This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God

Bumpy's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Bumpy

Comment 10 by xsjadolateralus :

And physicists need to stop saying that thoughts exist outside of space and time.

Thoughts require brains, brains require space and time. End of discussion.

Has there ever been a thought, which spontaneously arose beyond space and time? Do we have any evidence supporting this? Okay, then thoughts exist inside space and time and are dependent on brains, which are also dependent on space and time to exist. Not to mention evolution.

Again, thoughts require brains. Unless anyone has any proof to suggest otherwise.

Brains require space and time.

Your Argument:

1) Thoughts require brains,

2) Brains require space and time,

3) Threrefore, thoughts require space and time

4) Therefore, thoughts are not 'outside' space and time

I think you're using the word 'thought' to mean a conscious thought - i.e. the act of thinking. In which case the above argument makes sense. However, I think he was using the word 'thought' to mean the conceptual validity of such ideas in and of themselves. If that sounds too wishy-washy, I offer a thought experiment: What if humans had been seperated into two groups early in evolution (but both groups remained human-like) - Would both groups would have developed advanced mathematics? Would both groups have 'come up' with the mathematical construct of a square? The answer to these questions is probably yes. What if there were 1000 human groups? Again, the answer is probably yes. So the square is 'out there' to be discovered. It isn't a tangible object - the idea of a square isn't made of matter or energy (the brains contemplating squares are, but that's irrelevant).

What if no life had ever evolved anywhere in the universe? Do squares cease to exist? What if there isn't even a universe?

This whole point hinges on whether you consider mathematics to be an invention of man, or a discovery of man.

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:57:22 UTC | #861129