Is theory invented or discovered? like math, plato's ideals, that shit

It's Real My Friend And Part Of Your Soul, You Just Need To Remember It DESU

All spooks.

In general? You'll probably never find a "right" answer.

But in Plato the ideal (the Forms/Ideas) very much exists regardless of any immanence, and the whole point of his dialectic is the discovery (not the creation) of the already independently existing Forms.

Check out Timaeus, and definitely Laws book 10 for its account of the World Soul being the first thing to exist and bestowing truth on reality, and humans receiving from God the ability to reason for the very sake of being able to train and use that reason to seek God and be like him and in doing so best approach the Form of the Good which is the highest point of Platonic philosophy, unifying all other Forms and shedding truth on all intelligible existence as the Sun sheds light on the sensible Earth.

There are no facts, and there is no truth.

You are asking the wrong questions.

Throw yourself from a tall building then, if it isn't a fact that your brainlet head won't get squashed

>Strawmanning this hard

Reread Hume.

Inductive theories are invented, deductives ones are discovered/appropriated
Latter obviously works better for science because it yields practical results

Saying things are only discovered is like saying when God created the universe he invented everything that would come is like saying when the guy that invented/discovered the guitar invented every possible guitar song

what is the right immage a picture of?

>There are no facts, and there is no truth.
that's just factually not true.

>not seeing the irony in this post

Humans invented mathematics, it's no more fundamental to nature than natural human language it's just more formal and limited; Gödel proved you cannot ever fully strip semantics from mathematics and expect to describe all natural phenomena. The real natural physical phenomena of the universe continuously unfolding IS fundamental but not that formalized physics bullshit they dogmatically teach you in schools which must alienate form from content.

You're simply demonstrating for us the methodological weakness of contemporary bourgeois science.

>As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries-not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.
Quine's - "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"

Quine (an archetypal bourgeois charlatan) ADMITS paradigms are mere myths-but myths with significant pragmatic value so he needs value theory to provide coherency after having totally demolished bourgeois epistemology... the irony, of course, is that bourgeois value theory has traditionally been regarded as a paradigm of the scientifically meaningless sort.

>The myth belongs to the pedagogic stage of the human race, since it entices and allures men to occupy themselves with the content; but as it takes away from the purity of thought through sensuous forms, it cannot express the meaning of Thought. When the Notion attains its full development, it has no more need of the myth. Plato often says that it is difficult to express one’s thoughts on such and such a subject, and he therefore will employ a myth; no doubt this is easier.
Hegel - "Lectures on the History of Philosophy"

>The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism-which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. Hence, in Das Wesen des Christenthums, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary," of "practical-critical," activity.
Marx - "Theses On Feuerbach"

Good constellation of quotes m8.

Are you having a stroke?

Anyway, to answer the OP, I think this is actually a question of how well language matches up to reality --- is it a one to one correspondence? If a theory could perfectly describe some aspect of reality, you would say the theory was discovered, not necessarily invented; if it somehow failed to match up entirely to reality, to sum up all of its complications and if it left some stuff out and was oversimplified in some ways, you'd say it was invented to explain away something to complex for people to understand.

Think of the theory of phlogiston: that was not discovered, but invented.

IMO, all theories are invented because language can't fully describe reality. Map isn't and can't be the territory, it must leave some detail out, be simplified somehow --- the universe can't contain an exact replica of itself.

What about theories that are not intending to describe or map what naturally exists, but theories of human inventions? Human thought, etc.?

If theories which attempt to map reality sole purpose is to exactly map reality, but it fails, and it is this failure which you refer to as an invention, what is the worth of such an invention? A mistake, a falsity?

What about theories, relating to my first question, regarding that which humans have novelly brought into the world? Can humans novelly bring anything into reality, or can they only discover the potential for them to discover a potential? I have summarized this latter by the phrase: "That which is possible is possible", which could have been declared at the beginning of time, did the "beginning of time" itself, invent all inventions, of which were later discovered as consciousness exploring potential?

How did you not get the guitar analogy? Did the first person to make a guitar invent all guitar music? Or did guitar composers invent their songs? Or did they discover the potential for those songs to be made? Without the guitar being invented the guitar composer could never invent/discover their guitar music; this says nothing about the real effort and ingenuity required of an individual to discover potential/invent

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament