TPF : Number Sense and Reason

[Gnomon]

Number Sense
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/603869

All the three above senses, their nature (quantitative), falls within the domain of physics and, by extension, mathematics — TheMadFool

That's an interesting observation. Which leads me to postulate that the Sixth Sense of Reason is also a sort of mathematical discrimination. Rational thought compares two or more ideas or objects in terms of ratios, evaluated on a range from 0 to100%, or False to True. I'm not sure what the cosmic implications of that might be, other than the Mathematical Universe hypothesis, or the Information Universe theory. Apparently everything in this world has a mathematical foundation, and Math is an abstract form of Generic Information. Perhaps the "number sense" is just a specialized aspect of the typical human ability to parse the world into qualitative Good / Bad relationships, relative to Me & Mine.

[Gnomon]

Apparently everything in this world has a mathematical foundation, and Math is an abstract form of Generic Information. — Gnomon
Is it that the world has a mathematical foundation or that the ability to measure and count is what enables us to get its measure? Math starts with the process of abstraction, whereby the measurable attributes of a given phenomenon are abstracted and quantified. But it's not as if that mathematical abstraction is inherent in the object, rather it is the only means by which we can subjugate the object to mathematical analysis — Wayfarer

I agree. When I said that the physical world has a mathematical foundation, I was referring to the pattern of inter-relationships that the human mind interprets as Logic. Math is not a physical object, but a metaphysical network of relative values (relationships ; proportions). The interpreted values, or meaningful patterns, are not inherent in any particular thing, but are evaluated by the observing mind, relative to self and to the whole system. Einstein's Special Relativity applies to physical objects. But General Relativity includes the subjective observer in the network, as a node in the whole pattern, by taking a god-like perspective, from outside the system looking in.

As I view it, the rational Mind "measures" those invisible links between things, and assigns both numerical values and emotional values. The numerical values are abstractions that we can convey to others in language, including mathematical notation. But the emotional values must be inferred from the behavior of the observer, including inflections of speech and emoticons in text. Disclaimer : I don't really know what I'm talking about. I'm just extrapolating from my personal worldview of Enformationism.


Logos :
Greek term meaning “word”, “reason”, “proportion”. It was used by philosophers in a technical sense to mean a cosmic principle of order and knowledge. In ancient Greek philosophy and theology, Logos was the divine Reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note -- Reason is applied Logic, which "enables us" to recognize the design (order, organization ; form) in the objects of our perception. The mental evaluation of such an observation is what we call a Concept.

PATTERN RECOGNITION :
https://www.simplilearn.com/ice9/free_r ... nition.jpg

[Gnomon]

Einstein's Special Relativity applies to physical objects. But General Relativity includes the subjective observer in the network, as a node in the whole pattern, by taking a god-like perspective, from outside the system looking in — Gnomon
I think both special and general include observers. That's not the usual distinction. Accelerated motion and other features are considered in general. — jgill

I doubt that Einstein himself made the distinction I was referring to. It was just my interpretation. I was extrapolating from the terms "Special Relativity" (reductive) and "General Relativity" (holistic). If my reference to "Einstein" -- to make a long story short -- seems wrong to you, please delete the name from the sentence. It's not essential to the concept.