there's no scientific basis for the existence of numbers.
Numbers were likely originally conceived as a way of differentiating between different quantities of any given unit. And there clearly IS an empirical, or scientific if you prefer, basis for the existence of varying quantities of units.
If I can see that one object that is 3 meters high, and another that is 4 meters high, then I have a clear empirical basis for saying that they differ in their physical height, and therefore have a legitimate basis for quantifying that difference.
Granted the numbers themselves are concepts conceived by the human mind. But then, what we regard as a human is a concept conceived by the human mind, or any other object or indeed abstract notion, including the concept of God. Concepts devised by the human mind are how we understand and interpret the world, and communicate our understanding with others
we just assume numbers exist and work from there out. for the sake of practicality.
No, we dont assume variations in quantity, we observe variations in quantity. Numbers are our way of conceptualizing that, but what the concept refers to is real and verifiable, not assumed. Things clearly do differ in magnitude, scale and quantity. We have to have some way of talking about this, hence numbers.
if one only believes in what is scientific, he's missing more than what he's gaining... god included.
All people hold many ideas outside of what can be logically reasoned from the physical evidence, such as moral ideas, or other abstract, subjective notions. Its just that some of us think that when it comes to objective beliefs about the real world, we should stick to what can be logically inferred from the physical evidence, or at least when this is not the case, acknowledge that we are speculating and not pretend that we have any good basis for certainty, something the religious are in the habit of doing.
In so doing, what we gain is the benefit of knowing that although our ideas about objective reality arent likely to be perfect, they do represent the best understanding of objective reality that we van obtain with the limited information available to us. Such knowledge is far more valuable than what we miss out on, namely a fantasy about some magic man in the sky, or any other baseless superstition.
no one outlook of reality of complete or perfect, whether it be a form of art, some animalistic instinct or pleasure, a philosophy, some religion, or science.
This is true. We have only a limited perception of the natural world, and only limited powers of reasoning to interpret what little we do perceive of the world. This fact is hardly a reason to indulge unsupported fantasies however. (With regard to art and pleasures, these are very much subjective realms, and a different matter entirely).
It is the Endeavour of science and the scientific method to maximize what we can perceive of the world and bring and apply the most rigorous and logical reasoning to interpreting what is perceived. This is a worthy aim in my view, and not to be denigrated and cast aside in favour of comfortable delusions.
many people believe the world is music, they live by music, eat by it and breath through it, it is life, it is the world, it's their present and future, the reason they live for tomorrow. as much as for some others science is the world, it explains what we eat and how we live and die, science is life.
but who needs music? it's just there to pass some time and dance to, so that who lives by music is wasting his life on a trivial outlook, he's not using his life to the fullest.
but for him, who needs science? all it does is make faster cars and smaller cellphones, people were living without those oneday, but not music.
Your pseudo philosophy hardly started out impressively, but this is just total gibberish. No one believes the world is literally just music, and certainly no one eats it. Well, they may consume the physical paper on which the music is written, but somehow I dont think this is what you had in mind.
When people claim to "live and breath music" or something similar it is a METAPHOR, not a literal statement. All it means is that music is important to them. To try and argue that music can therefore be used as an alternative means of understanding the world in place of science is absurd. If you want to understand the objective reality of the real world, music is no substitute for science. Arts and science are two separate realms, they cannot be treated as alternatives to each other, as you seem to be suggesting.
what i'm saying is that one can indulge in a field deep enough to build his view of the universe solely on that field.
sciforums is a grouping point of one kind of those people.
any people who rely on one field are gaining what others don't, and missing what others have.
Except that i doubt anyone on this forum understands his life solely through science. We all understand life through a variety of concepts, many of them totally subjective. Its just that some of us recognize the value of reason and evidence with respect to understanding the objective reality of the natural world.
is god meant to be found in science?
how fatal is it for science freaks if he isn't?
Well to claim the existence of God is to make a very specific and literal claim about the natural world, which is either objectively true or objectively false. It is therefore a matter that lies very much in the realms of physical evidence and science, so the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence to recommend the existence of God (not to mention plenty of evidence to actively disprove many of the claims that specific religions make) should be a fairly serious cause for doubting his existence, in the same way that a complete lack of evidence is a good reason to doubt the existence of the Biker Mice from Mars. Actually, the Biker Mice from Mars are more plausible than God, as they arent claimed to have supernatural powers, but I digress. But invariably, the to the religious mind, such trivial concerns as evidence dont seem to matter.
