Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
If no intelligent beings exist, is
Print If no intelligent beings exist, is | |
|
brendan.hill
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 29, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 5 |
 #1
Subject: If no intelligent beings exist, is Simply put: if all the intelligent beings in the universe ceased to exist, would the statement "2+2=4" still be true? I would strongly argue no. The statement "2+2=4" is a construction based on definitions by mathematicians. It's truth is definitional, not empirical or metaphysical. The statement has no existence independent of the formal system of basic arithmetic it's defined within, and basic arithmetic - along with all abstracta - has no existence independent of the mathematicians or cognitive beings thinking about it. Therefore, if no intelligent beings existed, then no mathematicians exist, and hence no mathematical abstracta exist, and hence the statement "2+2=4" has no existence. The statement isn't false, it simply doesn't exist, and hence doesn't have either the property of trueness or falsity. In fact, asking if it is true or false in this scenario is like asking if a non-existent pavlova has too much or too little sugar, or if a non-existent piano is in tune or not. Your thoughts? What is the technical philosophical name for this position? -Brendan |
|
Dragohunter
illusion is persistent  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 08, 2009 Location: Why does it matteR? Total Topics: 22 Total Posts: 432 |
#2
Intelligence is a relative measure. Its about who do we compare has better intellectual capabilities than others even if we were to conclude we are largely ignorant and foolish, same with height and abilities. What you're saying has no sense to it. "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein Influences: Ludwig Wittgenstein, C.S. Peirce, Soren Kierkegaard, John Searle, Daniel Dennett, Hilary Putnam, Socrates, Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, David Hume, Albert Schweitzer, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Bernard Williams, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Feynman, Zhuangzi, Albert Einstein, Leo Tolstoy |
|
Lucretian
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 22, 2009 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 34 |
#3
Your position seems to be mathematical fictionalism - that mathematics is a fiction which is, nonetheless, fairly integral to our cognitive contrivances. |
|
bobg0
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 25, 2004 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 56
|
#4
If all the intelligent beings in the universe ceased to exist, would truth exist? Would meaning exist? |
|
brendan.hill
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 29, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 5 |
#5
Dragohunter wrote: Intelligence is a relative measure. Its about who do we compare has better intellectual capabilities than others even if we were to conclude we are largely ignorant and foolish, same with height and abilities. What you're saying has no sense to it. Intelligence can be a relative measure (or rather than relative, it can be thought of as a gradient rather than a simple property), but the point still stands. It could be rephrased as "if all mathematically intelligent beings..." if necessary. In fact almost any property can be reframed as a gradient rather than a black and white predication, including sentience, cognitive, strategic, etc. Your position seems to be mathematical fictionalism - that mathematics is a fiction which is, nonetheless, fairly integral to our cognitive contrivances. I guess so, "fiction" has rather negative connotations though... If all the intelligent beings in the universe ceased to exist, would truth exist? Would meaning exist? I consider "truth" to be highly accurate propositions. With no intelligent beings to make propositions, there is no truth. That isn't to say the subjects of our commonly held truths themselves don't exist in some fashion (another can of ontological worms). WRT meaning, it's notoriously poorly defined. Semantic meaning wouldn't exist without intelligent beings. Personal meaning (emotional state) wouldn't either. Metaphysical sorts of meanings aren't semantically meaningful in the first place IMO. -Brendan |
|
ajg14113
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 30, 2009 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 12 |
#6
Would 2+2=4 be true if "all the intelligent beings in the universe ceased to exist"? I think that: Mathematics is symbolic and attempts to describe the "actual" world in a way our human minds can understand. As a result, the answer to this question depends on context... If all intelligence was gone, mathematics would cease to exist in the form humans think of (because its a construction within our minds) However the world would still be the same in terms of how it functions and exists (Minus the intelligent beings and their activities). So although the intelligent beings' vision and conception of the world no longer exists, the "real" world that they attempt to describe through math is unchanged (in essence). So theres not really a yes or no answer to this question. Anyways, there are other maths where 2+2 does not equal 4 (because numbers are representations) Also, sorry if that was vague, this is my first post. |
|
Dave C
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 26, 2009 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 57 |
#7
Nature combines 2 Helium atoms to make a Beryllium atom. 2 protons + 2 protons = 4 protons. Nature 'knows' that 2 + 2 = 4. |
|
brendan.hill
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 29, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 5 |
#8
ajg14113 wrote: Would 2+2=4 be true if "all the intelligent beings in the universe ceased to exist"? I think that: Mathematics is symbolic and attempts to describe the "actual" world in a way our human minds can understand. As a result, the answer to this question depends on context... If all intelligence was gone, mathematics would cease to exist in the form humans think of (because its a construction within our minds) However the world would still be the same in terms of how it functions and exists (Minus the intelligent beings and their activities). So although the intelligent beings' vision and conception of the world no longer exists, the "real" world that they attempt to describe through math is unchanged (in essence). So theres not really a yes or no answer to this question. Anyways, there are other maths where 2+2 does not equal 4 (because numbers are representations) Also, sorry if that was vague, this is my first post. If something's worth saying, it's worth saying twice!  Welcome to the board. Mathematics isn't inherently about describing the "actual" world. For example, the Mandelbrot set is a pure mathematical abstraction, which doesn't describe anything in the actual world. In fact most things in pure mathematics (AFAIK) are not about the actual world. (Actually from another perspective, if we consider mathematics to be the goings on of neurological or electrical circuitry, then pure mathematics could be considered the exploration/description of how thise circuits work. (But this isn't what people typically mean when they talk about mathematics describing the external world)) You're right that the physical subjects of the mathematical descriptions would continue to exist and operate, without any physicists to describe them mathematically. But those things aren't mathematical, and they aren't mathematics. We merely describe them using mathematics. So without any mathematically intelligent beings, I think it's still fair to say that the mathematical statement "2+2=4" doesn't exist. In what mathematical systems does 2+2 =/= 4? -Brendan |
|
brendan.hill
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 29, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 5 |
#9
Dave C wrote: Nature combines 2 Helium atoms to make a Beryllium atom. 2 protons + 2 protons = 4 protons. Nature 'knows' that 2 + 2 = 4. Hi Dave, When nature combined 2 protons and 2 protons to make 4 protons, how do you know it wasn't really combining 1 proton and 3 protons? or 3 protons and 1 protons? Did nature compute "2+2=4" or "1+3=4" in order to work out that it had to end up with 4 protons? I think stupidity of this question points towards the fact that nature itself isn't actually engaging in any mathematical computation in order to work out what to do next. And if nature isn't engaging in any mathematical computation, then nature isn't inherently mathematical. Rather, our descriptions and models of nature are mathematical. And so without some pantheist-like anthropomorphization of nature (attributing cognition, knowledge, intelligence to the natural world), the statement "Nature knows X" is simply false. -Brendan |
|
Dave C
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 26, 2009 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 57 |
#10
Hi Brendan, let's drop my use of 'knows' and go to your original question "Simply put: if all the intelligent beings in the universe ceased to exist, would the statement "2+2=4" still be true?" In my example 2+2 protons = 4 protons. And as you point out 1+3 protons = 4 protons. In each case an element with 4 protons is the result. It seems that 2+2+4 is still true. If you mean 2+2=4 is ALWAYS true then I am trying to prove a universal truth by example. This will take forever and all you have to do is cite one exception and it is no longer a universal truth. Induction does not seem to be the way to proceed. If you mean 2+2=4 is SOMETIMES true I have a much easier job proving it by examples. I'll go think about this some more and see if you can tell me if your question is ALWAYS or SOMETIMES. Dave C |
| |
||
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.