I'm not really concerned with the philosophy of mathematics. It irritates me actually. Maths is a tool for me and the purists aren't philosophers either...they are game players. They are just playing around. I think those who get into the philosophy of the whole thing are wasting their time and risking their mental health.
I raise it only in counterpoint to theists who insist that "God" is the only way to get something from nothing. While math HAS no physical manifestation, there is nothing that prevents it from BEING a physical manifestation. Therefore, no need for "God", or any other deferral agent.
I understand what you mean but you make mathematics sound as if it can only be done one way. After all, isn't mathematics just a way of modelling reality? It isn't the stuff of the universe itself. There is no need for probability to model gravity is there? All physical laws may be 'reduced' to probability and statistics ....perhaps.
Mathematics by itself is abstract and without physical form. What it can be used for is to represent analogy with physical systems, but at some level of abstraction. My claim is that mathematics is not created so much as it is discovered. The terms and symbols we use to represent mathematics are created, but they represent something with deeper laws.
I absolutely agree with you that there is no requirement for a god or gods to exist in order for mathematics to exist. (Of course we would have to define what god is.) However there is one fundamental flaw in your logic. Mathematics is NOT absolute (and I'm a mathematician). A system of mathematical axioms can be either consistent or complete, not both. Read up on Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Thanks for the post. I have read Godel's theorem. It's been a while, but the jist of the application of the theorem to formal proofs (especially using computer languages) is to retain strong typing to prevent paradox in higher order logic. The quote in the theorem itself is a unique type.
Godel's theorem does prove that the symbolic interpretation of math is fraught with problems. The way we reason and communicate about math is not necessarily the math itself.
Did Newton know that "all physical laws are based on probability & statistics"? I don't think he needed to use probability or statistics to work out his universal gravitational constant nor his inverse square law....did he?
The underlying mathematics simply are. In our reasoning about math we nearly always abstract so we can neglect insignificant factors. Certainly statistics with large numbers is something that cancels itself out on a human scale.
Your country still stinks. Take a good whiff. Maybe it will trigger your sense of humor. You have no time to lecture except to claim international sovereignty. Copenhagen or many worlds?
If Mathematics is distinct from the "mathematical models" by which we evaluate it, what -is- Mathematics itself? Some lofty, ethereal thing, like absolute morality, or the colour purple? That doesn't seem very exact, mathematically. What IS maths, if not the thing which we describe with our mathematical language?
Math is rules and relationships. In the case of this reality we have relationships between space and time ( and other dimensions as well ) Obviously the universe existed before we had the mathematical language or understanding to describe it. It was Plato who described mathematical objects as being more persistent, eternal, and universal. Mathematical properties are discovered, not invented.
Hmm, I think I see what you're saying, and agree with it - this universe (as well as any conceivable universe) is governed by mathematics, and you're distinguishing this from the mathematical methods we use to exame it? Like, say, having two different methods of solving the same mathematical problem? The "mathematics" is the same, but the insight/model used is different?
In the case of this universe we do not need to construct a model of the mathematics because we are part of that mathematics. We can never escape or observe from outside like we can with models. It simply exists because it is possible. Now, whether or not this universe is a model to a higher level consciousness we can never know for sure, but that higher consciousness would have to emerge from mathematics as well.
I appear to have been mistaken, I'm not with you after all :P~. Are you saying that the universe, and all of its laws, are some model, an "application" of some deeper maths? I wouldn't draw a distinction there, except maybe class "deeper" maths as just that: deep. I'd maybe make a comparison like yours between -logic- and maths, though.
No, I am saying that even if there were a "god" and the universe were a model constructed by this god, that god would have to emerge from mathematics in a higher set of dimensions. Absent any evidence of "god" this doesn't seem likely.
Very good point: if Euclid and his geometry had never appeared, the absolute and objective truth in geometry would still be true, whether later people studied the subject or not.
Yeh, not bad. However the thing that gets me is how the same principles are evident in different areas. For example, euclyds rule applying to swirls everywhere.
I don't believe nor care about religion, their beliefs or anything stupid like that. You die and you die. End of story. You say things like well you believe the sun is hot. Well sir those are facts proven by science. Not a belief. Facts are opposite of beliefs.
It certainly is viable to make such claims at the scale at which you perceive the Sun. Not so when you start pushing out the boundaries into the really large or the really small. No one was around to see the big bang, and it is certainly not a repeatable experiment. We think the big bang happened because we extrapolate backwards in time.
Funny, I was just listening to that Abba song five minutes ago and here it comes again.
winstono75 8 months ago
I'm not really concerned with the philosophy of mathematics. It irritates me actually. Maths is a tool for me and the purists aren't philosophers either...they are game players. They are just playing around. I think those who get into the philosophy of the whole thing are wasting their time and risking their mental health.
PeelTower 3 years ago
I raise it only in counterpoint to theists who insist that "God" is the only way to get something from nothing. While math HAS no physical manifestation, there is nothing that prevents it from BEING a physical manifestation. Therefore, no need for "God", or any other deferral agent.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Comment removed
mrclarenceb 4 years ago
I understand what you mean but you make mathematics sound as if it can only be done one way. After all, isn't mathematics just a way of modelling reality? It isn't the stuff of the universe itself. There is no need for probability to model gravity is there? All physical laws may be 'reduced' to probability and statistics ....perhaps.
PeelTower 3 years ago
Mathematics by itself is abstract and without physical form. What it can be used for is to represent analogy with physical systems, but at some level of abstraction. My claim is that mathematics is not created so much as it is discovered. The terms and symbols we use to represent mathematics are created, but they represent something with deeper laws.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Copenhagen interpretation.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
John,
I absolutely agree with you that there is no requirement for a god or gods to exist in order for mathematics to exist. (Of course we would have to define what god is.) However there is one fundamental flaw in your logic. Mathematics is NOT absolute (and I'm a mathematician). A system of mathematical axioms can be either consistent or complete, not both. Read up on Godel's incompleteness theorem.
mrclarenceb 4 years ago
Thanks for the post. I have read Godel's theorem. It's been a while, but the jist of the application of the theorem to formal proofs (especially using computer languages) is to retain strong typing to prevent paradox in higher order logic. The quote in the theorem itself is a unique type.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Godel's theorem does prove that the symbolic interpretation of math is fraught with problems. The way we reason and communicate about math is not necessarily the math itself.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Did Newton know that "all physical laws are based on probability & statistics"? I don't think he needed to use probability or statistics to work out his universal gravitational constant nor his inverse square law....did he?
PeelTower 3 years ago
The underlying mathematics simply are. In our reasoning about math we nearly always abstract so we can neglect insignificant factors. Certainly statistics with large numbers is something that cancels itself out on a human scale.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Your country still stinks. Take a good whiff. Maybe it will trigger your sense of humor. You have no time to lecture except to claim international sovereignty. Copenhagen or many worlds?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
"Disorder is Order" sounds eerily Orwellian. Chance does not exist? Have you any understanding of Quantum Mechanics?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
If Mathematics is distinct from the "mathematical models" by which we evaluate it, what -is- Mathematics itself? Some lofty, ethereal thing, like absolute morality, or the colour purple? That doesn't seem very exact, mathematically. What IS maths, if not the thing which we describe with our mathematical language?
falletron 4 years ago
Math is rules and relationships. In the case of this reality we have relationships between space and time ( and other dimensions as well ) Obviously the universe existed before we had the mathematical language or understanding to describe it. It was Plato who described mathematical objects as being more persistent, eternal, and universal. Mathematical properties are discovered, not invented.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Hmm, I think I see what you're saying, and agree with it - this universe (as well as any conceivable universe) is governed by mathematics, and you're distinguishing this from the mathematical methods we use to exame it? Like, say, having two different methods of solving the same mathematical problem? The "mathematics" is the same, but the insight/model used is different?
falletron 4 years ago
In the case of this universe we do not need to construct a model of the mathematics because we are part of that mathematics. We can never escape or observe from outside like we can with models. It simply exists because it is possible. Now, whether or not this universe is a model to a higher level consciousness we can never know for sure, but that higher consciousness would have to emerge from mathematics as well.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I appear to have been mistaken, I'm not with you after all :P~. Are you saying that the universe, and all of its laws, are some model, an "application" of some deeper maths? I wouldn't draw a distinction there, except maybe class "deeper" maths as just that: deep. I'd maybe make a comparison like yours between -logic- and maths, though.
falletron 4 years ago
No, I am saying that even if there were a "god" and the universe were a model constructed by this god, that god would have to emerge from mathematics in a higher set of dimensions. Absent any evidence of "god" this doesn't seem likely.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Very good point: if Euclid and his geometry had never appeared, the absolute and objective truth in geometry would still be true, whether later people studied the subject or not.
tenneral 4 years ago
Yeh, not bad. However the thing that gets me is how the same principles are evident in different areas. For example, euclyds rule applying to swirls everywhere.
imthunder 4 years ago
Oh yeah smarty pants? Figure this one out...
X(3)-Y(Z) = ??
Answer: Your wifes ass on the air
miasma1616 4 years ago
Figure this out. You get no more information from me.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
God I love your wife. Tell her I said thanks!
miasma1616 4 years ago
What's her name?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I told my son that I would do anything, just don't call me a pussy.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Are you serious? o.0
TNC420 4 years ago 2
Right over your head, I'm sure. To be an atheist it is not enough to not believe in god.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I don't believe nor care about religion, their beliefs or anything stupid like that. You die and you die. End of story. You say things like well you believe the sun is hot. Well sir those are facts proven by science. Not a belief. Facts are opposite of beliefs.
TNC420 4 years ago 2
It certainly is viable to make such claims at the scale at which you perceive the Sun. Not so when you start pushing out the boundaries into the really large or the really small. No one was around to see the big bang, and it is certainly not a repeatable experiment. We think the big bang happened because we extrapolate backwards in time.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I don't even believe in the big bang.
Amyamy45 4 years ago
Maybe from the inside it looks like a big bang, but from the outside it looks like a black hole evaporating.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
It was graffiti in my opinion. Just because you put shit there doesn't mean I can't clean it off. Get used to it.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Lol only cowards delete negative comments. Pussy.
TNC420 4 years ago