|
incomplete
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/07
Posts: 6
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: Rhizoid]
#7197087 - 07/19/07 10:30 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rhizoid said:
Quote:
Diploid said: If time and space and everything else did not exist before the Big Bang, was 7 a prime number then? Or does 7 require time and space and everything else to exist?
After all, math can describe things that, so far as we know, can't exist.
This used to bug me a lot before the mushrooms taught me that all existence is conditional. So if something like "7" were present in some hypothetical world different from ours, then 7 exists in that world. And if that world's 7 shares all its properties with the number 7 that we know in our world, then they are obviously the same number, and that number's existence is not limited to one particular possible world.
Just like "I" am just one subjective reality chosen out of many different possible ones, so is "our world" just one objective reality chosen out of many different possible ones.
Numbers as well as any other mathematical object are nothing but shared (yet precise) ideas among us humans. There is no objective reality to our "7" and so it certainly did not exist until at least the time that we evolved abstraction capabilities, let alone before time.
Now suppose some creature on a distant planet has developed enough abstract reasoning to count, but nothing else. He walks along and sees "7" rocks. Is his idea of "7" (which in this case is the same amount as our "7") prime? I would say no since he has no algebra to speak of and the concept of primeness does not exist to him. It's not until we observe the 7 seven rocks that the amount becomes prime to us and to him (assuming we can teach him algebra and not kill/eat him)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: incomplete]
#7197165 - 07/19/07 10:50 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Knowledge is power. Its amazing how much of it is out there...
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
JackthaTripper
MSME!



Registered: 01/29/07
Posts: 2,494
Loc: Mind Exploration
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: incomplete]
#7197707 - 07/19/07 12:36 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Mathematics is just the name to describe numerical relationships that we observe in reality.
Humans have not designed/created these concepts, rather, humans have simply added the labels to them after we discovered these things from the infinite plane of knowledge.
These mathematical relationships would still exist without humans, they just wouldn't be contemplated on by a conscious mind (unless you believe in God or intelligent life outside of earth).
--------------------
Come on breakthrough with me...such wonders terrify the soul...it's real no need to question...knowledge infiltrates the host
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit


Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: incomplete]
#7197804 - 07/19/07 12:57 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
incomplete said: Numbers as well as any other mathematical object are nothing but shared (yet precise) ideas among us humans. There is no objective reality to our "7" and so it certainly did not exist until at least the time that we evolved abstraction capabilities, let alone before time.
Now suppose some creature on a distant planet has developed enough abstract reasoning to count, but nothing else. He walks along and sees "7" rocks. Is his idea of "7" (which in this case is the same amount as our "7") prime? I would say no since he has no algebra to speak of and the concept of primeness does not exist to him. It's not until we observe the 7 seven rocks that the amount becomes prime to us and to him (assuming we can teach him algebra and not kill/eat him)
It all depends on which assumptions (conditions) you require for "existence" of primality. If we allow extrapolation from present evidence to prove that something existed in the past, then the 7 rocks in your example is a prime number now if we can visit the distant planet in the future, observe the rocks, and conclude that the number hasn't changed in the meantime. We can draw that conclusion since the alien swears that this is true. Or perhaps we can infer in some other way that the number hasn't changed, without asking any alien.
This is how science can make statements about our own past, by the way. Objective reality is extended into the past, even if there are no living observers that can be interviewed, and in cases were there are dead observers that we accept written evidence from, it doesn't matter if their knowledge and reasoning powers were inferior to ours.
If we don't allow this type of extrapolation to decide what exists in objective reality and what doesn't, then we are playing a different game that has a more narrow sense of "existence", and where logic has less power. An extreme variant of this game is where the only things that exist are my perceptions and my beliefs. E.g. 7 is only a prime when I am looking at the mathematical proof, or thinking about it. This is pure solipsism and solipsism is a perfectly valid worldview, just not very useful...
What I am trying to say is that "existence" is never absolute, it always depends on a framework of conditions. For example, if I were a hypothetical being in a hypothetical world, I would still claim "I think, therefore I am" with just as much conviction as Descartes had in the past of our world.
|
incomplete
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/07
Posts: 6
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: Rhizoid]
#7198227 - 07/19/07 02:38 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I agree that the 7 alien rocks are prime to us just as 7 unicorns would be and in fact any group of 7 things we imagine because 7 is a prime number. The point was that to the alien, who unlike us has no knowledge of algebra or concepts of primeness, they are just seven rocks. They are not prime to him and therefore do not exist as prime to him since his 7 is not prime (to him.)
I think it's fairly clear that mathematical objects do not exist in objective reality. You cannot pick up a 2 or kiss a prime. Mathematics is nothing but a language. It may be solisistic but 7 does indeed exist only when you are thinking about it. You just happen to think about the same exact thing as anyone else thinking about seven (or siete, shichi, etc.)
What I'm trying to stress is that before humans, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there was no such thing such thing as 7, just like there were no such things as truth or good or evil. These are purely human constructs. And if all of humanity were wiped out tomorrow "7" would be gone with it.
|
TameMe
Stranger



Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 2,734
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: incomplete]
#7208762 - 07/22/07 12:55 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
incomplete said: I agree that the 7 alien rocks are prime to us just as 7 unicorns would be and in fact any group of 7 things we imagine because 7 is a prime number. The point was that to the alien, who unlike us has no knowledge of algebra or concepts of primeness, they are just seven rocks. They are not prime to him and therefore do not exist as prime to him since his 7 is not prime (to him.)
I think it's fairly clear that mathematical objects do not exist in objective reality. You cannot pick up a 2 or kiss a prime. Mathematics is nothing but a language. It may be solisistic but 7 does indeed exist only when you are thinking about it. You just happen to think about the same exact thing as anyone else thinking about seven (or siete, shichi, etc.)
What I'm trying to stress is that before humans, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there was no such thing such thing as 7, just like there were no such things as truth or good or evil. These are purely human constructs. And if all of humanity were wiped out tomorrow "7" would be gone with it.
so are you saying math comes in and out of existance only when we think of it? so it is dies and is then reborn again...exactly the same everytime?
the whole thing about us not understanding something means it doesn't exist doesn't jive with me. it's sort of like...if you can't see the light from the sun is it really not there? well the people in fucking china know it's there...so it exists for them but for you....it's nonexistant...sorry buddy...we wouldn't be here if that was the case.
|
FollowTheMusic
Stranger
Registered: 11/11/06
Posts: 267
Last seen: 5 years, 24 days
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: mikebart101]
#7209563 - 07/22/07 09:43 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Just two quick notes: check out Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science." You can read it online free here. He talks about complexity emerging from simplicity, patterns we can't quantify but can recognize visually, self-creating forms, yadda yadda. I haven't read it and I don't think he actually overthrew science, but I've heard it's interesting.
The other thing is, numbers are really a very small part of modern mathematics. Much of it uses spaces that are deeply abstract, treating numbers as a special case of far more general concepts. I don't think lay-people are exposed to this stuff, which is too bad, because it's trippy as hell
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!



Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 10 months, 23 days
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: mikebart101]
#7209606 - 07/22/07 09:59 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Is it not, already?
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit


Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: incomplete]
#7210170 - 07/22/07 02:01 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
incomplete said: I agree that the 7 alien rocks are prime to us just as 7 unicorns would be and in fact any group of 7 things we imagine because 7 is a prime number. The point was that to the alien, who unlike us has no knowledge of algebra or concepts of primeness, they are just seven rocks. They are not prime to him and therefore do not exist as prime to him since his 7 is not prime (to him.)
All right, then we agree. To him the 7 rocks are not prime, since existence is conditional and in this case the conditions are restricted to what the alien knows.
Quote:
I think it's fairly clear that mathematical objects do not exist in objective reality. You cannot pick up a 2 or kiss a prime. Mathematics is nothing but a language. It may be solisistic but 7 does indeed exist only when you are thinking about it. You just happen to think about the same exact thing as anyone else thinking about seven (or siete, shichi, etc.)
So when I think about seven I think about the same exact thing as anyone else thinking about seven? But that makes the number seven a part of objective reality, by definition. Objective reality is what multiple observers agree upon. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
What I'm trying to stress is that before humans, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there was no such thing such thing as 7, just like there were no such things as truth or good or evil. These are purely human constructs. And if all of humanity were wiped out tomorrow "7" would be gone with it.
Perhaps, but "7" would be resurrected again if and when new intelligent life reappears on the planet.
|
incomplete
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/07
Posts: 6
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: Rhizoid]
#7210428 - 07/22/07 03:27 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rhizoid said: So when I think about seven I think about the same exact thing as anyone else thinking about seven? But that makes the number seven a part of objective reality, by definition. Objective reality is what multiple observers agree upon. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think I misspoke when I said the same exact thing. My understanding of objective reality is that which originates outside of the mind. Modern mathematics has indeed provided a formal objective definition of "7." So for two people in the know who are thinking about "7", they might actually be thinking about this same objective definition (similar to how the we and the alien think about the same collection of 7 rocks,) but the "object" that represents "7" in each persons' mind is unique to him. This is excellently illustrated in the case of the alien. Both us and the alien see the same seven rocks, however our ideas of "7" are subjectively based on our own knowledge, for example we know it's a prime.
I think I said 'same exact thing' to make the point that mathematics is a shared language. I see now that that was way too strong (my own example shows that.) 'Similar' would have a better choice of words.
Quote:
Perhaps, but "7" would be resurrected again if and when new intelligent life reappears on the planet.
I don't think this is necessarily true at all. Does consciousness include the ability to abstract patterns from nature? Even if it did, why would this new life's math include the ability to count? I'm having trouble picturing what we would call math without counting simply because it is so intuitive and fundamental. But that in itself does not necessitate it. Sure there will always be collections of seven rocks on the ground. But is it as fundamental as logic (exists/not exists) that this collection of rocks will always be seen as a single object by any sufficiently intelligent creature? That action of grouping seems incredibly more evolved than mere self-awareness. And couldn't that evolution of abstract reasoning take a completely different path?
|
AtrocitY
Stranger

Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 83
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: Amber_Glow]
#7210530 - 07/22/07 03:57 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I was going to reply to many of the OP's posts, but our views differ so much, and I have a hard time expressing myself, so I'll leave that alone and just comment on this.
Quote:
Amber_Glow said: I think someday we will have grown tired of math and decide to deal with reality directly, instead of using symbols?
As humans we make things more and more "complex" if you will, math being a tool for this. We will start dealing with "reality" not directly, but more simply, when we die and break down into the soil, or whatever we happen to be laying on.
-------------------- Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass It's about learning to dance in the rain
Edited by AtrocitY (07/22/07 04:00 PM)
|
AtrocitY
Stranger

Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 83
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: JackthaTripper]
#7210543 - 07/22/07 04:03 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JackthaTripper said: Mathematics is just the name to describe numerical relationships that we observe in reality.
Humans have not designed/created these concepts, rather, humans have simply added the labels to them after we discovered these things from the infinite plane of knowledge.
These mathematical relationships would still exist without humans, they just wouldn't be contemplated on by a conscious mind (unless you believe in God or intelligent life outside of earth).
Here we go, this is close enough to what I wanted to say. Although, this conscious mind is still contemplating the last paragraph.
Sorry for double post.
-------------------- Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass It's about learning to dance in the rain
|
incomplete
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/07
Posts: 6
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: TameMe]
#7211626 - 07/22/07 08:47 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TameMe said: so are you saying math comes in and out of existence only when we think of it? so it is dies and is then reborn again...exactly the same everytime?
I would agree. I don't think it takes conscious thought though. For instance if you see "7" printed you automatically understand what it means. Though for a small child this takes quite a bit of effort. And I wouldn't say 'exactly the same' - mathematics is an evolving language, not only among the community but within yourself. One day you only know "7" but the next you know "7" is an odd number, the next you know "7" is a prime, etc..
Quote:
the whole thing about us not understanding something means it doesn't exist doesn't jive with me. it's sort of like...if you can't see the light from the sun is it really not there? well the people in fucking china know it's there...so it exists for them but for you....it's nonexistant...sorry buddy...we wouldn't be here if that was the case.
It's not the same as physical (objective?) reality. Within a reasonable amount of doubt the sun is shining when your eyes are closed and will shine long after we're gone. Math, as I've said, is a language. An ephemeral idea. If nobody speaks the language, then just like many human languages, it dies and exists no more.
|
incomplete
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/07
Posts: 6
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: AtrocitY]
#7211667 - 07/22/07 08:56 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AtrocitY said:
Quote:
JackthaTripper said: Mathematics is just the name to describe numerical relationships that we observe in reality.
Humans have not designed/created these concepts, rather, humans have simply added the labels to them after we discovered these things from the infinite plane of knowledge.
These mathematical relationships would still exist without humans, they just wouldn't be contemplated on by a conscious mind (unless you believe in God or intelligent life outside of earth).
Here we go, this is close enough to what I wanted to say. Although, this conscious mind is still contemplating the last paragraph.
Sorry for double post.
Double posting myself....
But just to comment. Yes these relationships would still exist. Planets will orbit the sun and what goes up must come down, etc.. But to call these relationships mathematical is backwards. The relationships just are. Humans have come along and invented math as a rational way of "talking" about these relationships and patterns that surround us. That is all.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: incomplete]
#7212223 - 07/22/07 10:59 PM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Can a double-post exist without math? Hmmm...
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit


Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: incomplete]
#7213082 - 07/23/07 07:22 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
incomplete said:
Quote:
Rhizoid said: Perhaps, but "7" would be resurrected again if and when new intelligent life reappears on the planet.
I don't think this is necessarily true at all. Does consciousness include the ability to abstract patterns from nature? Even if it did, why would this new life's math include the ability to count?
Sorry, I meant new intelligent (non-human) life that can count and multiply and form the concept of "prime number". My point was only that "7" can be resurrected by other beings after humans die out, if the circumstances are right.
Quote:
I'm having trouble picturing what we would call math without counting simply because it is so intuitive and fundamental. But that in itself does not necessitate it. Sure there will always be collections of seven rocks on the ground. But is it as fundamental as logic (exists/not exists) that this collection of rocks will always be seen as a single object by any sufficiently intelligent creature? That action of grouping seems incredibly more evolved than mere self-awareness. And couldn't that evolution of abstract reasoning take a completely different path?
Well, the alien could be self-aware and be able to count, but not be able to discriminate between "rock" and "non-rock". In that case the 7 rocks don't exist for him, even though he might be able to count other things to "7". But the 7 rocks still exist in our human objective reality, if there is any chance that we or any beings that share our reality ever gets to perceive the rocks as rocks distinct from non-rocks, and then count them.
Edited by Rhizoid (07/23/07 07:23 AM)
|
Endlessness
Nexus Refugee

Registered: 07/21/07
Posts: 272
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: Rhizoid]
#7213138 - 07/23/07 08:14 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Incomplete: you say that because one cant ´get a 2´, its not objective but only a language... but think about it.. what you are saying is that ´objective reality´ is only the very limited ´range of frequencies´ that we commonly classify as ´material´.. do you really think the universe is limited to that, to our definitions and possibilities of perception?
To me experience shows the universe has a range of frequencies much beyond what we and our instruments can perceive.. and language doesnt mean it´s not ´true´ and only ´subjective´, if you consider language a bit differently.. Language is interaction, and the universe is based on the interaction of all it´s parts, the reciprocal common maintenance of everything existing.. Universe IS language, in a way.
Rhizoid: your definition of objective reality is a very... ahmm... debatable one, heh?
so back in the days when most people thought that the sun goes round the earth, that was objective reality?
Edited by Endlessness (07/23/07 08:20 AM)
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit


Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: Endlessness]
#7213557 - 07/23/07 11:06 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Endlessness said: Incomplete: you say that because one cant ´get a 2´, its not objective but only a language... but think about it.. what you are saying is that ´objective reality´ is only the very limited ´range of frequencies´ that we commonly classify as ´material´.. do you really think the universe is limited to that, to our definitions and possibilities of perception?
To me experience shows the universe has a range of frequencies much beyond what we and our instruments can perceive.. and language doesnt mean it´s not ´true´ and only ´subjective´, if you consider language a bit differently.. Language is interaction, and the universe is based on the interaction of all it´s parts, the reciprocal common maintenance of everything existing.. Universe IS language, in a way.
Yes! 
But please substitute "abstractions" for the newagey "frequencies" metaphor... 
I'd say the universe is logic, and language is (at its best) an attempt to express logic.
Quote:
Rhizoid: your definition of objective reality is a very... ahmm... debatable one, heh?
so back in the days when most people thought that the sun goes round the earth, that was objective reality?
Yes, their observations were the basis of their objective reality, and their observations are still correct and objective and still useful for modern astronomers, but their extrapolations based on their interpretations of that objective reality proved to be incorrect.
We can always extrapolate stuff from what we presently know. But there will always be gaps and holes that the extrapolations don't cover. There is no point in ascribing "reality" to some imaginary contents of these gaps and holes until we actually find a way to excavate them. If anyone thinks there is a point in doing so, please explain why you think so.
Edited by Rhizoid (07/23/07 11:21 AM)
|
Endlessness
Nexus Refugee

Registered: 07/21/07
Posts: 272
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: Rhizoid]
#7213675 - 07/23/07 11:53 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
but isnt it a contradiction to say that it was their objective reality, because ´their´ implies there is more than one therefore being subjective ?
isn´t the whole point of objective reality something that is the same for all observers?
sometimes I use analogies to explain my thoughts.. Like for example, Imagine ´Reality´ as a ball.. We are all looking at it through our little straws, tunnels (like R.A.W would call ´reality tunnel´). Sometimes we may be looking at a similar part as our neighbour, so we say: ´There! This is Reality, agreed?´. and then someone else comes along who´s looking at the opposite side and says ´No, this is reality, you guys are wrong´. But all are right in a way, except that they all are filtered perceptions of something infinitely complex.
Mathematics or physics or anything of the sort, is trying to map out the constants in what we call reality. But we are only noticing constants in the secondary process, so to say, or in one of the many levels that exist. What many people do (including me before) is to over-value the intellect. But the intellect has a limit to what it can apprehend and transform. An easy example of something the intellect can´t reach: Emotions. Emotions is of a different ´materiality´, so to say, but also very important, in it´s own level. To use the intellect when we must use emotions is a negative symptom, and vice versa. (like getting unproportionally angry at some discussion that should be intellectual, or being too literal and cold in a relation when for a propper response, one should understand the emotions involved)
Also the same with the ´Body/movement´. For example, try to think about how to walk up a stairs, or how to drive a car, and you will get confused. It can´t be thought because even if thinking is very good for some things, it is too slow for others, it doesnt ´catch´ what the movement ´center´ can catch. Anyone who does sports like skateboarding or juggling or whatever knows this in practice: You can´t think about it, you have to do it. It´s a great feeling when the body finally gets it.
Or try to use the ´movement/body´ to do something the intellect, like listening to a person in a conversation. You will only partially listen to the words and maybe can even repeat what was said, but the stimulus wont be transformed through the intellect apparatus.
Truth also resides in these different levels. Truth is not only intellect. Haven´t you known something emotionally for sure, even though you could never explain it intellectually? Or so on and so on.
Mathematics is of great help, yes, and it is a great tool in the intellect level. Being humans, we have a limit to how close to Truth we can get, but we can get closer. But to reach closer and have an encompassing view of reality, a big inner struggle is needed so that we use all our functions in equilibrium and act as Consciously as possible, and not just ´having a nice intellectual equation that sums it all up´.
(sorry for the big post)
Edited by Endlessness (07/23/07 11:58 AM)
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit


Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: The evolution of mathematics and reality. [Re: Endlessness]
#7217144 - 07/24/07 08:24 AM (16 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Endlessness said: but isnt it a contradiction to say that it was their objective reality, because ´their´ implies there is more than one therefore being subjective ?
isn´t the whole point of objective reality something that is the same for all observers?
Yes, that's the point. But it's only possible to the extent that the observers share the same set of concepts. For example, an alien who has no concept of "wave" will find the statement "radio waves exist" meaningless. He could still be able to observe the electromagnetic field, and detect variations of the field strength, but radio waves as such won't be part of his reality. Just like the other alien earlier in the thread who had no concept of "prime number".
Quote:
Truth also resides in these different levels. Truth is not only intellect. Haven´t you known something emotionally for sure, even though you could never explain it intellectually? Or so on and so on.
Sure I have. But I have also found that many times it's just because a useful vocabulary and conceptual framework was lacking.
|
|