I've become convinced that category is the more basic abstraction that humans make and that the natural numbers arise from this.

See this article by Barry Mazur. In particular on Pg. 13 he defines the natural numbers as "an" initial object in a certain category of discrete dynamical systems. This, to me, couldn't be any more natural.

Quote: Original post by superpig
I'm with szecs. (And so is Paul Graham).

This.

Whenever you have a question that seems mysteriously philosophical, most likely you don't understand the question, or haven't defined it properly.

In other words, the answer is 42.

@owl - haha! :)

@szecs, SuperPig & Perfect - I'm aware of this; which is why I used the wording I did in my OP: "What's your take on this?". This thread isn't about the or a truth - it's about individual opinions. Abstaining from having an opinion is also an opinion and I'm not going to debate it.

>> The fact that you view this as a philosophical topic, but that you're not claiming that any truth even exists in this matter, creates pretty powerful connotations as to what your attitude towards philosophy is. :P

A good counter, if not a wee bit qualificatory :). TBH I'm not a huge fan of philosophy and I share the sentiment from the link you posted to a large extent, but the older I get the more I'm beginning to appreciate the importance of its existence. It's like gardening - in a way.

The older I am, the more I want to actually live and do, not just thinking about it.
The reason I replied (apart from being bored to death), is that it is important to think about which questions are important.

I hope that made sense, my English just sucks hard.

Quote: Original post by irreversible
do numbers and enumeration (something that we know as mathematical counting) exist without intelligent life?

Are you asking if there are Platonic numbers? Hmmm, have you tried reading Plato?

Quote: Original post by Bregma
Are you asking if there are Platonic numbers? Hmmm, have you tried reading Plato?

In highschool, but no, not recently. Perhaps I should refresh my memory.

szecs - I'm glad you edited your post; I was pretty much ready to sound the troll alert. For the sake of the argument: which questions are important to you?

Ive always thought the tree falling in the woods thing was extremely stupid. The first time I heard it I was very young, and even then I knew it was dumb question. But I figured maybe theres something deep and profound about it that I wouldnt understand until I was older. Nope. Its still stupid. It all depends on how you define sound. If you define sound as the disturbance/vibration of air (or other medium), then yes the tree makes a sound. If you define sound as the vibrating of an eardrum which sends signals to a brain (which is the wrong definition, but some poeple probably use it), then no it doesnt make a sound. What am I missing? Nothing, I suspect. A much more interesting question for me is: how are people possibly so fascinated by that stupid question?

The numbers question is very similar and equally dumb, although you took it off to quite a tangent there.

Contrary to what your 2nd grade teacher tells you, there are such things as stupid questions ;)

You cant just throw a bunch of random words into a sentance, put a question mark at the end, and call it a question. Why is purple hungry? You can ponder this question for decades and convince people you're a brilliant philosopher but I dont buy it. A question has to make sense!

Another one that bugs me is "What is the meaning of life?". People treat it like its the most profound and difficult question one could ask. The only reason its a 'difficult' question is because its not really a question. It could mean something different to every person. That question is equivalent to saying "Please ramble on about your personal beliefs and ambitions and anything else you want for 30 or so minutes". If you rephrase the question to something specific and meaningful then the answers are very simple.

Quote: Original post by AndreTheGiant
Ive always thought the tree falling in the woods thing was extremely stupid. The first time I heard it I was very young, and even then I knew it was dumb question. But I figured maybe theres something deep and profound about it that I wouldnt understand until I was older. Nope. Its still stupid. It all depends on how you define sound. If you define sound as the disturbance/vibration of air (or other medium), then yes the tree makes a sound. If you define sound as the vibrating of an eardrum which sends signals to a brain (which is the wrong definition, but some poeple probably use it), then no it doesnt make a sound. What am I missing? Nothing, I suspect. A much more interesting question for me is: how are people possibly so fascinated by that stupid question?

I think the tree is a metaphor examining existentialism not the definition of sound. A better question to understand the philosophy would be "if a tree is in the woods with no one around to see it, does it exist?" That is not a stupid question, it's just a question that can't be reasonably answered, which is why it's philosophy not science.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care

Quote: Original post by AndreTheGiant
Ive always thought the tree falling in the woods thing was extremely stupid. The first time I heard it I was very young, and even then I knew it was dumb question. But I figured maybe theres something deep and profound about it that I wouldnt understand until I was older. Nope. Its still stupid. It all depends on how you define sound. If you define sound as the disturbance/vibration of air (or other medium), then yes the tree makes a sound. If you define sound as the vibrating of an eardrum which sends signals to a brain (which is the wrong definition, but some poeple probably use it), then no it doesnt make a sound. What am I missing? Nothing, I suspect. A much more interesting question for me is: how are people possibly so fascinated by that stupid question?

I think the tree is a metaphor examining existentialism not the definition of sound. A better question to understand the philosophy would be "if a tree is in the woods with no one around to see it, does it exist?" That is not a stupid question, it's just a question that can't be reasonably answered, which is why it's philosophy not science.

I dont see how swapping sound for light changes anything the slightest. And yes it is still a stupid question. If anything, you've managed to make it even stoopider. You have already admitted the tree is in the woods, so of course it exists. Its like saying "I baked a cake. Did I bake a cake?" Its not philosophy, its moronic. I do have respect for actual philosophy, but this is utter nonesense.

Sorry for shitting all over this thread. If someone can come up with semi-enlightening reason why the tree in the woods thing is so interesting to a lot of people, I would be greatful.

Fermat's last theorem/conjecture is known to us through Fermat's writings. Now, Fermat spoke of having discovered a proof for all n, but he never wrote it down on account of the margins being "too narrow to contain it". Now suppose Fermat hadn't bothered to write that note in the margins, or anything at all involving that particular conjecture. So, in that case, did Fermat come up with what is now called "Fermat's last theorem" at all? Even if he had, in truth, we would have no way of knowing unless he wrote it down. I think that's the essence of the "tree in the woods" thing. It's about what we perceive and know, not what actually happened.

If a tree with no relation to me other than us existing in the same universe falls in the woods, and I didn't see/hear/perceive it happening, does the tree falling matter to me/have any effect on either myself or what I know? Obviously, in the tree in the woods thing it falls apart because somebody familiar with the area could stumble upon the now-toppled tree and reason that, given that the tree in woods used to be standing and isn't any longer, the tree fell down. But that's beside the point of the saying, so perhaps that objection is too literal. In all honesty, though, I think there might be better ways of getting that point across.

[Edited by - Oberon_Command on April 28, 2010 8:53:13 PM]