Ontology 4 - Mathematics

[wingtsunnineoeight]

Although i fully appreciate your perspective, i do however is hold much faith in that, although the 'LANGUAGE' of mathematics is an human invention, we ourselves including our thoughts and ideas are a part of the universe because they have arisen from it. Therefore even the DERIVED languages of what is already there (ie. human invention and perception)is a manifestation of the universe, of nature and thus IS REALITY.....

[wingtsunnineoeight]

We all must stop believing that we are seperate from everything else, these things are the real fabrications. Actually scientific evidence (piles of it!)from the study of quantum mechanics and other fields has shown significant reason to suggest that space (ie. distance from A to B)is an illusion and that all matter in the universe is one and interconnected (quantum entanglement, Wolf. A. et al. 1997)

[stjimmy933499399493]

this is why buddhism and taoism as a philosophy hold my very high personal regard. . . except for the reincarnation stuff :P

[wingtsunnineoeight]

You cannot deny the findings its reality, even our perception of it.

Aren't we just the part of the universe that observes its self, to become aware and concious of itself?

[wingtsunnineoeight]

Thanks for replying in haste! ive have time to think, and i can see your point. You put across a good argument, one that i can appriciate.

Thankyou for sharing your persepctive, and being willing to discuss your ideas, good luck and keep up the good work.

[rozeboosje]

Thanks!

[wingtsunnineoeight]

Listen man, mathematics was never invented. It was already there.

In the quantum world, mathematical constructs are everywhere and they cannot appear unless we observe them (collapsing the wave function), so even tho the observation gives shape to what we percive it still does this of its own accord.

Do your history! and i dont mean look at wikipediea....cool

[rozeboosje]

No. Reality was already there. Reality was already internally consistent. And that is why we, humans, could invent mathematics to describe it so well. Mathematics is a human invention, but that doesn't mean it is REALLY useful and it can describe very successfully what is REAL.

[rozeboosje]

sorry - that should be "it doesn't mean it is NOT ...." if you catch my drift

[volavelli]

hi, what do you mean by "internally consistent"? you think logic is a part of nature but mathematics is not? thanks for the videos.

[desertlight]

Although I agree that formal mathematics is a human(and for other organisms?) invention, the actual existing physical relationships described by mathematics are not. Associating any two things will result in exactly two things(although, given time, this could be changed by a gestation period...). Using simple math relationships would be a means of learning the language of beings anywhere in the universe since their basic mathematical relationships(not the math language) would be this same.

[desertlight]

Mathematical relationships create a particular difficulty to the notion of Omnipotence, a quality ascribed to Diety. Diety could place two objects in a pile and declare them to be three objects, but that would violate the notion that the character of Diety is true and unchanging - because even Diety cannot change the basic relationships that are discovered by counting or associating objects. That doesn't disprove Diety, it just shows there is a limit to Omnipotence.

[rozeboosje]

Yeah. It does, of course, disprove an OMNIPOTENT deity, but it leaves room for a slightly-less-than omnipotent one

[CousinoMacul]

But if your game is consistent, then it is also incomplete.

~KG

[rozeboosje]

Only in the sense that there are statements possible in the system for which the system itself cannot determine whether they are true of false.

Which makes me wonder. Could the quagmire that the string theorists find themselves in, with the 10^1000 possible manifolds that are consistent with the theory, be a symptom of our theories hitting the "Gödel statements" of reality? ;-)

[sickliberal]

could you explain to me how there can be gödel statements IN reality, rozeboosje? Or was that just a mind-snare?

[rozeboosje]

LOL. More like a mind-fart :P

But if you look at reality as a self-referential system that is internally consistent, then it cannot completely "know" itself. I wouldn't *really* go as far as talking about Gödel statements but I'd say there could be some similarities there.

[sickliberal]

but you do go as far as reality partially knowing itself? i mean... man... stoic holistic bullshit as far as i can see. who 'knows', you know?

[rozeboosje]

Well, you and I are an integral part of reality, and we know a little bit about it, don't we? I wouldn't go as far as assigning some sort of "holistic consciousness" to reality, no.

[sickliberal]

we're part of it, but also we aren't. the existentialist paradox. the difference i'd see is that little bits of self-positioning consciousnesses are one drop in an ocean. Doesn't mean the ocean thinks, just a few little bits of it. But this is all semantics and arm-chair... we agree as we almost always do i think.

[rozeboosje]

I think so too :-)

[sickliberal]

its almost boring! but i still love to see you speak :)

[rozeboosje]

I actually should talk about this sort of thing happening on atheist videos.

[TheKidFrom13thStreet]

You're on a role!

[rozeboosje]

Yup! :P

[getonwithitgawd]

This is kindof what I was trying to get at in my comment on his video.

Really wish I was better at expression because this was much clearer.

[rozeboosje]

Cheers

[0092b]

Ironically;

Leopold Kronecker: "God created the integers; the rest is man's doing."

[rozeboosje]

Yeah. I heard that one before :P