Order is Independent of Thought

[wildcat]

motto

The order of mathematics is not the product of thought.

J. Krishnamurti



Let go.

 

[Kiddo]

Without someone to interpret mathematics and order, how is it possible for it to exist?

If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to see it fall, does it make a sound?

 

[MerkW]

If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to see it fall, does it make a sound?

I've heard this question time and time again. Under the assumption that trees and sound are existing physical entities, then yes. If not, then no. The problem lies in the fact that one can not actually prove the existence of anything, except for one's one mind (see Descartes). After all, all of one's experiences could be nothing more than a product of the mind. Human perception is entirely unreliable. Thus, one must rely on imagination and reason, rather than experience and empiricism.

 

[wildcat]

Without someone to interpret mathematics and order, how is it possible for it to exist?

If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to see it fall, does it make a sound?

Thought is not independent of order. Order is independent of thought.

 

[Kiddo]

I've heard this question time and time again. Under the assumption that trees and sound are existing physical entities, then yes. If not, then no. The problem lies in the fact that one can not actually prove the existence of anything, except for one's one mind (see Descartes). After all, all of one's experiences could be nothing more than a product of the mind. Human perception is entirely unreliable. Thus, one must rely on imagination and reason, rather than experience and empiricism.

But reason and imagination are based largely on experience. Unless you mean it in the Kant kindof way, where we are all born with an operating system designed for interpreting experience.

Thought is not independent of order. Order is independent of thought.

Order is defined by thought, therefore it cannot be independent of thought. It must be an interdependent element of thought for it have any function or meaning. Just as the heart may be removed from the body, it has no purpose unless it functions inside the body, and therefore it is not truly independent, but an element of the human body.

*Nods and pretends that made a lot of sense*

 

[ygolo]

motto

The order of mathematics is not the product of thought.

J. Krishnamurti



Let go.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. There exists order to be discovered. But is it "the order of mathematics" till it gets incorporated into our mathematics?

The mathematics we know and will know is only made possible by our thought.

 

[Atomic Fiend]

*Nods and pretends that made a lot of sense*

*whispers* Oh wow that nod, he must be right.

 

[lastrailway]

Thought is not independent of order. Order is independent of thought.

Which existed first?

 

[wildcat]

But reason and imagination are based largely on experience. Unless you mean it in the Kant kindof way, where we are all born with an operating system designed for interpreting experience.



Order is defined by thought, therefore it cannot be independent of thought. It must be an interdependent element of thought for it have any function or meaning. Just as the heart may be removed from the body, it has no purpose unless it functions inside the body, and therefore it is not truly independent, but an element of the human body.

*Nods and pretends that made a lot of sense*

Order may be object to thought yes. However it is not subject to thought.

Thought can interpret and define order as you say.
So what?

It does not follow that the order of mathematics is the product of thought.

A definition of a thing is not the thing.

 

[Athenian200]

motto

The order of mathematics is not the product of thought.

J. Krishnamurti



Let go.

We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.

Order is observed, then people attempt to replicate and use it because they see patterns in it, and people tend to think in terms of patterns on one level or another.

Ultimately, if we exist in an orderly world, our minds must work and perceive according to certain rules. And in that case, the identification of an ordered pattern related to math is not the discovery of something new, but only the understanding and explanation, in terms we can understand, of what was already there.

However, our minds are not capable of distorting order, but only our own understanding of it.

 

[wildcat]

Which existed first?

A relevant question. The answer is in the question.

The mother is not dependent on the baby. The baby is dependent on the mother.

Order is independent of thought. Thought is dependent of order.

 

[wildcat]

We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.

Order is observed, then people attempt to replicate and use it because they see patterns in it, and people tend to think in terms of patterns on one level or another.

Ultimately, if we exist in an orderly world, our minds must work and perceive according to certain rules. And in that case, the identification of an ordered pattern related to math is not the discovery of something new, but only the understanding and explanation, in terms we can understand, of what was already there.

Exactly.

 

[Kiddo]

A definition of a thing is not the thing.

The definition is the human interpretation, the thing is the human perception.

Sight, taste, touch, sound, are the human perceptions of the environment, whereas red, sweet, smooth, loud, are the interpretations of the perceptions. Without the interpretation, colors, smells, textures, and noises are meaningless and therefore non-existent. For what we cannot interpret has no meaning beyond our perception, and thus does not exist.

*Takes a pedantic bow as if he knew what the heck he was talking about*

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

motto

The order of mathematics is not the product of thought.

J. Krishnamurti



Let go.

All of mathematics is the product of thought. The order within is no different.

 

[lastrailway]

A relevant question. The answer is in the question.

The mother is not dependent on the baby. The baby is dependent on the mother.

Order is independent of thought. Thought is dependent of order.

Could be. But what would the cause of order be, in that case?

 

[wildcat]

Could be. But what would the cause of order be, in that case?

Science does not provide an answer to the question.
For the same reason you cannot reach the Bing Bang itself.
Big Bang is simply not there as a physical entity.
Any event is timebound. Therefore we are not dealing with an event.
Only an event can have a cause.

 

[Kiddo]

Science does not provide an answer to the question.
For the same reason you cannot reach the Bing Bang itself.
Big Bang is simply not there as a physical entity.
Any event is timebound. Therefore we are not dealing with an event.
Only an event can have a cause.

I give up. There is never any answers to what you say, only more questions, riddles, and paradoxes.

 

[wildcat]

Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. There exists order to be discovered. But is it "the order of mathematics" till it gets incorporated into our mathematics?

The mathematics we know and will know is only made possible by our thought.

Our mathematics?
Mathematics is not a creation of our thought.

Only the understanding of it is made possible by our thought.

If it were not so mathematics would not be beyond our manipulation.

We cannot spoil what is not within our reach to spoil.

The prerequisite of mathematics is that it is not a product.

 

[lastrailway]

Science does not provide an answer to the question.
For the same reason you cannot reach the Bing Bang itself.
Big Bang is simply not there as a physical entity.
Any event is timebound. Therefore we are not dealing with an event.
Only an event can have a cause.

I thought of the Bing Bang when I asked you about the cause. But then thought that the Bing Bang was a pretty chaotic process which only gradually started to take shape.

 

[wildcat]

I give up. There is never any answers to what you say, only more questions, riddles, and paradoxes.

Does an answer provide understanding or closure?