Could an Atheist Democrat ever win the Presidency of the USA?

[Fexus]

It is a human creation. We can historically trace it back. The definition of mathematics is about the human study of certain things.



Humans are bloody brilliant.



They're human concepts. Humans invented them. Do you think aliens taught it to us?

Yes, mathematics is a study. The study of mathematics is created by humans. The subject matter, which also carries the name mathematics, was not invented by humans, it was discovered.

In what sense did humans invent 1 + 1 = 2? If an alien invented 1 + 1 = 2, would you consider that a distinct concept?

We found physics because it existed.
NOT
Physics exists because we found it.

This is a delightfully pithy way of putting it.

- - - Updated - - -

It is. Locke described that angle in detail. But your argument has fallen at the first hurdle.

The idea of color as we experience it is a human creation. The wavelength range that the color red occupies is not human created.

[Fexus]

Physics would not exist without humans.

Physics as a discipline. The concepts contained within are fundamentally different. Surely you see the difference.

[Zhangfei]

Yes, mathematics is a study.

That's all you needed to say. Thank you. Mathematics IS the study. End of. Nothing else.

The idea of color as we experience it is a human creation. The wavelength range that the color red occupies is not human created

I completely agree. Although the concept of "wavelength range" is a human creation too, etc.

That we use language to describe these doesn't mean the existence of these depends on us conceiving of them

Right? The point is that the language we use is a signifier regardless, and is a human creation. Pointing at an apple falling wouldn't describe gravity working, so we lay a framework and use all these ideas and concepts that do not exist independently of us onto it and call it "gravity." Hurrah! Gravity is a human concept being laid as a framework on something that exists.

[Fexus]

That's all you needed to say. Thank you. Mathematics IS the study. End of. Nothing else.



I completely agree. Although the concept of "wavelength range" is a human creation too, etc.

That's not all mathematics is. We use the term mathematics referring to the subject matter as a whole, as well as the concepts found within. The human constructed idea of subject matter with courses and textbooks to go with in no way diminish the fact that the mathematical concepts exist regardless of who is discovering them.

[Zhangfei]

That's not all mathematics is. We use the term mathematics referring to the subject matter as a whole, as well as the concepts found within. The human constructed idea of subject matter with courses and textbooks to go with in no way diminish the fact that the mathematical concepts exist regardless of who is discovering them.

I can use any word for anything, but when I am discussing mathematics, I go with the definition mathematicians and philosophers use, not the lay man. Mathematics is the study, and mathematics wouldn't exist without humans and didn't exist before humans.

[Fexus]

I can use any word for anything, but when I am discussing mathematics, I go with the definition mathematicians and philosophers use, not the lay man. Mathematics is the study, and mathematics wouldn't exist without humans and didn't exist before humans.

I'm sorry (incoming argument from authority) I have studied mathematics and am published in a peer reviewed journal. I can tell you for a fact that mathematicians use the term mathematics for both the study and (more often than not) the concepts that are found within. Also, is your argument really that only the term's most superficial meaning was created by humans? Because earlier you said 1 + 1 = 2 was created by humans. 1 + 1 = 2 isn't a part of the definition of mathematics that says, "it's only the study."

[Zhangfei]

I'm sorry (incoming argument from authority) I have studied mathematics and am published in a peer reviewed journal. I can tell you for a fact that mathematicians use the term mathematics for both the study and (more often than not) the concepts that are found within. Also, is your argument really that only the term's most superficial meaning was created by humans? Because earlier you said 1 + 1 = 2 was created by humans. 1 + 1 = 2 isn't a part of the definition of mathematics that says, "it's only the study."

The study includes the concepts within. That's what the study means.

Because earlier you said 1 + 1 = 2 was created by humans. 1 + 1 = 2 isn't a part of the definition of mathematics that says, "it's only the study."

But it is THE study.

And I'm saying it's a moot point that everyone but you understood without needing to discuss it. Everyone else is talking about the thing the word describes. You're talking about the word itself.

Everybody here is ignoring what the word means rather than focusing on its lazy usage in common parlance. I'd call it missing the forest for the trees, personally.

[Fexus]

Right? The point is that the language we use is a signifier regardless, and is a human creation. Pointing at an apple falling wouldn't describe gravity working, so we lay a framework and use all these ideas and concepts that do not exist independently of us onto it and call it "gravity." Hurrah! Gravity is a human concept being laid as a framework on something that exists.

Exactly, the framework was created by humans. The ideas and concepts behind the framework were discovered. Physics is more than simply the framework. It is also the ideas and concepts behind the framework. Therefore, physics was discovered.

[Zhangfei]

Exactly, the framework was created by humans. The ideas and concepts behind the framework were discovered. Physics is more than simply the framework. It is also the ideas and concepts behind the framework. Therefore, physics was discovered.

Nah, invented. An apple falling on someone's head may be an inspiration, but it's not the entirety of the thing. Nobody is suggesting physics is so simple - large amounts of physics, especially post 19th century, is theoretical or started in the theoretical.

Nevertheless, when people discuss gravity, they are referring more to the framework than das ding an sich. Otherwise physics would merely be observing physical events occurring.

[Fexus]

The study includes the concepts within. That's what the study means.

It seems you agree the concepts are universal, but "the study" is created. Tell me, how can humans create a concept that contains universal ones?

Everybody here is ignoring what the word means rather than focusing on its lazy usage in common parlance. I'd call it missing the forest for the trees, personally.

It's usage in common parlance is what words mean. That's how language work. There is no ultimate authority. Who do you think is more qualified of defining the term mathematics than mathematicians?

[Zhangfei]

It seems you agree the concepts are universal, but "the study" is created. Tell me, how can humans create a concept that contains universal ones?

Why can't we? Abstract ideas exist across every human culture, it's kind of our thing. Coming up with universal truthes isn't that far away - 1+1=2 seems a pretty simple one, one that comes from the barest bones of sentience.

It's usage in common parlance is what words mean. That's how language work. There is no ultimate authority. Who do you think is more qualified of defining the term mathematics than mathematicians?

I agree, which is why I went with the one on the most peer-reviewed website on the planet, the one I've read about from mathematicians, and the one I know the best. Not the one a 7th grader would use.

[Fexus]

Nevertheless, when people discuss gravity, they are referring more to the framework than das ding an sich.

You are assuming quite a lot here.

Otherwise physics would merely be observing physical events occurring.

That's pretty much what all non theoretical physics is. You nailed it right on the head.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, which is why I went with the one on the most peer-reviewed website on the planet, the one I've read about from mathematicians, and the one I know the best. Not the one a 7th grader would use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

There's a section on mathematical realism that pertains to this exact topic. Words often have multiple, nuanced meanings. Just because you found a definition for a word does not mean it can't possibly mean anything else.

[Zhangfei]

You are assuming quite a lot here.

What the hell? Are you suggesting every time someone learns about gravity they are shown the event every situation it is referring to? As a mathematician I think you'd have to be mad to assume otherwise - when people do advanced arithmetic (something we do at primary school level) are you suggesting every pupil gets 1000 coins and has to remove 500.

Or is it done in your head?

Most physics and mathematics study does not correlate to actual events.

That's pretty much what all non theoretical physics is. You nailed it right on the head.

You must really hate physicists and the scientific method if that's what you think physics is, but I know of the rivalries between physicists and mathematicians at my university so

You got a good chuckle out of me!

There's a section on mathematical realism that pertains to this exact topic. Words often have multiple, nuanced meanings. Just because you found a definition for a word does not mean it can't possibly mean anything else.

Humans arguing with humans about the meaning of human concepts. My position is under threat?

[Yvaelle]

I mean, I'm not a US history scholar - but wasn't Thomas Jefferson an atheist democrat? Most of the founding fathers as I understand it were at the very least deists - which is to say agnostic - to varying degrees from being "spiritual but not religious", or all the way to including 'atheist' as we use it nowadays.

There are two sorts of atheistic views that we need to distinguish between, what I could call "Faith-based Atheism" and "Rational Atheism" - and pretty much all atheists are rational atheists.

Rational atheists describe their views as such, "There is no evidence either confirming or denying the existence of any divine creator. In the absence of any evidence, we must assume there is no magical being making it all happen for lulz. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a universe-creator existing."

Faith-based atheists go a step further and claim that "There is no god", despite the infinitesimal possibility of it being true. In my experience, this occurs either because they are atheists but have not given serious philosophical thought to the paradox of the absence of evidence - or more often - they are rational atheists who are just fed up with having to constantly admit the impossible possibility of a divine existing.

From what I understand, Jefferson denounced religion and developed his own strict moral code based on his readings - that is either agnostic or rational atheist.

[Fexus]

What the hell? Are you suggesting every time someone learns about gravity they are shown the event every situation it is referring to? As a mathematician I think you'd have to be mad to assume otherwise - when people do advanced arithmetic (something we do at primary school level) are you suggesting every pupil gets 1000 coins and has to remove 500.

Or is it done in your head?

I'm not quite sure what this argument is. Because sometimes in academic disciplines we use examples, the name of the concept no longer refers to the universal application of that concept?

Most physics and mathematics study does not correlate to actual events.

Almost all physics correlate to actual events, and almost all physics is impossible without mathematical concepts to help explain those events.

You must really hate physicists and the scientific method if that's what you think physics is, but I know of the rivalries between physicists and mathematicians at my university so

You got a good chuckle out of me!

How is that insulting? Physics is the study of physical objects and how they interact. We do that by observation and measurement. Sometimes Physicists do experiments in their heads using mathematics and limited observation of physical systems. We call them theoretical physicists.

Humans arguing with humans about the meaning of human concepts. My position is under threat?

No, just me trying to explain to you that words can have many meanings. No mathematician I know would argue that mathematical concepts do not fall under the nomenclature of mathematics.

[Xe4ro]

Would be a good sign. Personal beliefs (of fantasy) should not affect politics.

[Zhangfei]

I'm not quite sure what this argument is. Because sometimes in academic disciplines we use examples, the name of the concept no longer refers to the universal application of that concept?

I'm saying that the framework - the E=MC2 of the world, for example - becomes the focus and interest, not the actual study of the reality it is based on. This is for very, very obvious reasons. If you want to create a worksheet, for example, for people learning maths then you don't give them the stuff it relates to. If you want to give an exam on physics, you don't expect students to actually have elephants to hand to discuss mass. It is an inherent truth of all frameworks, in every situation - look at sociology or anthropology, for example. Look at religion. It stops being about the thing it was and becomes self-reflective, more abstract and more focused on the framework itself.

Almost all physics correlate to actual events, and almost all physics is impossible without mathematical concepts to help explain those events.

See above. Most of the work isn't. And we all know mathematicians think of themselves as purer than physicists, good reminder.

How is that insulting? Physics is the study of physical objects and how they interact. We do that by observation and measurement. Sometimes Physicists do experiments in their heads using mathematics and limited observation of physical systems. We call them theoretical physicists.

Observation is only one part of the scientific method, and you know it. Hypothesising is the first step, the step where you apply your framework and see if it works. I know you keep ignoring it for obvious reasons, but no good scientist merely "observes." If they do, they're not much of a scientist. All measurement is human made too, but I'd like to think you'd know that that is VERY obvious.

No, just me trying to explain to you that words can have many meanings. No mathematician I know would argue that mathematical concepts do not fall under the nomenclature of mathematics.

But no mathematician would pretend maths just "happens" and humans (or human built machines) aren't doing it.

[Endus]

I mean, I'm not a US history scholar - but wasn't Thomas Jefferson an atheist democrat? Most of the founding fathers as I understand it were at the very least deists - which is to say agnostic - to varying degrees from being "spiritual but not religious", or all the way to including 'atheist' as we use it nowadays.

Jefferson was a Deist, meaning he believed in a creative force, but didn't ascribe to any specific theological interpretation thereof. Perhaps the clearest example is the so-called Jefferson Bible, where he went through the Bible and took out only the portions immediately regarding Jesus, calling it The Life And Times of Jesus of Nazareth; he was of the opinion that Jesus was likely a prophet, or at least exceptionally wise, but that a lot of the surrounding material had accreted on and distorted the message, and this was his attempt to revert that. Not the kind of thing someone legitimately Christian would do.

It's not quite atheism, like Einstein was, but it's a pretty clear form of agnosticism.

[Vizardlorde]

Stop derailing the thread, if you want to continue believing that the universe will die with humanity make thread about that this thread is about US politics/population.

[Healing Rain]

If he/she respects people of faith, maybe. All I know is that I've never voted for a Democrat presidential candidate and probably never will if they continue descending in to the realm of insanity.