Chevaliertuc

Oui, tu m'as l'air d'avoir tout compris jusqu'ici, enfin, c'est-à-dire qu'il n'y a rien à comprendre... Ceux qui ne pensent pas comme moi sont seulement un esprit "orienté" d'une manière différente (que l'on ne m'accuse pas de tolérance!). En mathématiques, tout est défini, y compris le chiffre 1. Dans les axiomes de la théorie ZF qui fondent la théorie des ensembles, il y a un axiome qui définit un ensemble vide, qui ne contient aucun élément. D'après les autres règles de conctruction des ensembles (qui sont très strictes, car les ensembles provoquent de très nombreux problèmes), on peut construire d'autres ensembles, comme l'ensemble formé de l'ensemble vide: c'est donc un ensemble (qui n'est pas vide!!) qui contient un autre ensemble, en l'occurence, l'ensemble vide. Ensuite, on peut créer l'ensemble formé de cet ensemble contenant l'ensemble vide, et de l'ensemble vide. On recommence comme ça, et on obtient une suite d'ensembles intuitivement "de plus en plus grands", et les mathématiciens y reconnaissent les nombres: 0, c'est l'ensemble vide, 1, c'est l'ensemble formé de l'ensemble vide, etc.
L'infini, quand à lui, n'est pas un nombre. Il ne s'agit en fait que d'une notation. Quand on dit par exemple qu'une suite de nombres tend vers +l'infini, cela signifie que l'on peut rendre le terme de la suite aussi grand que l'on souhaite en prenant des termes de rang suffisamment grand (j'espère que tu connais les suites, sinon tu ne vas rien comprendre, mais ça n'est pas important, ce qu'il faut voir, c'est que tout peut être défini en mathématiques. Tout du moins, tout doit l'être.)
Et donc oui, pour moi en tout cas (car les mathématiciens sont loin de se soucier du reste: il y a même des mathématiciens qui sont tatillons sur les hypothèses de Taylor Lagrange reste intégral (imagine une formule horrible) mais qui se moque de toutes ces réflexions et de la logique, des ensembles qu'ils nomment en souriant "philosophie"), les mots sont, non pas vides, car bien sûr je comprends toujours le français et comme tu vois, j'aime les langues, mais impropres au raisonnement. Il faut imaginer un grand vide, car si tu penses que le langage ne te permet pas de raisonner, cela signifie aussi qu'il est impossible de raisonner au sens "trouver une vérité", car il te faudrait définir ce que cela signifie, ce qui est impossible, car les mathématiques ne te sont d'aucun secours pour traiter du monde "réel".
C'est très obscur...
Disons que les mots n'ont pas de sens car le "sens" est lui-même un mot non-défini. On se retrouve dans un vilain cercle: définir quelque chose, et puis avant définir ce que signifie définir, etc etc. Certains diraient qu'il est illusoire de tenter de tout définir, et qu'il faut donc raisonner d'une autre manière, mais moi j'ai choisi de penser que si ce raisonnement était impossible, c'était qu'aucun n'était possible, dans un sens logique: la logique ne peut plus s'appliquer en dehors d'un champ strictement mathématique, donc il ne faut pas tenter de raisonner avec la logique si on ne le fait pas jusqu'au bout...
Tout ça est très embrouillé... J'espère que tu auras la patience d'y réfléchir. Je suis content que tu aies déjà décidé d'y prêter attention.


Sorry for all guys who don't speak french, but i can't explain that in another language as mine. But if you really want to debate, i'll try to translate...

Salut à tous, Olivier.

Nadine

Bonjour tous !

@ Olivier - Je voulais juste savoir si j'avais bien saisi ce que tu voulais dire. Je n'avais jamais regardé les choses de cette façon-là, (je n'ai pas le cerveau mathématique...) mais c'est quand-même intéressant de voir un autre point de vue.

Nadine

__________________
In the summer I stretch out on the shore and think of you. Had I told the sea what I felt for you,
It would have left its shores, its shells, its fish, and followed me.Nizar Qabbani.
When I drown my eyes in your eyes, I glimpse the deepest dawning and see the ancient times;
I see what I do not comprehend and feel the universe flowing between your eyes and mine. Adonis.
You're beautiful, you're beautiful... But it's time to face the truth. I will never be with you. James Blunt.

Chevaliertuc

Okok... j'ai tendance à être un peu expensif à ce sujet là. J'emmerde tout le monde là où j'étudie (enfin, ceux avec ki j'en parle).
voilàvoilà, enfin, c juste que justement, comme je suis en prise avec la plupart du monde connu à ce sujet, j'enfonce le clou, et comme j'ai l'habitude d'entendre des arguments, je prends des précautions pour ne plus les réentendre. Bon, je m'arrête là sinon je suis reparti pour une page.
Content d'avoir discuté avec toi, à défaut de t'avoir convaincue ;-) ++
Olivier.

gigi

To Chevaliertuc

I don't know French, but from all I understand u r trying to prove your point by saying that even math is based on axioms which practically are sentences not proven but taken as true.That is correct,no mathimatician will ever say to you firmly that cannot be proven but only that noone so far has ever made it with such a proof.
You refer also to logic(the mathematic one I suppose), well what's your way of thinking/writing/ making logical assumptions? For example, every morning when you awake you get out of bed (eventually ), that's a sentence that can be represented in logic.
The notion of material furthermore doesn't have only a sense for the physics, but also chemistry,biology, etc.
You also said that for you nothing is true. When you look yourself in a mirror what do you see exactly?? Or if u want do u exist?? (answer with a True/ False)
I'm trying to understand how do u see things. Your views are quite interesting, even though I don't agree with you.
As far as my opinion on the matter. I do believe in a higher power, and certainly I do not believe to what I was taught that God was (or religion).
I do believe in the omnipotence of that higher power, but I believe that someone praises that power by living.

Chevaliertuc

Hi Gigi
You haven't understand what is important in my way of thinking, because you are seeing all with your bad-educated eyes. (I don't speak english, so don't feel injured by what I'm saying, I just try to make you understand what I want you to understand.)
Of course, in maths, axioms are taken as true, and can't be proved. But all sentences can't be transcribed in logical assumptions: it's the problem (well, it's normal that you didn't understand if you don't speak french, i really wonder, how you could understand so much!) because the world is not definited by men, and the words of a sentence have no sense for maths: the words that are used in maths are ALL definited by maths (you can ask what you want and I will answer!). You can give a mathematical sentence to a computer (these sentences are not the one, which you must know, i speak about the authentic "logical assumptions", which are the basis of maths, but which are too complicated to be used in evoluted maths: mathematicians don't use them, but their work can be transposed with symbols as =>, <=, <=>, and so on ), so you can give such a sentence to a computer, and he CAN say if it's true or not: he just has to reckon (you can trust me or verify by yourself with for instance "Introduction to logic" by François Rivenc, i don't know if you can find a translation, but... it's not the only book about it!). But the words in our life are not definited, but you hear them all you life, so when you hear "exist", you refer to sentences that you heard, and you see in your head images which are associated to the sound. when you think about a tree, you think about something abstract that is green and so on, when you think about an abstract notion, you also have images, that are abstract too, but you don't refer to definitions. Well, in dictionnaries there are definitions, but they refer to some words, that are not definited. And you can't definite all words, because you can't master the world: you can't say that you have definited something:
_ because to say it, you need words that you have not already definited
_ because you didn't create the world, so you don't know the highest nature of the things, and to definite them is to lose a part of their "nature".

But, all what I said isn't important. It's just rhetorics. game with words. What is true in maths? what's is definited as true. A logical sentence (logic is only maths for me, of course, because what pretend to be logical must be strict as maths) is true but it could also be "green" or "oiroijsdgliud", but mathemacians have decided to say "true". It's only a word! In maths, when we say a theorem is true, it means, with the language of logic, that you can apply the algorithm of the demonstration with the first assumption to say that the second is "true". but the word "true" is not important: it means that something can be done, as if the computer that read the sentence could make noise when it finds a "true" sentence. Do you understand what I mean? In maths, the truth is a mirage. Mathematicians wnat to solve problems of our life for physicians for example, so they use sentences that can be understood with a "concrete" view, but it's only formal. It's the base of my way of thinking...
Because, how to definite what's true in our life?? you can have an idea, and i have one. but i know that it can't become a science, it can't become logic. Because the language is not strict enough, and because you can't create the world with your definitions as mathematicians create maths with axioms.
It's not a current way of thinking, so think about it before rejecting it.

Then:
" The notion of material furthermore doesn't have only a sense for the physics, but also chemistry,biology, etc.
You also said that for you nothing is true. When you look yourself in a mirror what do you see exactly?? Or if u want do u exist?? (answer with a True/ False) "
chemistry physics, biology ====> the same problem: you can't definite the world, even if you are dressed with white clothes: because you are not a GOD!!
AND: You ask if i think i exist. I answer "oirejg" that has so much sense as your question.
If i ask you "oirjeg eorij lkjsiuh?", and i create a language with these words. It has a sense for me, and other people, who are crazy too and who know this language, can understand (and they thought it's a good question :P). you can't understand and so you can only answer something like "oijrglhjbzer" that has no sense for you. And it's the same situation when you ask me if i exist. Your ancesters have created a language (maybe not yours or mine, but...), and you all understand it because you speak it, so you have many images in your head with situations and so on, and i can understand because i have these images too, but it has no sense for me, because it's not definited. You must think that it's not important to know the definition, but it is! because it's philosophy!! you have to demand a definition.
Of course, when i see in a mirror, i usually say: "I am ... or ..." so i mean i exist, but in order to live, not to do philosophy!! In my life, it's important to say "I", to say "you", and to accept the words, even if they are defnited, because i want to eat, to drink, to be with my darling :P but if you want to know my opinion in philosophy, i think that "I" doesn't exist. because it has no sense: "to exist"?? does it means that "I" am made of material? what's material? just somathing that i know trough my fingers: something that philosophy CAN'T know, because yours fingers aren't an instrument which can give definitions. the "existence" is just the existence of your sool, something that is not made of material? but my fingers can't find something that's not made of material, and my eyes too and so on. i can't just imagine it with my mind. and you can't demand that i think it's a reality, as you can't demand i think that Poseidon had white hair: you can imagine it and I too, but i can't even have an impression of it. maybe an other animal could "touch" the "no-material" with another sense than ours, but i can't, so i have no idea of what's not made of material. So it has no sense for me. Yes, i can think about it, i understand what you mean, but as a philosoph, it has no sense. and i can't answer your question.
I think nothing is true, because "true" has no sense. But i can use the word to communicate. And what's wrong is to think that the words are more the communication. it's "wrong" because it's not proved. And, because it can't be proved, noone can say it's true. You can say it. And I think, you have the right to say everything, I will not avoid you to think it, not because i'm tolerant (because it has no sense for me "tolerance"), but because i can't prove it's false, because "false" has no sense, of course :P
I don't see a possibility to definite the truth (i resume now). so there's no truth. and the words have no sense. So, all can be true or false, i don't know, i let people think about it, i just live, and do maths :P
I think, what I said isn't enough to make you understand. But you must understand that: i think that "I don't exist", but the question is not to say if i can see me in a mirror, the question is: what means "exist"?
It's difficult to say something when nothing has sense! So i can't explain you well if you don't ask!
It seems to be stupid, but if you want to prove i'm wong, you have to prove it! Just do it!
++
Olivier
PS: Dsl Nadine, j'ai encore beaucoup écrit, mais c'est eux qui voulaient O: ) !
En plus je me répète et tout... Enfin, j'espère que si vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec moi, vous reconnaitrez au moins kil est difficile d'expliquer quelque chose qui repose sur le principe même du langage et de l'acquis: ce qui nous semble naturel n'en est que plus trompeur, et ma méthode consiste seulement en une destruction au final. Mais d'autres ont construit kelkechose ensuite.

Read Nietzsche!!

legion

Back to the idea of gods.
Throughout history, religion has been used to control. An eternal motivator is the best afterall. A prime exampe would be throughout the middle ages in europe. There only the elite were even allowed to "read" the bible. They used religion as a way to dictate to the common people "stay in line"
In hunter-gatherer societies, the shaman use thier so-called "exclusive" ways of speaking to higher beings in their own quest for power. The shaman is fed, clothed, and given material possesions by the community. When in reality he contributes nothing. The shaman simply manipulates the masses into believing that there are higher beinggs and that only he can communicate with them.
In today's societies, places of worship are still based on power. Religion is a great motivator. But without religon, where would we be as a people. Some argue that we would lose morality because we would have nothing to fear in the form of eternal punishment. That is why the people in power, throughout history, have used religion to keep those under their control from rebelling.

gigi

I understood so much from French because I know Italian and some words are pretty much the same(or you can figure out their meaning) and because I know math and logic (so its not very hard to understand that part). And because of that I also know that everything we say can be rappresented in logic sentences and can be proven true or false(in the mathematical sense).

First of all I am not trying to prove you wrong. I find the way you think interesting, that's why I'm trying to understand it.
The language in general(whichever that is French, English,etc.) for you its just a way to communicate with others. But also any language isn't very strict in the meanings (for example in Greek there are at least five different ways to say the word rock), so many times when we talk different meanings can be "attached" to the frases according for example to the state we are in (happy,angry, blue,etc.). And with this I'm completely with you(I repeated what you said so that you will be able to understand if i understood you or not).
Furthermore, you say what can be true for me may not be true for you( that's why the word true cannot be defined strictly, and I find that also correct).But don't you ,even, take some things for true, don't you believe in some things?For example, the fact that all spoken languages are somewhat superfluous, or the fact that nothing makes sense. The first one it doesn't need much to be proven, the second one I'm trying to understand(because math does make some sense to you).
You conclude with read Nietzsce. From all I know (I've never read Nietzsce so I may be totally wrong) Nietzsce talks about existence, about the "I am" but not I am through others, the viceversa Others are because I am. So in some kind of existence you do believe.
I also got the idea from what you wrote that you are trying to define everything philosophically but under a logical point(math-logical). If that is what you are doing how can that be done? Practically it all ends up with what existence is (how the first form of life appeared, the first star and so on). The definitions given from every sector (philosophy sciences(with its subcategories) ) are completely different, just because they all are different points you see the same thing. How can they be mixed up together?