So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"?

Rupert

2012-06-28 01:41:33 EST

On Jun 27, 8:56 pm, dh@. wrote: > So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"?

Are you asking whether mathematical objects like numbers or Banach spaces exist?

Graham Cooper

2012-06-28 03:57:19 EST

On Jun 28, 4:56 am, dh@. wrote: > So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"?

Good question!

Does mathematics existence rely on time existence?

Quite the opposite. The 3 angles of a triangle add to PI/2 radians.

Always was, is, and will remain true.

****

On the other hand, does time existence rely on mathematics?

In our Universe it does. Physical Existence is based on time.

Time progresses to a uniform sequence, so Natural Numbers must exist too!

1s 2s 3s 4s... => 1,2,3,4...

Can a different Universe exist with Time but without Mathematics?

It would have to be completely patternless, chaotic, with no recurring theme or equivalence of any sort.

Nothing could be duplicated, you couldn't have 2 protons the same mass. That would derive the concept of two-ness.

Herc

Sylvia Else

2012-06-28 05:58:03 EST

On 28/06/2012 4:56 AM, dh@. wrote: > > So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"? >

I think you're into the very difficult area of what "exist" actually means. In everyday use, the word presents few problems, but once you start asking questions like the above, you need to define the word very carefully. Once you have done, you'll be able to answer the question, but you won't actually have learnt anything, because a different definition could give a different answer.

Sylvia.

Ben Kaufman

2012-06-28 09:25:59 EST

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:

> > So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"?

Math is a creation from intelligent beings. Time, or what we call time, is a property.

Ben

Bob Casanova

2012-06-28 11:47:32 EST

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:25:59 -0400, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com>:

>On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:56:31 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >> >> So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"? > >Math is a creation from intelligent beings.

I think it goes a bit deeper; the original flavors of math (arithmetic and geometry) were essentially codifications of observations of physical reality. The codifications were creations, but the underlying reality wasn't.

> Time, or what we call time, is a >property.

...or another observation.

None of this, of course, changes the fact that DH's claim that time doesn't exist is wrong, and when coupled with DH's assertion that "time would require large amounts of energy if it existed" makes that claim not only ignorant, but surreal. --

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless

D*@.

2012-06-28 18:25:27 EST

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:41:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 8:56 pm, dh@. wrote: >> So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"? > >Are you asking whether mathematical objects like numbers or Banach >spaces exist?

From my pov so far they "exist" as much as inches exist and seconds exist.

D*@.

2012-06-28 18:27:28 EST

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:57:19 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper <*7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 28, 4:56 am, dh@. wrote: >> So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"? > > >Good question! > >Does mathematics existence rely on time existence? > >Quite the opposite. The 3 angles of a triangle add to PI/2 radians. > >Always was, is, and will remain true. > >**** > >On the other hand, does time existence rely on mathematics? > >In our Universe it does.

Which is why I say "yes" so far, but it's possible that impression could change.

>Physical Existence is based on time. > >Time progresses to a uniform sequence, so Natural Numbers must exist >too! > >1s 2s 3s 4s... >=> >1,2,3,4... > >Can a different Universe exist with Time but without Mathematics?

I would say "no" to that.

>It would have to be completely patternless, chaotic, with no recurring >theme or equivalence of any sort. > >Nothing could be duplicated, you couldn't have 2 protons the same >mass. That would derive the concept of two-ness. > >Herc

D*@.

2012-06-28 18:29:21 EST

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:58:03 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote:

>On 28/06/2012 4:56 AM, dh@. wrote: >> >> So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"? >> > >I think you're into the very difficult area of what "exist" actually >means. In everyday use, the word presents few problems, but once you >start asking questions like the above, you need to define the word very >carefully. Once you have done, you'll be able to answer the question, >but you won't actually have learnt anything, because a different >definition could give a different answer. > >Sylvia.

I don't believe time exists except as a concept. Math is in a similar position imo, but somehow it seems a bit different.

Dutch

2012-06-28 19:15:04 EST

dh@. wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:58:03 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> On 28/06/2012 4:56 AM, dh@. wrote: >>> >>> So far from my pov the answer is yes, but do either actually "exist"? >>> >> >> I think you're into the very difficult area of what "exist" actually >> means. In everyday use, the word presents few problems, but once you >> start asking questions like the above, you need to define the word very >> carefully. Once you have done, you'll be able to answer the question, >> but you won't actually have learnt anything, because a different >> definition could give a different answer. >> >> Sylvia. > > I don't believe time exists except as a concept. Math is in a similar > position imo, but somehow it seems a bit different. >

How things seem to morons is an interesting study.