Christian 'Mythology'.

[Brownie]

Ippy, while you are here and I am here, I want to ask you what these acronyms stand for please:  O E U & G B.

I thought the OEU was perhaps Online Encyclopaedia U??(something) and I don't think GB stands for Great Britain.  God Bothering perhaps (haven't heard that expression for a long time)?   Or maybe "God Bless" which you object to but that's a bit too obvious.

I googled both and got all sorts of stuff which I don't think is relevant.

Ta.

Was going to PM you about this so as not to trivialise the thread but didn't want to bother you with a PM, so put me out of me misery.  I can't be the only one - at least I hope not - who can't work out what the initials represent.

[ippy]

Ippy, while you are here and I am here, I want to ask you what these acronyms stand for please:  O E U & G B.

I thought the OEU was perhaps Online Encyclopaedia U??(something) and I don't think GB stands for Great Britain.  God Bothering perhaps (haven't heard that expression for a long time)?   Or maybe "God Bless" which you object to but that's a bit too obvious.

I googled both and got all sorts of stuff which I don't think is relevant.

Ta.

Was going to PM you about this so as not to trivialise the thread but didn't want to bother you with a PM, so put me 8out of me misery.  I can't be the only one - at least I hope not - who can't work out what the initials represent.

Oxford English University press dictionary.

The irritating god bless at the end of his squirming posts, G B.

The rest of my post must have coveyed how repugnant I find his posts, he's even more into self deceit (cognative dissonence), than Hope, I hadn't thought that possible.

ippy

[Rosindubh]

........... The difference between what we invent and what we discover is sometimes a subtle one; I see maths as a language we have to invent so that describing numerical relationships becomes easier to communicate from person to person.  This sprang from accounting for trade originally, early merchant traders needed words like two and four and plus and equals and subtract so that all parties to a trade could be confidant they all agreed on the details of the trade. When we invent new branches of maths now we are continuing in this; we invent string theory as a mathematical description of matter below the level of quarks.  We invented fractals in order to better describe and hence calculate the length of the British coastline, originally.

Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.

I agree what you say above as far as it goes, but it is not the full picture.

We do invent words and symbols "describing numerical relationship" so that maths has and continues to develop as a series of definitions.   But these definitions become maths when and only when they refer to "numerical relationships" which are objective (exist independently of the human mind).   

Otherwise, they are entertaining fictions - e.g. chess which exists only in the human mind and leads to nothing but itself.

Your ancient merchant trader could not have 'sold' his idea of 2+2=4 unless he was able to show his customer that it was true independently of the trader's words.   This was done by using counting sticks and abacuses, physical illustrations of the truth of the abstract concept.

So maths is never 'agreed', but each step is 'accepted' only after been proved correct objectively (i.e. independent of the human mind and true before humans existed)

I hope you find this interesting,
God bless

[Walter]

Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.

I agree what you say above as far as it goes, but it is not the full picture.

We do invent words and symbols "describing numerical relationship" so that maths has and continues to develop as a series of definitions.   But these definitions become maths when and only when they refer to "numerical relationships" which are objective (exist independently of the human mind).   

Otherwise, they are entertaining fictions - e.g. chess which exists only in the human mind and leads to nothing but itself.

Your ancient merchant trader could not have 'sold' his idea of 2+2=4 unless he was able to show his customer that it was true independently of the trader's words.   This was done by using counting sticks and abacuses, physical illustrations of the truth of the abstract concept.

So maths is never 'agreed', but each step is 'accepted' only after been proved correct objectively (i.e. independent of the human mind and true before humans existed)

I hope you find this interesting,
God bless

God bless ------ MY ARSE

[Enki]

Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.

I agree what you say above as far as it goes, but it is not the full picture.

We do invent words and symbols "describing numerical relationship" so that maths has and continues to develop as a series of definitions.   But these definitions become maths when and only when they refer to "numerical relationships" which are objective (exist independently of the human mind).   

Otherwise, they are entertaining fictions - e.g. chess which exists only in the human mind and leads to nothing but itself.

Your ancient merchant trader could not have 'sold' his idea of 2+2=4 unless he was able to show his customer that it was true independently of the trader's words.   This was done by using counting sticks and abacuses, physical illustrations of the truth of the abstract concept.

So maths is never 'agreed', but each step is 'accepted' only after been proved correct objectively (i.e. independent of the human mind and true before humans existed)

I hope you find this interesting,
God bless

The idea of 1=1=2 is perfectly reasonable in our idealised pure maths form, but as it relates to real world physics, it tends to be approximate or human dependent. Thus one apple plus one apple equals two apples only if you accept the human convenience definition of an apple, as they are only approximately similar. Even if you say one electron plus one electron equals two electrons, you haven't an exact mathematical model, because they are all slightly different in their motions, and by the uncertainty principle  you can't even know their exact positions or velocities, which means they could have slightly different masses. You can however tokenise the real world by saying that, for instance, 1p+1p=2p, which is a human mathematical invention, is it not?

[torridon]

Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.

I agree what you say above as far as it goes, but it is not the full picture.

We do invent words and symbols "describing numerical relationship" so that maths has and continues to develop as a series of definitions.   But these definitions become maths when and only when they refer to "numerical relationships" which are objective (exist independently of the human mind).   

Otherwise, they are entertaining fictions - e.g. chess which exists only in the human mind and leads to nothing but itself.

Your ancient merchant trader could not have 'sold' his idea of 2+2=4 unless he was able to show his customer that it was true independently of the trader's words.   This was done by using counting sticks and abacuses, physical illustrations of the truth of the abstract concept.

So maths is never 'agreed', but each step is 'accepted' only after been proved correct objectively (i.e. independent of the human mind and true before humans existed)

I hope you find this interesting,
God bless

Yes, maths describes quantitative relationships, usually between things that exist (but not necessarily - remember complex numbers ?). We can use maths to describe the orbit of Mercury around the Sun or calculate the apparent positions of stars in the sky from a given point on the surface of the Earth at a given moment in time irrespective of whether humans were alive on the planet at the time. These relationships exist 'out there', and maths is the formalised abstract conceptualisation of such quantitative relationships in human mind and culture. 

This, to my way of thinking, touches on the essence of what minds do - they nurture a simplified, rendered internal 'echo' or model, of what is out there, externally to the mind.

[Rosindubh]

Having said that we invent mathematical language to describe what is out there, clearly there must be something out there to warrant description and what is out there is lots of stuff and that stuff stands in all sorts of particular relationships with each other.  I think this is what you are getting at, that there are laws of nature that we discover; Einstein for instance realised the equivalence between matter and energy and was able to describe it using the language of maths as e=mc².

Hi torridon,
Thanks for the above post.   Sorry for delay in replying.  I wished to give some thougt to what you said.

I agree "that there are laws of natue that we discover" but what we use to discover them can not be subjective if we want these laws to be objective.

Surely, e=mc2 demonstrates my point that mathematical concepts are not just a language, but also objective reality independent of the human mind?

In e=mc2, Einstein is not using maths to 'describe' a known fact, but is using maths to deduce a physical fact for which there was little or no evidence at that time (AD 1905).    He himself said he was seeking a "universal formal principle" to give "assured results" - i.e. abstract before physical.

By postulating two 'invariences', Einstein used mathematical concepts to deduce special relativity and from that not just equivalence between matter and energy, but also its amazing direct relationship with the speed of light.   Not until AD 2005, one hundred years later, were people at MIT and elsewhere able to to demonstrate that Einstein's abstract equation was correct to within 4 by 10 to the power of minus 7.

Surely, either this is the most amazing guess in history, or Einstein's maths are objective reality, discovered not invented?

Can you agree?
God bless

[SweetPea]

......
In e=mc2, Einstein is not using maths to 'describe' a known fact, but is using maths to deduce a physical fact for which there was little or no evidence at that time (AD 1905).    He himself said he was seeking a "universal formal principle" to give "assured results" - i.e. abstract before physical.
......

my bold

.... and that is crux on which everything hangs; if it were not for the abstract (before the material) we would not be here having this discussion.

So, the question is, what is the abstract.... where did it come from? The laws of nature.... who/what 'designed' (?) them? Why do they even exist? Yet without them nothing physical can exist.

[Walter]

my bold

.... and that is crux on which everything hangs; if it were not for the abstract (before the material) we would not be here having this discussion.

So, the question is, what is the abstract.... where did it come from? The laws of nature.... who/what 'designed' (?) them? Why do they even exist? Yet without them nothing physical can exist.

the universe looks the way it does because we are here to see it 

[torridon]

..

Surely, e=mc2 demonstrates my point that mathematical concepts are not just a language, but also objective reality independent of the human mind?

In e=mc2, Einstein is not using maths to 'describe' a known fact, but is using maths to deduce a physical fact for which there was little or no evidence at that time (AD 1905).    He himself said he was seeking a "universal formal principle" to give "assured results" - i.e. abstract before physical.
..

I don't get 'abstract before physical'.  That runs counter to the meaning abstraction.  If you read a long scientific paper for instance it will have an abstract, which is a short form summary, condensed from the detail. Likewise abstract conceptual principles are derived by observation of the natural world. We see things that have a circular shape for instance and so we have found it useful to abstract the conceptual relationship between the radius and the area.  Spatial relationships don't exist in nature because of our ability to conceptualise them, it is the other way round, we can conceptualise them because they exist in nature.

[Rosindubh]

The idea of 1=1=2 is perfectly reasonable in our idealised pure maths form, but as it relates to real world physics, it tends to be approximate or human dependent. Thus one apple plus one apple equals two apples only if you accept the human convenience definition of an apple, as they are only approximately similar. Even if you say one electron plus one electron equals two electrons, you haven't an exact mathematical model, because they are all slightly different in their motions, and by the uncertainty principle  you can't even know their exact positions or velocities, which means they could have slightly different masses. You can however tokenise the real world by saying that, for instance, 1p+1p=2p, which is a human mathematical invention, is it not?

Hi Enki,
Thank you for your post

What you say is correct, but surely it confirms my point of abstract before physical?

It demonstrates that "our idealised pure maths" is not dependent upon the Material World, but the opposite is the case.  Einstein's "real world physics" is dependent upon pure maths (including immaginary time and the square root of minus one - abstract as one can get).   The same goes for Dirac's equations for QM.

Every set of two apples in the Material World is different in sizes, weights, shapes, colours etc while every mathematical set of 1+1=2 is identical, exact and consistent.   All mathematical concepts (circles, triangles, right angles as well as 1+1=2) have an exactness and consistency which is not visible in the Material World.   Natural circles and right angles are rare if they exist at all.   

It is this exactness and consistency, distinct from the inexactness of Nature, which gives mathematical concepts their objectivity outside of the Material World and independent of the human mind.

Probability was a branch of maths before discovery of particle physics, but Heisenberg's uncertainty principle did not prevent the Maths of the Standard Model from forecasting the Higgs field in advance of physical evidence, i.e. Abstract before physical.

I hope you find this interesting,
God bless

[Walter]

Rosindubh

Your posts on first reading appear to be well thought out responses using scientific terminology and mathematics to further your arguments . However there are some basic misunderstandings which are apparent to me, which some people on here may not notice.
At this time I am not going to say what they are mainly because you are addressing Enki and Torridon and I would hope they pick up  on what I have noticed too.

Apart from that why don't you just come clean and make your point plainly.

[torridon]

It is this exactness and consistency, distinct from the inexactness of Nature, which gives mathematical concepts their objectivity outside of the Material World and independent of the human mind.

Mathematical concepts might be objective but that doesn't mean that they exist independently of mind.  Concepts are products of mind, they are idealised and simplified abstractions of the real world. Consider this : triangles don't exist; circles don't exist either.  Sure, I can draw a circle on a piece of paper now, but that pencil mark on the paper is not actually a circle.  For something to exist implies three spatial dimensions and a temporal one.  Something with zero depth is not there.  Something with length, breadth and depth that exists for zero time also never exists. A circle is a two dimensional concept so it cannot exist in reality. What we can say is that circles exist but in a looser sense of the word exist, ie they exist as concepts of mind and of our invention as simplifications of the messy world out there.  The real world out there is full of relationships that are real and authentic and which exist independently of human mind and the conceptualisation of them is a product of human mind and culture.  There are structures out there which are circle-like so we call on our mathematical language to describe them using the word 'circular'.

[ekim]

What you say is correct, but surely it confirms my point of abstract before physical?

It demonstrates that "our idealised pure maths" is not dependent upon the Material World, but the opposite is the case. 

Others might say that the brain is physical, the conceptualising mind is a product of the brain and abstract concepts are a product of the mind therefore the physical precedes the abstract.

[Enki]

Hi Enki,
Thank you for your post

What you say is correct, but surely it confirms my point of abstract before physical?

It demonstrates that "our idealised pure maths" is not dependent upon the Material World, but the opposite is the case.  Einstein's "real world physics" is dependent upon pure maths (including immaginary time and the square root of minus one - abstract as one can get).   The same goes for Dirac's equations for QM.

Every set of two apples in the Material World is different in sizes, weights, shapes, colours etc while every mathematical set of 1+1=2 is identical, exact and consistent.   All mathematical concepts (circles, triangles, right angles as well as 1+1=2) have an exactness and consistency which is not visible in the Material World.   Natural circles and right angles are rare if they exist at all.   

It is this exactness and consistency, distinct from the inexactness of Nature, which gives mathematical concepts their objectivity outside of the Material World and independent of the human mind.

Probability was a branch of maths before discovery of particle physics, but Heisenberg's uncertainty principle did not prevent the Maths of the Standard Model from forecasting the Higgs field in advance of physical evidence, i.e. Abstract before physical.

I hope you find this interesting,
God bless

No, I would disagree. It suggests that the physical came first, or, at most, runs alongside the abstract. I suggest that our brains tend to look at the physical, and look for useful patterns, which can then be applied in other circumstances. Hence we select, from the information before us, what we consider to be useful, and tend to disregard or eliminate what we consider not so useful. This is sound evolutionary behaviour of course, and is not just limited to homo sapiens.

I think that it is interesting that young children find it very difficult to grasp mathematical concepts without relating them to physical objects. It is only later, as they mature, that the abstract becomes more understandable and more useful.


Yes, of course, many angular and circular shapes are exhibited in nature, although not of course in two dimensional form.

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=8734

I also find it interesting that you seem to be stressing the inexactness of the material world, which, you suggest, does not show the exactness and consistency of abstract mathematics, whilst suggesting earlier that mathematical concepts have an objective reality. If so, where is this objective reality located(as distinct from the material world)? It seems to me that you are arguing for a Platonic world of forms, for which this world is just a shadow. Is this a reasonable assumption on my part? If so, I suggest that this idea is untestable and is simply conjecture.

[Rosindubh]

I don't get 'abstract before physical'.  That runs counter to the meaning abstraction.  If you read a long scientific paper for instance it will have an abstract, which is a short form summary, condensed from the detail. Likewise abstract conceptual principles are derived by observation of the natural world. We see things that have a circular shape for instance and so we have found it useful to abstract the conceptual relationship between the radius and the area.  Spatial relationships don't exist in nature because of our ability to conceptualise them, it is the other way round, we can conceptualise them because they exist in nature.

Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.    'Abstract' (as an adjective) means existing in thought without having physical existence. 

Contary to your post, "spatial relationships" do in fact exist in nature.   All such relationships are physical not abstract - physical properties of material objects - shapes, sizes, locations, movements etc of individual stones or groups of stones.   All such relationships are observable by the senses (sight and touch) and do not exist apart from the stones themselves.   They are also imprecise and can be varied with the blow of a hammer.

Mathematical concepts are different.   Circles, right angles, 2+2=4 etc do not exist in nature.   They exist apart from and do not depend upon any physical object.   They are not obseverable by sight or touch, but can only be understood by the intellect.   They are also precise and cannot be varied with the blow of a hammer.

Of course, usefulness in economic activities spurred development of mathe, but it took thousands of years because mathematical concepts are not obvious until after they have been discovered.   A lengthy maths papyrus from ancient Eygpt (Rhind papyrus) indicates that your "conceptual relationship between radius and area" of circles was unknown at that time (c. 1650 BC), although calculations of fractions, areas and volumes are abundant in the manuscript.

On the other hand, many of maths significant developments arose from intellectual curiosity alone, long before they had any practical use, e.g. Complex numbers (AD 1545) and non-euclidean geometry (AD 1760).   The amazing thing about these very abstract concepts is that they enabled Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc to forecast the existence of physical things long before such things could be observed empirically.   Abstract before physical.

How could these abstract concepts do that unless they were correct independently of the human mind (and from the beginning of time).

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

[trippymonkey]

Wow, what a great post !!!!!

[SusanDoris]

#290

How could these abstract concepts do that unless they were correct independently of the human mind (and from the beginning of time).

I hope torridon will correct me if I'm wrong, but taking that through to a logical conclusion, you are saying these mathematical, abstract conceptsmust have existed, had an independent, entirely separate existence  before the universe began, or at any rate billions of years before there were animals which had evolved to notice them, and then luckily had a random mutation or something which resulted in their being able to invent sounds with abstract meanings. It is only humans who, using sight and their advanced brains, noticed that natural lines could be depicted by drawing, say, a line in sand, or several lines making a flat outline shape. 

If that is so, then all these concepts, including those not yet discovered, were, or  are, still hanging around .... where? In space?

[torridon]

Hi again torridon,
Thank you for your post.    'Abstract' (as an adjective) means existing in thought without having physical existence. 

Contary to your post, "spatial relationships" do in fact exist in nature.   All such relationships are physical not abstract - physical properties of material objects - shapes, sizes, locations, movements etc of individual stones or groups of stones.   All such relationships are observable by the senses (sight and touch) and do not exist apart from the stones themselves.   They are also imprecise and can be varied with the blow of a hammer.

Mathematical concepts are different.   Circles, right angles, 2+2=4 etc do not exist in nature.   They exist apart from and do not depend upon any physical object.   They are not obseverable by sight or touch, but can only be understood by the intellect.   They are also precise and cannot be varied with the blow of a hammer.

Of course, usefulness in economic activities spurred development of mathe, but it took thousands of years because mathematical concepts are not obvious until after they have been discovered.   A lengthy maths papyrus from ancient Eygpt (Rhind papyrus) indicates that your "conceptual relationship between radius and area" of circles was unknown at that time (c. 1650 BC), although calculations of fractions, areas and volumes are abundant in the manuscript.

On the other hand, many of maths significant developments arose from intellectual curiosity alone, long before they had any practical use, e.g. Complex numbers (AD 1545) and non-euclidean geometry (AD 1760).   The amazing thing about these very abstract concepts is that they enabled Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc to forecast the existence of physical things long before such things could be observed empirically.   Abstract before physical.

How could these abstract concepts do that unless they were correct independently of the human mind (and from the beginning of time).

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

Hi

Well I think we are almost agreeing, then, this is close to what I have been saying all along, that spatial relationships exist out there independent of observer, whilst concepts do not 'exist' out there and only exist in minds.  The difference between us is that for you, the principles, though not out there in nature, do exist independently of mind in some sense, and are there for minds to discover. If we take circularity, as an example, we agree that circles do not exist in nature (being a 2d concept) but we could say that the principle of circularity ie the conceptual relationships between radius and area and circumference, these principles are eternal - they are non-temporal and non-local.  Is it surprising that the area of a circle for instance would be related to its radius ? Can you imagine a universe where this was not the case ?

[Rosindubh]

......, but taking that through to a logical conclusion, you are saying these mathematical, abstract conceptsmust have existed, had an independent, entirely separate existence  before the universe began, or at any rate billions of years before there were animals which had evolved to notice them, and then luckily had a random mutation or something which resulted in their being able to invent sounds with abstract meanings. It is only humans who, using sight and their advanced brains, noticed that natural lines could be depicted by drawing, say, a line in sand, or several lines making a flat outline shape. 

If that is so, then all these concepts, including those not yet discovered, were, or  are, still hanging around .... where? In space?

Hi SusanDoris,
Thank you for your post.   It is, more or less, correct, as you say - a"logical conclusion" from the facts.

Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots and complex numbers are not observable in the Natural world, yet the successes of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc are empirical evidence that they provide genuine Knowledge about the Universe.

But, it is a misunderstanding to ask where they are "hanging around", because by their nature mathematical concepts are not  limited by spacetime but define it.   To the extent that a mathematical concept is true now (e.g. Pythagoras's theorem), then it was also true at the beginning of time when spacetime was a singularity (with no space).

If Einstein's Special Relativity is correct, then matter-energy is controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light, and the location (hanging around) of a speck of matter in spacetime is defined by a four dimensional Pythagorean equation which includes the square of imaginary time by the speed of light..

The mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light dominates the other elements in his theorem.   Their existence and location in spacetime is dependent upon it.   It is essential to the theorem.   If we accept the objective existence of these other elements (energy-matter, spacetime and speed of light), then we are forced to accept the objective existence of the mathematical concepts as well (otherwise the theorem is meaningless).

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

[SusanDoris]

Hi SusanDoris,
Thank you for your post.   It is, more or less, correct, as you say - a"logical conclusion" from the facts.

Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots and complex numbers are not observable in the Natural world, yet the successes of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc are empirical evidence that they provide genuine Knowledge about the Universe.

But this can happen only when the people concerned, building on knowledge of what previous people learned and recorded, work out the next steps forward.

But, it is a misunderstanding to ask where they are "hanging around", because by their nature mathematical concepts are not  limited by spacetime but define it.   To the extent that a mathematical concept is true now (e.g. Pythagoras's theorem), then it was also true at the beginning of time when spacetime was a singularity (with no space).

It still sounds to me as if you are trying to say the concepts were there before space/time/singularity/etc. That to me is too far from reality to make any rational sense.

[Jack Knave]

Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.

I agree maths is a "suitable language" for expressing "relatationships between things" in science.   It appears to be the only way we can even think about such relatationships in modern physics.

But mathematical concepts are much more than a mere language.   No language of words can alone discover new things beyond our imagination, while mathematical concepts can.   No language of words can alone offer an objective analysis of the physical Universe, while mathimatical concepts appear to do so.

Science is a work in progress, many questions to be resolved, much to be expected, but unless mathematical concepts (underlying the symbols) exist independently of human minds, then much of modern physics would be subjective circular reasoning.   If the science is objective, then the maths from which it comes must also be objective (exist independently of the human mind).

God bless

I have to say your thinking on this is wrong. It all depends on where you put the dividing line between the mind and "stuff out there". Get that wrong and you come up with some odd conclusions. Let me try to explain with this example.

If you have four rocks floating in space you only have four rocks floating in space if you have a mind there declare it so. If there is no mind there then there is not four rocks floating in space - you barely even have rocks or anything. 2 + 2 only equals 4 when there is a mind there. It is not true in all cases, i.e. when there isn't a mind there. It will cease to be when mankind goes extinct. This is true of all physical and mathematical relationships developed by the mind, they are only there because of the mind and will cease to be once the mind ceases to be. All these only exist in the mind as relationships and as long one draws the line between these two worlds correctly then false conclusions won't be made. This still leaves the matter of what the mind is working on though; the patterns of physics and the universe.....

[Walter]

Hi SusanDoris,
Thank you for your post.   It is, more or less, correct, as you say - a"logical conclusion" from the facts.

Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots and complex numbers are not observable in the Natural world, yet the successes of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc are empirical evidence that they provide genuine Knowledge about the Universe.

But, it is a misunderstanding to ask where they are "hanging around", because by their nature mathematical concepts are not  limited by spacetime but define it.   To the extent that a mathematical concept is true now (e.g. Pythagoras's theorem), then it was also true at the beginning of time when spacetime was a singularity (with no space).

If Einstein's Special Relativity is correct, then matter-energy is controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light, and the location (hanging around) of a speck of matter in spacetime is defined by a four dimensional Pythagorean equation which includes the square of imaginary time by the speed of light..

The mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light dominates the other elements in his theorem.   Their existence and location in spacetime is dependent upon it.   It is essential to the theorem.   If we accept the objective existence of these other elements (energy-matter, spacetime and speed of light), then we are forced to accept the objective existence of the mathematical concepts as well (otherwise the theorem is meaningless).

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

What is your point?

Mathematics is an invention by humans to explain and predict what we have found and what we expect to happen, nothing more.
And your persistent use of the term 'the speed of light' in your posts is misleading .
'C' represents the universal constant.  a maximum speed the universe allows which could include an electric toaster , a thought ,an electron ,a photon , a gravitation wave , any transfer of information, any electro magnetic wave, a quantum leap or fall back, the effect of gravity between bodies, a space craft .

Whether or not the universe exists if we are not here to see it is another matter , all I can say is it looks the way it does because we are here to look at it.   

all the best

[torridon]

I have to say your thinking on this is wrong. It all depends on where you put the dividing line between the mind and "stuff out there". Get that wrong and you come up with some odd conclusions. Let me try to explain with this example.

If you have four rocks floating in space you only have four rocks floating in space if you have a mind there declare it so. If there is no mind there then there is not four rocks floating in space - you barely even have rocks or anything. 2 + 2 only equals 4 when there is a mind there. It is not true in all cases, i.e. when there isn't a mind there. It will cease to be when mankind goes extinct. This is true of all physical and mathematical relationships developed by the mind, they are only there because of the mind and will cease to be once the mind ceases to be. All these only exist in the mind as relationships and as long one draws the line between these two worlds correctly then false conclusions won't be made. This still leaves the matter of what the mind is working on though; the patterns of physics and the universe.....

The four rocks would still be there in the absence of a mind to count them.  The rocks exist and the conceptualisation of the situation exists in minds. Rosindubh's question, is , is there any sense in which abstract principles exist in the absence of a mind to comprehend them. I would say that relationships exist externally to mind whereas the conceptualisations and descriptions of those relationships are constructions of mind.  Planet Earth follows an elliptical orbit around its parent star and did so before humans realised that path through space could be formulated in mathematical terms, hence the relationship is actual and valid independently of our ability to understand or describe it. I think he/she is making a case for the primacy of logic. Planet Earth never followed a square orbit because that would confound natural law and all natural law itself is subject to logic.

[Jack Knave]

The four rocks would still be there in the absence of a mind to count them.  The rocks exist and the conceptualisation of the situation exists in minds. Rosindubh's question, is , is there any sense in which abstract principles exist in the absence of a mind to comprehend them. I would say that relationships exist externally to mind whereas the conceptualisations and descriptions of those relationships are constructions of mind.  Planet Earth follows an elliptical orbit around its parent star and did so before humans realised that path through space could be formulated in mathematical terms, hence the relationship is actual and valid independently of our ability to understand or describe it. I think he/she is making a case for the primacy of logic. Planet Earth never followed a square orbit because that would confound natural law and all natural law itself is subject to logic.

This does tend to end up as a semantics game but that is where the problem is in that words can carry with them concepts and presuppositions which give some kind of agency to inanimate objects and situations.

Yes the four rocks are still there but are they rocks and are there four? OR who says so, who provides the classification if there is no mind there?

So, for the abstract principles these need a mind to say that is what they are otherwise any regular system; like, what is referred to as, the laws of physics; is very much like those four rocks that have no mind applied to them. It just is! I have a slight issue with the word 'relationships' (see my first paragraph) but other than that I reckon we are reading from the same page.

I can't see how logic enters the picture, though I think Rosindubh brought it from mathematics, which personally I don't see as being logical, or pure logic, as it can paint a thousand pictures but only one will be faithful to reality.