tk102 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 The semantics of our mathematics is arbitrary. The concepts they are assigned to however are constant and universal. I guess in affirming that, they do seem to take on a transcendental, Platonic quality in relation to a materialistic universe. Pythagoras believed the essential nature of the universe was based on number. I wonder if Bahnsen would be willing to accept the idea of number as the end-all rather than assert that God created number. P.S. 31131211131221 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Actually the semantics of mathematics is exactly at the heart of the debate. It is what we are generally taught. Ultimately that's what the whole debate boils down to. Another example... In the automotive realm, 2+2 means something completely different than a 4 seater. It generally means 2 actual seats, and a glorified package shelf behind those 2 seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Numbers are still numbers... 1 + 1 = 2 or 11, or if an alien race took it differently and wanted to get simply the number 1, they could do 1 + 0.0 or 1 + 0, whichever fits their system of thinking. Or 1 could equal 0. Who knows...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Actually the semantics of mathematics is exactly at the heart of the debate. It is what we are generally taught. Ultimately that's what the whole debate boils down to. No it's not. The heart of the debate is the concept behind the semantics, and whether that concept has truth independent of our knowing it and independent of empirical evidence. It is an epistimological question at its core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.