naitche

Sorry, this sentence should have been coda to the previous paragraph.

Yes. But those are objectively independent. Their interactions are not. The values they provide to our existence, are subject to it. Similar to nature or nurture, environment and organism. Theres no nurture without nature, or organism without environment. Its a two part equation to arrive at a whole. The objective is always an objective, while its has the support to be one. Only the value(s) it provides, are subjective. In application.

Agreed. Structures are required to support any purpose. If those we have now are unsuited, we would have the constitution to build more effective, to better serve that purpose. It does provide a standard of expectation common to elected officials, their constituents, and those they interact with. Its sets up a robust and endlessly adaptive constituency empowered to combat those tyrannies, in service to the stated objective. If you doubt the power of constitution, just look at Americas right to bear arms, and the difficulties in ammending or alteration. There is no consistency in the Human Objective as it is, with none agreed on Or pedigree breeders fixation on 'purity' of a pedigree.

Yes. There needs to be recognition across context, inclusive of all existence. Thats a question for the op. But o.k, lets try that, and say that existence is the 1st value. Objectively. All by its self. Subtracted from any 'other value'. Its a subtraction to a single value, out of many possibilities for recognition. What is its application, without reference to any other value applicable to its being? Application is always relative, and subject to its relativity/relationship. The objective is always subtractive /objective to any 'other' value. Its application, or value, is subjective.

Seems to me we could be tackling many of humanities problems much more effectively by ditching the idea of one world governance, or leadership dependency, in favor of a Human Objective, or manifesto. Simply and unambiguously stated; To strive for mutual benefit and reciprocity to our subjective realities, existence, and environments. To accept individual responsibility, and enhance the abilities of response collectively, through a personal investment in the Human objective, and recognition of our personal/individual roles in its manifestation. One world governance can't work. It can't effectively represent the diversity of its subject, to be universally supported or supporting. Its a false equation. There is no singularity to the objective. It can't be realized except by a process of eliminating subject values

More that the role and universality of language assumes a much greater depth and simplicity at the same time, with proper recognition the Objectives and subjective. No, I can't. As stated I'm very far from being a mathematician. It should not be essential to the purpose regardless. It may or may not complicate my attempts at explanation. Its basic language of subjective to objective informs the language we commonly use. Perhaps the disconnect may be occurring through how we define 'value' in this context? I would say through relativity. Any objective considered in relationship is a value application. All relationships are value expressions, Mathematics and spoken/written language are only two ways of expressing value. Training animals is communication, expression of values, and their recognition. The interplays of environment on objects and organisms are value expressions. All subjective. The effects of biological selection and evolution are value expressions, as is our Human condition.

Seems to me people are over thinking this. Its not complicated. Mathematics reduced to its most base principle. Values and their properties are provided, to arrive at a given sum. The subjective values provide the the Objective sum. It amounts to nothing without those. Is a measure of nothing. If values that contribute to the sum are excluded, The Objective is not realized. If values not included in the sum are applied, The Objective is not realized. The Subjective directs the realization of The Objective. Inclusive of all contributing values. Its subject properties. Those recognized in service to the same Objective. Subjective is inclusive and relative. Exclusive of values serving unrelated Objectives. Those not recognized to serve the Objective in common. The Objective is reductive and exclusive. Of unrelated values. The Subjective provides direction. The Objective is the expression of the state served by that direction. The structure achieved. Realization is dependent on recognition of the order, and which is applicable to a given situation. I came to this from a completely different direction and over a long period. It appears to work, as far as I am aware with out contradicting any known laws of physics. I believe there is a cognitive dissonance that complicates its recognition, I think most likely the role of conscious thought, and the role it plays in humanities expressions. ie, the idea that we will have a better expression of Humanity if we refuse recognition and direction of its more unsavory parts, rather than investing in our common objective to minimize the unsavory affects.

Thank you. My reply is relevant to the idea Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things, and also is manifestation real? Mathematics is a duality, that English accounts for in the objective and subjective. A value given, yes. but it must also 'register' . It must register to equal its reality. It is relative. I'm called away a few days, and won't be able to reply till I return.

Too late to edit. should read nothing can equal its definition.

Yep. Knowledge and understanding of the structure. That which instructs any definition to be had. As a whole. Discrediting its parts as un-equal to the existence is a double negative, and will lead you to nothing. Its how evolution, and biology work, this selection based on diversity of values, and the objectives they serve. when state dictates values, they are entropic. The structure is equal to the state, or nothing is equal to its definition.

Presumming the model is equal to the workings.

Model. from Mode see modal.

Then how should I have interpreted this?

And the presumption has been that the nature of existence is mathematics. Develop response abilities in recognition of existence and our contribution to its manifestations. A mere property of existence, which you say is irrelevant. As is your own experience and understanding as a mere property of existence. I believe the language is equal to the objective, and the presumptions of its properties is misplaced. It is based on both subjective and the objective values- Both the State and direction of existence. Then I think you must accept its most basic premises. No. It has none. It is not realized until the value is assumed into its being. Science is not realized with out recognition of the properties we summate equal to an objective/existence. Its state, and the content to realize it. What state of existence are you looking for, if your belief is that its properties are irrelevant?

Without the value of property, theres isn't anything to summate. It can't be realized. My answer remains the same.

What is the basis for its realization? As a measure of Nothing. Its not evidenced. Mathematics does not 'work' with out the values given. It is based on those. Subjective to inform objective. If '5' exists independently of the values brought to it, its irrelevant. The sum of nothing. No purpose, direction or potential. You asked what would be the interactive to mathematics. Value to the sum, or the summation of nothing. It expresses nothing.

Yes. Its the measure. Of a value. In the case of your yard stick, the value is distance. There must be a value given. Is the electron still an electron with out its property value to Be? Its the objective and subjective at once. One part to state, or constitution, the other to direction. The value must be provided 1st, to inform the state

Not much point in the topic if your belief is that existence Is. Unsupported. Then why do you believe there is such a thing as existence? In what context?

If there is no 1.2.3.or 4, where is the foundation to build or realize 5? The numbers and symbols are representative of property and values, brought to support the objective. The Mathematic objective, a measure of property. Is 5 not measurable? Sorry, confused. In your equation,5 is. So are 1.2.and 3, objectively. Yes. in isolation. But none are realized with out 1, and 2 can only be realized relative to 1. I would say one might exist in isolation, but exist relative to what? The expression of a singular value, but can it be its value if it accrues to nothing? The subjective realizes the objective. The other way around can only take you back to nothing. I would surmise Relativity seems the basis or foundation of, the realization of existence. The establishment of complimentary relationship.

Looks that way from where I sit. So theoretically, any sum should do. I'm far from a mathematician but I can't see how an existence can be objectively defined, or realized, with out the values brought by its subject property. If it has no measurable property, does it exist? Maybe it can. Maybe we just don't yet have its measure. But it has no part in my existence with out some measure of its property. Its not relative. And I would think not sustainable? Viable? without relativity. How does a thing exist without relativity? Where?

The subjective values of a sum in-form the Objective. The value of any sum is only provided by the properties recognized in its context

Wouldn't the nature of existence be mathematical, if mathematical physics governs its expression?

I like to place a jar over them , then slide a piece of cardboard under. About the same time I called my dog in to find her bloody. Checked the yard to find this. If squeamish, don't look. Keeping an eye on her, but this her her 3rd now. This is about 3 1/2 foot. Toxic and had taken up residence outside my back door. I would have preferred to remove it safely to another location, they are not particularly aggressive, but too easy to step on in the dark or if you haven't got your wits about you. I have had dogs that show only curiosity with no snake instincts. Those that have it most often react the same as this dog, grab and shake the cr*p out of it. Had one only who would run the other way. but even she came back to pull one off the old dog who tried to kill it but was too slow in his reactions so that it had hold of him. She grabbed it and pulled it away, then ran again. Seems to me nurture often plays a large role in fear of spiders and snakes, but there is often an instinct to view either a threat too.

Granted. Except the anecdote wasn't provided as evidence of precognition. It was used to describe a measurable physiological state, to conditions unsupported by other senses or in conflict with logical reality. Experienced despite recognition and acceptance of the contradictory facts available. The physiological experience varies in context and can be positive just as easily. .

Thats happened to me once. I dreamed of a war breaking out between countries. I saw the report on the news. I went through half the day believing it true until friends popped in and no one even even mentioned it. I'm glad I realized before I did!