4
   

Does Color Exist Without Light

 
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2012 11:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

My best possible question on this regard and going far beyond electromagnetism and other isms alike would be on trying to understand how is it that a pile of data, a coupling of what is best described as geometrical mathematical patterns results in any experience we have


because the info gathered is based on the same matter as , as in matter , as the brain itself

Quote:
on mathematics itself how come there is any correspondence between "events" ?


the question you have asked is because mathematicions havn't accepted the fact that numbers don't create matter
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 02:33 am
@north,
Quote:
the question you have asked is because mathematicions havn't accepted the fact that numbers don't create matter


1- ...no...I was referring to mathematical events...the "geometry" of mathematics...plus I never heard any mathematician making such an odd claim...

2 - your idea of "matter" as a "solid" is almost childish...what you call "matter" is just the "structuralization" of rules that may well apply to abstract substance...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 03:15 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...the very distinction of abstract versus concrete objects as a place holder is naive and reflects an invitation to light thinking...a very good example on how complication often disguises and poses as simplification...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 04:16 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
how is it that a pile of data, a coupling of what is best described as geometrical mathematical patterns results in any experience we have


According to some, our perception is bombarded with information all the time. We only pick up some of it, fractions of it. Our minds then form the experience from the information we do pick up.

Quote:
on mathematics itself how come there is any correspondence between "events" ?


Is there correlation between events? Couldn't it just be that we apply the numbers where they seem to fit according to our understanding, and that creates the correlation?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 06:02 am
@Cyracuz,
...if they "fit" even if partially selecting relevant data for us then there is correlation in place, if they don't fit in the fundamentals, naturally they wont work...if we did in fact create the correlation on top of a reality, if we "invented" it without true correlations we would catastrophically fail in predicting behaviour...

...if I see a square where there is a circle I am seriously in trouble...it maybe that the circle is a sphere, but if I live in 2 dimensions seeing just a circle suffices and its fairly true...meaning there is a true circular function coming up from the sphere...I am not creating reality I am seeing what is relevant in reality for my needs...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 06:12 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...now what I think you might be right at, if that was what you meant, concerns on that there is no need of believing relations of cause and effect as being fundamental...correlations and regularity's may just exist across spacetime for no reason...an ensemble of regular reality all along the way that we phenomenally experience as constantly being cause and effect...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 06:16 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...hence and given worst case scenario of dropping cause and effect, my questioning, my wondering on why, pardon me, the "frack" do exist this regularity's just lying there for no reason ???...but there you go...asking why without cause and effect is just silly...and nevertheless emotionally compelling...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 06:28 am
...if I had to guess...instead of saying that reality is function AND form, I would rather opt believing function IS/MAKES form...but and once more, how the "frack" functions function the way they do ? They just...no way around it...

..from there, we get back to form...functions are motionless form across spacetime...a "simulation of dynamics" which itself is static...is regular...

...inevitably, from "Being" to "being there", and from "being there" back to "Being"...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 07:17 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I don't think it is either fail or succeed. Most times answers come gradually, and as errors in the method are discovered and corrected, things fit better and better. It's like a puzzle we work on without having ever seen a picture of the end result for reference.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2012 08:30 am
@Cyracuz,
I would agree that something succeeds while something still fails, and yes it is a gradual process...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 05:43:20