Is Math a Feature of the Universe or a Feature of Human Creation?
- Thread starter Io_Reign
- Start date
MiniCacti
Well-Known Member
I am tempted to relate this to falling trees making noise whether anything hears it or not, but this goes into abstract ideas. I lean toward math existing without us though, as observations COULD be made even if no one makes them. Math COULD be done even if no one does it.
Allimon
Well-Known Member
But don't both ideas here (observations being made and math being done) intrinsically require someone or something to do the operations?
Physics to some extent exists because the forces themselves exist whether we want them to or not. We have no control over whether or not gravity will pull us down. We have no ability to change the natures of these forces either.
MiniCacti
Well-Known Member
Imagine you are a sailor sitting in the crow's nest of a ship. All you can see in any direction is barren ocean. The next day, you climb up and spot a small desert island on the horizon.
Did this island exist the day before? No one was around to observe it...
Allimon
Well-Known Member
But the observation was never made until the second day. However, since it was not observed the first day, one cannot say with absolute certainty that the island was there before because its existence was previously unknown. If perhaps some study was done on how islands form and the amount of time it would take to form, one will be able to say with greater certainty that the island existed before being observed. However, there will still be some doubt.
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
The answer is no. For our brains perceive the world around us by the information our senses give us. In a sense, we're already living in an artificial reality, for who's to say if our senses are lying to us - or if we even actually HAVE senses?
Following that logic, anything we cannot perceive does not exist, for our brains create our world based on sensory input.
But is not the entire point of math and science to learn enough about our universe so that we CAN control it? You can say time marches on without us, but does it? Does time exist to a leopard, or a moose, or a cockroach? The answer is no - time is a human construct. So, then, I can easily argue that since time is nonexistent, and time is a major portion of physics, physics as we know it cannot exist either.
Math is an abstract concept to begin with. There is no possible way to completely define what the number "one" is. It's a descriptive concept, nothing more. In other words, math cannot be proven to exist - and by the scientific community's own rules, it therefore does not exist. Remember, the person with the positive claim contains the burden of proof. I don't have to proved math doesn't exist - you have to prove to me that it does.
Allimon
Well-Known Member
Events will continue to unfold regardless of our existence. And time is simply the sequence of events in reference to other events and as such, some form of time does indeed exist. How would the universe work if time did not exist events were not as sequential as they are now?
The purpose of science is indeed to determine how things work and eventually control them, but as of now we have no means in which to entirely manipulate the fundamental forces or change their natures.
I agree with you in regard to math not actually existing and it all being relative to how things are observed.
ChrisWsrn
Active Member
Math WAS created to understand the patterns and "randomness" of the universe.
Math is a abstraction used to allow humans to easily detect and understand patterns. It is similar to how the "Block" class inside of Minecraft makes it easer to represent a block in Minecraft. The block does not "exist" as a "Block" in the game but as just binary data in memory. To the game engine it is represented as a "Block" that can be worked with as a block even though the block itself is just a long binary number.
"Time" is, like Math, a abstraction used to allow humans to easily detect and understand patterns. Time, as in the continuing ticks of the universe, is very hard to understand without a way to represent it so humans created "Time" to do that. Time effects all leopards, all mice, all cockroaches, and all humans, it is just that the effects can not be represented by humans without abstracting it out into a construct we call "Time".
The other interesting thing about "Time" is that it is used in Math for many things (Like Physics)
Something that might make it easer to understand what I am trying to explain:
What I am saying is that because Math and Time are abstractions and therefor they exist as long as the "thing" they represent exist. If this statement is false then that means that all abstractions do not exist and therefor nothing exists that humans can try to comprehend including language.
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
Let's skip the Time discussion in favor of staying on topic, as the discussion on Time alone is more than a topic in its own right (though I'll quickly point out that Time neither affects all things nor does it affect those things it does apply to equally - therefore it doesn't really exist).Math WAS created to understand the patterns and "randomness" of the universe.
Math is a abstraction used to allow humans to easily detect and understand patterns. It is similar to how the "Block" class inside of Minecraft makes it easer to represent a block in Minecraft. The block does not "exist" as a "Block" in the game but as just binary data in memory. To the game engine it is represented as a "Block" that can be worked with as a block even though the block itself is just a long binary number.
"Time" is, like Math, a abstraction used to allow humans to easily detect and understand patterns. Time, as in the continuing ticks of the universe, is very hard to understand without a way to represent it so humans created "Time" to do that. Time effects all leopards, all mice, all cockroaches, and all humans, it is just that the effects can not be represented by humans without abstracting it out into a construct we call "Time".
The other interesting thing about "Time" is that it is used in Math for many things (Like Physics)
Something that might make it easer to understand what I am trying to explain:
What I am saying is that because Math and Time are abstractions and therefor they exist as long as the "thing" they represent exist. If this statement is false then that means that all abstractions do not exist and therefor nothing exists that humans can try to comprehend.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on you idea of what exactly Math is, and why it is here.
Math was created because of economics. I have 2 goats, you have 1 cow, seems fair, let's trade. Math was not created to understand anything, it was created to communicate transactions more efficiently.
Your use of the "Block" class in Minecraft is a good analogy (though it will escape anyone not familiar with Java). However, unlike the class in Java, Math is not used by a higher program. It's a construct of a human brain that cannot cope with being unable to control the world around it. So our brains created Math so we can pretend like we understand our universe, when in reality we understand literally nothing - which is so terrifying a thought that it's likely impossible to completely flesh it out in your head without going insane.
And unfortunately, the xkcd comic you linked to just confused me more as to what you're trying to say. However, we agree on one thing:
Because Math and Time are abstractions, therefore they exist as long as the "thing" they represent exists. If this statement is false then that means that all abstractions do not exist and therefore nothing exists that humans can try to comprehend.
I argue, very simply, that nothing exists. You are making the positive statement here (that things exist); by scientific laws you must prove to me that anything exists at all.
MiniCacti
Well-Known Member
Your arguement that nothing exists seems to be based around the uncertainty of everything's existence. Care to elaborate?
Stratadon
Well-Known Member
Time and math are both just processes we use to describe the things around us. Although we created them, the things they describe do not just disappear when humans disappear. The question at hand is not specific enough it provide a definitive answer.
What do you mean by 'time' and 'math'. The concepts of an inch or a second or an hour will die with humans, but the things they describe, what I think of as time and distance will not cease to exist when we are gone.
Here is another way to think about it. If humans had never existed on planet earth, a tree would still grow and die after a certain number of revolutions of the earth around the sun. There would be no one to call it a passage of time or a number of seconds, days or years, but something still would have happened. Something would have passed, and that something is what we refer to as the concept of 'time'
I think Gurw is mistaking what actually exists for what humans know to exist. You have a bit of a bias take on the matter where you presume that humans are the center of the universe and everything has to do with us, where as I believe that it does not. From what I can gather from what you said, you believe that once human beings are eradicated, the universe ceases to exist. Our world as we, human beings, perceive it may not exist, but I believe that a world exists without us.
As to whether an animal can perceive a concept such as time is beyond me. How Gurw could definitively say that they cannot is absolutely beyond me. If he could explain further, that would be awesome. I am always looking for ways to learn more about the world. If you cannot prove that animals do not perceive time, the rest of the statements you made about time being non-existent without humans are mute.
Well, “Lion” is also a descriptive word. Prove to me that “Lion” does or does not exist. It sounds pretty silly doesn’t it? Well, it is exactly the same thing for math. You don’t prove or disprove that a description exists. The description is just describing what actually does exist in a way that everyone can relate to, given our similar senses and perceptions.
The human race is just another species that will eventually die out and become extinct in the vast universe. We are nothing more than insignificant specs in the cosmos trying to live lives that satisfy each of us in one way or another. Long after we are gone, stars will still be born and die. A change will occur without doubt, and perhaps there will be another creature somewhere out there that can perceive that change and can describe it in a form of time. Even if there is not, however, the change will still happen.
Your last post continues to baffle me. Are you seriously saying that things only exist if one human can prove it through some form of mutual observation to another human being? That is a foolish way to go about science. I believe that the most basic and fundamental premise of science is that things simply exist. Science assumes that things exist, and then goes about systematically organizing and building knowledge through observation and testable experiments to understand more about those things that already exist and perhaps why they exist.
What do you mean by 'time' and 'math'. The concepts of an inch or a second or an hour will die with humans, but the things they describe, what I think of as time and distance will not cease to exist when we are gone.
Here is another way to think about it. If humans had never existed on planet earth, a tree would still grow and die after a certain number of revolutions of the earth around the sun. There would be no one to call it a passage of time or a number of seconds, days or years, but something still would have happened. Something would have passed, and that something is what we refer to as the concept of 'time'
I think Gurw is mistaking what actually exists for what humans know to exist. You have a bit of a bias take on the matter where you presume that humans are the center of the universe and everything has to do with us, where as I believe that it does not. From what I can gather from what you said, you believe that once human beings are eradicated, the universe ceases to exist. Our world as we, human beings, perceive it may not exist, but I believe that a world exists without us.
As to whether an animal can perceive a concept such as time is beyond me. How Gurw could definitively say that they cannot is absolutely beyond me. If he could explain further, that would be awesome. I am always looking for ways to learn more about the world. If you cannot prove that animals do not perceive time, the rest of the statements you made about time being non-existent without humans are mute.
Well, “Lion” is also a descriptive word. Prove to me that “Lion” does or does not exist. It sounds pretty silly doesn’t it? Well, it is exactly the same thing for math. You don’t prove or disprove that a description exists. The description is just describing what actually does exist in a way that everyone can relate to, given our similar senses and perceptions.
The human race is just another species that will eventually die out and become extinct in the vast universe. We are nothing more than insignificant specs in the cosmos trying to live lives that satisfy each of us in one way or another. Long after we are gone, stars will still be born and die. A change will occur without doubt, and perhaps there will be another creature somewhere out there that can perceive that change and can describe it in a form of time. Even if there is not, however, the change will still happen.
Your last post continues to baffle me. Are you seriously saying that things only exist if one human can prove it through some form of mutual observation to another human being? That is a foolish way to go about science. I believe that the most basic and fundamental premise of science is that things simply exist. Science assumes that things exist, and then goes about systematically organizing and building knowledge through observation and testable experiments to understand more about those things that already exist and perhaps why they exist.
t7seven7t
Active Member
I'll pose a new yet very similar question in hopes of relating to the issue.
Is God a feature of the universe, or a feature of human creation?
Arguing semantics of the universe when we truly have no idea why or how we have come to existence gets relatively pointless, as we can discuss forever whether we think that the universe was defined by a deity or just happened its way into existence for some reason. I mean, why even are there universes? What was wrong with good ol' nothing. And if there were a deity, how did they come to existence? Surely that would create a never-ending paradox. Why could a paradox not be possible?
Yet we come back to realize that we do in fact exist - so at least in our definition of the word we are existing, as is everything else that we perceive. It is as though we speak a completely different language to the universe and we're doing our god damn best to try and interpret it. But really, if you can prove or disprove maths - that is, if you have the answer to the meaning of life, then please do share. Many people have been searching for those special answers before but it is of my opinion that we will never know - it is impossible to know.
I don't believe that it will ever be possible to conclude whether the universe was founded on something similar to mathematical principles or if maths is only a figment of our imagination, akin to how it is impossible to disprove the existence of a deity. How can we ever gaze upon something that is outside the scope of our universe?
For all we know there is a universe defined by our mathematical principles, given that there is theoretically an infinite possibility of universes - so why not this one? Could we be our own Gods? Perhaps everything is a paradox and not as it seems.
Is God a feature of the universe, or a feature of human creation?
Arguing semantics of the universe when we truly have no idea why or how we have come to existence gets relatively pointless, as we can discuss forever whether we think that the universe was defined by a deity or just happened its way into existence for some reason. I mean, why even are there universes? What was wrong with good ol' nothing. And if there were a deity, how did they come to existence? Surely that would create a never-ending paradox. Why could a paradox not be possible?
Yet we come back to realize that we do in fact exist - so at least in our definition of the word we are existing, as is everything else that we perceive. It is as though we speak a completely different language to the universe and we're doing our god damn best to try and interpret it. But really, if you can prove or disprove maths - that is, if you have the answer to the meaning of life, then please do share. Many people have been searching for those special answers before but it is of my opinion that we will never know - it is impossible to know.
I don't believe that it will ever be possible to conclude whether the universe was founded on something similar to mathematical principles or if maths is only a figment of our imagination, akin to how it is impossible to disprove the existence of a deity. How can we ever gaze upon something that is outside the scope of our universe?
For all we know there is a universe defined by our mathematical principles, given that there is theoretically an infinite possibility of universes - so why not this one? Could we be our own Gods? Perhaps everything is a paradox and not as it seems.
ChrisWsrn
Active Member
What I was saying in that analogy is that Humans are like Java as in that they use abstractions like the Block class or Math to understand realty. Reality in that analogy was like that of the CPU, it can not be comprehended in its original state by Humans/Java.
In Java the Clases are just used to make it easer to comprehend how the program works but is not used at runtime (Except for type enforcement). This is the same way for Math is what I was trying to say. Math is just a representation of what is happing but does not effect what happens, it just makes it easer to understand what happens.
I was using that XKCD comic to show how the sciences are applied forms of Math and how Math is a abstracted form of science. Math is simpler to work with than a scientific sample but a scientific sample is closer to realty than Math.
What are "Goats"? What is "Cow"? What is "existence"? The names of those thing are all abstractions of those "things" that were created because we wanted to interact with them. Without them being abstracted with names you could not do anything with them including saying that statement. Language is the name we give to the abstraction that me use to abstract existence.
One of Math original reasons for development was for trade but it later evolved into something used to represent sciences. For example how something has evolved form its original purpose is a drug called Sildenafil citrate (Commonly known as Viagra). It was originally used to treat Pulmonary hypertension but it was later discovered that it caused erections in male humans. It was then used to treat erectile dysfunction because it was the best drug at the time for the purpose.
Everything we know is a Abstraction of another Abstraction or of a physical phenomena. Without Abstractions we know nothing and all Abstractions do not exist. Existence still exists but what we use to represent it does not exist.
Io_Reign
Well-Known Member
Please don't bring religion in here. The question of math is one with which we can have a nice debate and leave with no hurt feelings, while the same is not true of religion. Discussing religion will never give us an answer because of how powerful people believe their individual religion to be. Discussing religion on the internet is a horrible idea.
t7seven7t
Active Member
You misunderstand my post. A deity does not have to be one that we traditionally have come to know, and could be one that we have never even acknowledged before. I was pointing out that you have no way to either prove or disprove the universe's origin (and thus whether maths plays a role in it) in the same way as you have no way to prove or disprove that a deity created the universe.
By your post alone you reinforce my argument that it is impossible to truly know whether maths is a feature of the universe or a feature of human creation and I think you should have expected the same endless argument when you created this thread as you would in a religious debate. So please, do not lecture me on not bringing in tools of endless debate when you yourself have set this thread up for that.
ConroD
Well-Known Member
Maaaan I love threads like these, shame I don't have time to build an elaborate response.
So I'll leave you with this.. The road superstring theory is heading down suggests that the laws of physics in our universe are infact unnatural and simply a bi-product of our big bang, and ours only. Take a stroll in the multiverse and you will observe a potentially infinite number of universes, each with differing laws beyond our comprehension. So to come back off the tangent.. Math is a feature of our universe, but as far as our understanding (of math) goes, the line is drawn when we leave it.
We are simply our universe's attempt at understanding itself, so essentially even if Math is of human creation and serves no relevance beyond a means of understanding, it is still a feature of the universe.
Mathception.
P.s I didn't actually watch the video because fuck you English internet.
So I'll leave you with this.. The road superstring theory is heading down suggests that the laws of physics in our universe are infact unnatural and simply a bi-product of our big bang, and ours only. Take a stroll in the multiverse and you will observe a potentially infinite number of universes, each with differing laws beyond our comprehension. So to come back off the tangent.. Math is a feature of our universe, but as far as our understanding (of math) goes, the line is drawn when we leave it.
We are simply our universe's attempt at understanding itself, so essentially even if Math is of human creation and serves no relevance beyond a means of understanding, it is still a feature of the universe.
Mathception.
P.s I didn't actually watch the video because fuck you English internet.
