth is not something to believe in, it's true whether or not you "believe" in it.

>>12495232
>exist prior to any physical reality
what does this mean?

>>12495232
Define "Mathematical Object"

>>12495232
In God's mind, yes.

go on

>>12495292
Fucking destroyed. Everything has always existed

>>12495278
Entirely based.

>>12495289
The truth is unknown and unknowable, and it certainly can not be put down in words or numbers

>explicit refusal/inability to reference a book

this is blatantly off topic

philosophy not referencing a book doesn't belong here

>>12495232
> exist prior to
That's where you fall from the cliff. Nothing exists in the past or the future of the very moment of thinking.

>>12495278
Anyone who disputes this is a double nigger

>>12495330
Ref: the bible
Now fuck off

>>12495333
The past and the future.both exist AS part of the present thought

>>12495317
This is an objective truth claim itself. So isn't that a self-detonating proposition?

>>12495358
Yes, thats the point

>>12495368
Pretty awful point then.

>>12495379
Well its the best i can do with the limitations of concepts. Its not like i can generate a concept to talk about something beyond them, its the same thing with math

>>12495429
So how are you capable of talking about math at all?

>>12495232
So does love

>>12495450
Math is just language

>>12495232
Prove it, deducto-boy

>>12495466
shut the fuck up

>>12495356
I am not sure how you can observe past and future. Your observation grasps the object from non-existence, and that's the same object that was, or will be, (re-)created the same way, but how one object can “exist before” another still needs an explanation.

>>12495232
I’m with you. I’ve gone full platonist recently. So I would go so far as to say that the abstract is prior to the concrete and is it’s very ground.

>>12495536
>the abstract is prior to the concrete and is it’s very ground.
Yes, this is my position as well

>>12495232
>math boo-boos existed long before the mind was able to incorrectly calculate them
sounds about right

>>12495536
Whats the difference between abstract and concrete?

n-no, I'm gonna devise an internally coherent mathematical system completely detached from observations, just watch me!

>>12495574
Godel showed that math is infinite
He was a platonist after all

>>12495591
Infinite but never complete

>>12495574
Anon, I...

>>12495607
That's the best part.
Math is literally never ending, we will do it FOREVER
Long after we have solved all other problems in all other fields, we will still have an infinite amount of math questions to solve.

Lmao next thing you know you’ll be telling me language does the same thing

There’s nothing I hate more than epistemology and its strutting around. Thousands of years of philosophy and still nothing to show for it!

>>12495739
You dummy, shut up. I'll osoto gari you if you dont shut your poopy mouth right now

>>12495536
>it’s very ground
>it's
brainlet detected

>>12495232

Yes, that is correct. Further, mathematics is discovered, and not invented.

t. math grad with minors in philosophy and history

>>12495572
Abstract things are ideal, simple, universal, intelligible, unchangeble, and eternal, whereas concrete things are material, composite, particular, sensible, mutable, and come to be and pass away in space and time.

Any statement which ends with "...independent of the mind" should be instantly discarded as meaningless.

literally none of the words you just typed mean anything that you want them to

fuck, me toO!

based and /sci/pilled

the only reason mathematicians are mostly platonists is because deep down they know that if more than a handful openly claimed to be anti-realists then they'd get defunded in a second

>>12495232
Mathematical objects, like all objects, are dependent on the mind for their existence. The sheer possibility of the existence of mathematical objects, again like all things, are independent of any instantiation of them.

>>12496090
You supposed certainty of that the mind is the fundamental provenance is meaningless.

>>12495232
>mathematical objects exist

Stop right there kiddo.

>presupposing 'objects'

read derrida

>>12496045
It's consctructed. Observed relations + representational language. It is also possible to have mostly self-referential kinds of math that don't necessarily describe anything outside of a system of definitions.

Also, strictly speaking all invention is really innovation upon discovery, so the 'invent vs. discover' dichotomy doesn't exist.

>>12496045
Math grads want platonism to be true because it soothes their feelies.
>>12495232
>car exist prior to any physical reality and independent of the mind
Math is just inventing tricks to go from one statement to another. It doesn't differ much from writing prose.

Mathematics is the ultimate spook

>>12496804
Cars aren't inherent to the nature of reality, but mathematical principles are. I would, however, argue that mathematics is, at its best, a close approximation of the underlying principles that bind all that exists. If the Universe is a poem written by God, mathematics is a second-hand translation thats missing pages and has grammatical mistakes.

>>12496932
>Cars aren't inherent to the nature of reality, but mathematical principles are.

Neither are more fundamental than the other. The car is simply contingent on more specific things.