what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

You are changing the discussion. Killing is wrong. It can never be justified as right. It can only be justified as the lesser of two evils. Punsihments would be commiserate to the crime and outside this discussion.

So... when are you going to address that you would believe raping children is good if everyone else believed it was good?

According to you evil is not extant so therefore it cannot be chosen

And you refuse to acknowledge that the concept of childhood is a recent societal invention.

Parents used to marry their daughters off at age 13. Not too long ago people thought 16 was the age where children became adults.

And we justify killing all the time.

How many examples do I have to give you before you realize that as a society we do not believe that all killing a person is always wrong?

Societal opinions of what is right and wrong change as society changes. Therefore there is no standard

The choice is between doing good and not doing good.

The thing you need to know is that even when people were rationalizing a wrong as a right there were others at that time who opposed it as wrong. So, social convention has no bearing on right and wrong. Only logic and reason has bearing on right and wrong.

I am not arguing that society believes that not all killing is wrong. I am arguing that killing that is perceived as being right is in reality the lesser of two evils. You cannot rationalize a moral wrong as a right. Bad things happen when that happens.

Of course social convention has a bearing.

We decide what is right or wrong and we condition generations of people to think the same thing.

And we do believe that killing a person isn't always wrong. Because some people who kill another person face no punishment whatsoever.

If all killing was wrong and the only thing that differed was the degree then there would be some punishment for every instance of a person killing another.

There is no choosing between evils because once again evil is a human construct.

The guy who kills 100 men because he thinks they deserve to die is called evil. The guy who kills 100 men because his government thinks those men should die is a hero.

There is no absolute.