Mathmatics doesn't conform to the universe.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » Mathmatics doesn't conform to the universe. » Mathmatics doesn't conform to the universe.

Mathmatics doesn't conform to the universe.
Is mathmatics universal?

Page: 1 2

Mathmatics doesn't conform to the universe.

SisyphusInAgony
Agonist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 31, 2008
Location: The nineth gate.
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 11

Posted 01/31/08 - 10:53 AM: Subject: Mathmatics doesn't conform to the universe.	#1
I am a firm believer that mathmatics isn't a universal description of the universe. I believe mathmatics was invented not discovered. I also believe that historically writing came first and out of it later on was mathmatics constructed. Can anyone here prove to me that I don't know what I am talking about?

ssu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 162

Posted 01/31/08 - 11:13 AM:	#2
At least one can prove that you are not a platonist.

SisyphusInAgony
Agonist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 31, 2008
Location: The nineth gate.
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 11

Posted 01/31/08 - 11:16 AM:	#3
ssu wrote: At least one can prove that you are not a platonist. That is re-assuring. I personally find Plato's philosophy toxic. Which is why I consider myself a Nietzschean or Dionysian instead.

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 356

Posted 02/07/08 - 05:21 AM:	#4
The problem, with respect to saying that mathematics is purely invented, is that it works. That is, mathematical theorums often have practical applications. We could argue though, that mathematics is just a set of techniques of abstracting data in a way that's useful to the human mind. So, for example, the fact that it takes 81 square metre tiles to tile a room 9 by 9 metres doesn't tell us the universe 'behaves mathematically', just that multiplication is a useful abstraction for human beings. But how is it that we keep coming up with useful abstractions in this way, and how can we know that tomorrow I won't buy the wrong number of tiles? The answer is that when we define mathematical theories, the rules of such theories aren't arbitrary but must make logical sense. The Universe also seems to behave logically, and so this is why mathematics can often be useful. But then of course, we're left asking whether logic is discovered or invented. To which the answer, no doubt, is both: we're instinctively logical (some of the time), and we've invented formal logic. And we can also ask why the Universe 'behaves logically'. This is a tough question, not too different to the original point, but I think it's worth making this distinction because I think the statement "The Universe is logically consistent" is somehow more meaningful than "The Universe is mathematical" or "The Universe behaves mathematically". ------------------- Oh, so after all that waffle: I agree with you. Mathematics is invented, but it works because it is based on logical principles and logic is not simply an arbitrary human invention.

jinal
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 03/07/08 - 08:09 AM: Subject: I agree	#5
Hello, I am new to this forum. I'd like to share my views on the subject. Yes, mathematics, I think, is something that was invented for its convenience and not discovered. The rules and the postulates of the science are so because such was the observation people made in their daily lives. Like a fellow member said, 9 square is 81 because it so turns out to be in real life. Now this might not be completely relevant to the thread here, but it might be of interest: The question WHEN WAS THE UNIVERSE CREATED ? WHAT ABOUT THE TIME BEFORE THAT? What we must understand is the concept of time was created along with the universe. It does not seem appropriate to ask about what was before it. I know it sounds weird at first but think of it...the concept of time is something that was created with the creation of the universe. Same might apply here...the mathematics we know of might be applicable up to an extent to our universe but it is in no way the absolute truth. Please do feel free to criticize. I could be wrong. Please do post a reply. Edited by Landlady on 03/07/08 - 03:12 PM. Reason: punctuation

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/07/08 - 09:28 PM:	#6
Jinal, I can indeed agree that time itself is an important factor in universal philosophy. I must also agree that Time and the Universe were created at the same "time" (that statement is almost ironic). In truth, I really do not believe that the universe could exist without time. In fact, I really believe that all we know exists within time. Therefore, our existence and everything within time must have been made through another dimension/plane of existence by other beings of much higher intelligence then perhaps we ourselves. But note, this is only in response to your 2nd thoughts in this subject Jinal. Now, I will return to the subject of this subject. Mathematics are a tool. Nothing more. They are a man-made system of calculation used in progressing our natural understanding of "things". They progress our ability of measuring nearly all things by means of our own ingenuity along with the ingenuity of others.
_____________________ "There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/07/08 - 11:08 PM:	#7
You know, many think that the bible is the word of god. Exodus 31:15 "Anyone who does work on the sabbath day....shall be put to death" Well , that pretty much did it for me in terms of realising what the bible actuallly is today. So, I must find other words of god. What if math is the word of god ? Edited by Nick666 on 03/07/08 - 11:27 PM

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/08/08 - 01:36 AM:	#8
I am forced to assume you have not read the entire bible (neither have I). You will also note Nick, that this was part of instructions given to a holy people who couldn't comprehend what they were told much less what the original words really meant. That was how people translated the message and instructions given to them. And men like these were also later thrown out of a tabernacle (church) by Jesus Christ when he came in and found them selling things in the church. He roared as he threw them out the door "You have made my fathers house a den of thieves!". I will not deny the bible has many extremes, but do you know how many different versions of the bible there are? In the original languages and text the terms varied widely in meaning and flexibility. If you want to understand God then spend some time alone in the open air all the while acknowledging the presence of someone with you. The bible is a book plain and simple. It was made by men who were inspired by God to write down the history of their world and lives. It is not the same meaning as it was then and extremes have changed massively since those days. Understand "Nick", I am Samurai and although that term may be beyond your understanding it is one that makes me value highly respectful for others and their ideas. Even if I don't acknowledge them as my own beliefs I will respect that another man has put his understanding to hold in an idea. I see respect and dignity. If you can't hold back your mocking and useless "understanding" of my beliefs then I've no reason to talk with you when you so openly display "knowledge" of something thats meaning has eluded you somewhat entirely. I hold you in respect. You believe in something and that is worth your intelligence and your logic. Please show me such courtesy. I realize this may appear as an attack on your character, but it is my request that you hold some similar respect for me that I hold for you.
_____________________ "There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/08/08 - 02:20 AM:	#9
When Moses brought the Ten Commandments down from Mount Sinai, he may have been high on a hallucinogenic plant. http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&q=moses+high&meta=

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:31 AM:	#10
Hmmmmmmmm.... so your theory is that a man whom was at least in his late forties, was able to make it up to the top of a mountain and became high on the way. Then, said old man continued on his high state to observe the presence of God. He also then finds two stones both perfectly shaped like tomb stones and begins to write on them. Now of course, said high man has been raised to be strong since a young age and eaten well. Now this old man carrying the forty pounds of rock calmly proceeds down said mountain and somehow avoids all possibility of being crushed by a fall while high on a hallucinogenic plant that is giving him undoubtedly hundreds of different visions. So, I'm saying this man could in all likelihood barely make it without being high. Your theory is that he successfully made it back from the pinnacle of a mountain while being high and carrying aprx. forty pounds of rock? Also, your theory is based on said plant being sent through a process which would give it the properties that made Moses high. No such plants were mentioned in the bible. Now if any part of this is untrue, please correct me.
_____________________ "There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:41 AM:	#11
No, it's not my theory . Its your's .

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:54 AM:	#12
No. My theory is that he was not high. Yours is that he is. If you have ever seen someone on drugs then you will understand the massive difference in everything that person does versus what they did. I think he made it by the grace of God OFF the mountain. You seem to portray that he made it while he was high along with all the other things that rule against his likelihood of successfully getting down from the mountain.
_____________________ "There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

Cognitive Dissident
cunning linguist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 38

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:35 PM:	#13
SisyphusInAgony wrote: I am a firm believer that mathmatics isn't a universal description of the universe. By this I assume you mean we cannot create a consistent mathematical formalism which is smaller than the Universe itself yet powerful enough to express all truths about the Universe. As the formalism itself would be a subset of the Universe, that formalism would have to talk about itself. This would create the possiblity of formally undecidable propositions a la Godel. So yeah, any mathematical formalism powerful enough to talk about the whole Universe would be incomplete or inconsistent or both. SisyphusInAgony wrote: I believe mathmatics was invented not discovered. That is a matter of how you choose to define Mathematics. It is also a matter of personal preference. I don't think one can offer a conclusive proof either way. Personally, I find the both ideas interesting and not necessarily mutually exclusive, depending on your take on Time - a feedback loop between Langue and Parole, Species and individual.... SisyphusInAgony wrote: I also believe that historically writing came first and out of it later on was mathmatics constructed. Can anyone here prove to me that I don't know what I am talking about? Societies without a written language had (and have) means of reasoning and talking about quantity. So the assertion that written language historically predates mathematics is very likely false. That written language allows for greater complexity and "power" in mathematical theories, and facilitates communication of those theories is not contested.
_____________________ All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:41 PM:	#14
Ruthless, theres a topic discussing that . http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/duped-...

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 755

Posted 03/09/08 - 08:24 AM:	#15
Mijin , you used the word often, which implies not always. Mostly curious if you noticed that. My own personal opinion is that no, mathematics cannot cover the entirety of a universe. The thing is that in order to use mathematics, all subjects must be co-related such that they must always seem to be able to interact with each other. A value at the begining of the equation affects value at any other point within the equation, which always affects the static outcome. (answer) With QM, and relativity and that lovely equation that begets Dark Matter(yes, I disagree with how we look at part of this equation, but that theory is years in the making), you end up with various areas that cannot interact with each other because they do not lie within the same planes or limits. PS. He's not a platonist simply due to the lack of actual use of the '?' mark?

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 56

Posted 03/23/08 - 06:41 PM:	#16
Mathematics was not “invented” in the sense that someone takes two objects together and derives a new use from those objects as a singular object. Mathematics is a way (a science, set of operations, a calculus) in which our minds handle Number. Mathematics is to Number as Grammar is to Language. Arithmetic (as Mathematics) can be done poorly just as someone can have poor grammar. However, arithmetic, arguably, is less susceptible to open in so far as its conclusions. Of course, the very question is the context of arithmetic; is it universal or, like grammar, context-checked? (You’ve got a solid handle of grammar among your friends, but among prescriptivists?) But ask yourself, is someone who judges the speed of an arithmetical operation just like someone who judges the quality of grammar in English prose? Anyway, no one will say that language is the totality of vocabulary, or just an index of names for objects. Individuated numbers came about through the minds ability to declare finites (or inability to perceive the infinite as infinite and make use of it). Our lack of use of the infinite does not imply that our usage of finite numbers (through mathematics) has any value-judgment, by the way. Mathematics is simply a way which we’ve arbitrarily legitimized to make up the world. The fact that we have seemingly consistent mathematical theories does not show their correlation with the World or the Infinite, but are telling of the way the Human Mind works within the Domain of the Infinite or the World. The presupposition that mathematics reflects the Infinite accurately leads to anthropocentric arrogance. In Spinozistic terms, Mathematics is a mode of a mode of a mode. Mathematics is a mode of Number whereas Number is a mode Thinking whereas (Human) Thinking is a mode of the attribute of Thought, an expression of Deus sive Natura’s absolutely infinite essence. Edited by despinozist on 03/23/08 - 06:48 PM
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 356

Posted 03/26/08 - 10:43 AM:	#17
Cadrache wrote: Mijin , you used the word often, which implies not always. Mostly curious if you noticed that. Oh, you mean when I said "mathematical theorums often have practical applications"? Well, that's because they don't always have practical applications. We just tend to only hear about, and study, useful mathematics. I can't cite any examples but I'm sure any mathematicians reading can think of lots of topics that may be useful in the future but aren't now. Anyway, I can give an example of not useful mathematics with my own, new branch of mathematics: Mijin-o-matics. Mijinomatics Mijinomatics comprises two symbols. The symbol "A" has the value 7, or if you prefer, 12. The symbol "S" always has the value 8. The value of "A" is always equal to the value of "S". The above deliberately makes no sense. But consider this: is it a valid branch of mathematics? If the answer is yes, then not all mathematics is useful or has applications in the real world. If the answer is no, then all of mathematics must conform to logical laws and is not arbitrary. And this is my original point: maths can be useful because it is founded on the rules of logic (and the universe behaves logically, as far as we can tell). It's not necessary for maths to be in any sense "out there".

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 56

Posted 03/26/08 - 11:41 AM:	#18
You haven't demonstrated the logical equivalence of the values. Your "mathematics" is a conjecture, not a theorem. Your system has only premises and it does not have any proofs. It cannot possibly be judged as valid or invalid. Nevertheless, var getUserInput; if ( (7 + getUserInput) > S ) ), then execute code end; There's a use.
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 356

Posted 03/27/08 - 03:21 AM:	#19
By "use" I of course meant practical application, and this is the phrase I used multiple times. By your definition of "use", perhaps just by typing out my mathematics into a forum I have "used" it. In any case, I don't get what the problem is here. My point was that not all mathematics has practical applications. My impression is that this is actually the commonly-held opinion among mathematicians, and they prefer it that way. They wouldn't like maths to be constrained by what's useful. My other point was that maths works because it's the logical manipulation of symbolic information, and the logical word is key. The fact that you reject Mijinomatics because it has no proofs or logical equivalences serves to strengthen my point.

tomv
Bee Hive Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 19

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:18 AM:	#20
I would have to go on a slightly different tangent. I believe that the universe is made up of two aspects, the physical universe and the mental/spiritual universe. The physical universe has its laws, constructions etc, and yes, I do believe those are universal. However, I believe that the way we, as individuals, understand mathematics is a social contruct. Metres, variables, cos, sin, pythagorean algorithims, all those things were socially created to understand physical aspects of the universe. But the fact that there can be a understanding of mathematics, no matter what society or culture, or even planet you are raised on, is universal. That is to say if there was another planet with intelligent beings for example, yes they would understand mathematics, but not in the same way we would understand it.
_____________________ "The door is open, the road transformed. The exit code to civilisation is hacked beyond despair, chased by the moon toward the freeing sun, on our journey to light. This is an open plea to the beautiful insanity of your hearts. It is time to consummate the kiss of oblivion into the obsidian of love!" - Serj Tankian

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 153

Posted 03/27/08 - 06:09 PM:	#21
By this I assume you mean we cannot create a consistent mathematical formalism which is smaller than the Universe itself yet powerful enough to express all truths about the Universe. As the formalism itself would be a subset of the Universe, that formalism would have to talk about itself. This would create the possiblity of formally undecidable propositions a la Godel. So yeah, any mathematical formalism powerful enough to talk about the whole Universe would be incomplete or inconsistent or both. Although a theory mathematically strong enough to qualify as a 'theory of everything' will fail to be negation complete, per Godel's 1st incompleteness theorem, that is not really pertinent when someone is talking about a theory that singlehandedly accounts for all phenomena in our universe. Even if this is not made explicit, such a theory is a scientific theory. Godel's theorem has no bearing upon the ability of a theory of everything to deal with all scientific phenomena, since the failure of the theory to either disprove or prove every statement in its language is irrelevant to this end.

haxyo
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/07/08 - 04:53 PM:	#22
Mathematics the language of the universe? Very simple question. Mathematics = study of relations/patterns Universe is based on patterns Therefore mathematics is the study of the universe or in other words mathematics is the language of the universe

curiouschild
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 08, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/08/08 - 10:01 PM:	#23
Mathematics could not have been created by man since he is in a void when attempting to define it, let alone tell of its origin. It would surprise me infinitely if you could produce an argument against mine.

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 356

Posted 04/10/08 - 05:21 AM:	#24
curiouschild wrote: Mathematics could not have been created by man since he is in a void when attempting to define it, let alone tell of its origin. It would surprise me infinitely if you could produce an argument against mine. Imagine a world in which the inhabitants never develop a formal mathematics, but arrive at certain theorums in plain English. Would they be justified in saying that the Universe conforms to English? You may say that English is different to maths: with maths we can derive new mathematics and use it to make predictions in the real world. But the same is true of English: I can define a word "mountain" to mean "big hill". And then I can predict that any statement that is true of "big hills" will similarly be true for "mountains". And it works! Similarly, it is just the manipulation of "truth by definition" that is how new mathematical laws are arrived at too -- they aren't just arbitrary. Perhaps the Universe does conform to mathematics. But mathematics being useful proves nothing more than it is a useful assistant to our thought processes. Not that it's necessarily "out there".

Paulby
Simpleton

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: Deepest South
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/17/08 - 03:02 AM:	#25
Mathematics is only a language whose utility is that it can be used to describe and map the physical reality we jumped-up great apes experience. Although this ï»¿"map is not the territory", as Alfred Korzybski pointed out some 74 years ago, it's very useful. The beginnings of the language of mathematics, namely the counting numbers and elementary arithmetic, were invented for quantitative purposes, such as keeping track of food resources and money, some five thousand years ago, in Mesopotamia. Numbers and arithmetic weren't discovered lying in the sand, and we shouldn't still be arguing about what mathematics is, even if it has by now become just as jumped-up as we are.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.