The Question : is mathematics discovered or invented?

[oldman]

... we've been using words clumsily to be interchanging “real” and “discovered”. I guess when we've been saying “real” we've been trying to express something like “external to the human presence in the universe.”

Yes, and "real" isn't the opposite of "invented" either, in the sense I mistakenly took Pythagorean to be using it when snidely commenting on his remark "I think circles are very real, personally". Guns are both very real and invented, of course. Apologies, Pythagorean.

I still have a great deal of trouble with what is real and what is not real, even after having run threads here with these titles. Mathematics is indeed very real, Pythagorean, in the sense that it can make you spend hours trying to untangle its puzzles, and helps us to describe the universe. But it is after all only "squiggles on paper" as I think the mathematician Hardy said. Or was it Hilbert?

Where circles are concerned, Morodin's remark "The platonic circle is an idealized conception. The universe has no problem with wonky circles" seems to me very apt.

 

[Pythagorean]

Obviously I'm all annoyed and kerfuffled, but I don't have any right to be annoyed with you. I think what might've happened is that the thread went through a discussion earlier on about the fact that mathematics is a language or description of something that is external to humans, and I made the mistake of reading your comments in the context of already having gone over the details of how the terminology and symbology of mathematics is a real actual invented description, and distinguishing between the reality that to talk about something there must at least be invented words describing it versus the reality of something having existence external to the words themselves. I apologize, I should have made more effort to read your comments for what they were in their own right.

⚛​

well, you have all the right in the world to be annoyed. It's not very productive to be annoyed, so I think if we could control it, we wouldn't let anything annoy us. Of course, miscommunication is annoying for both parties involved, and it IS productive to realize the source of these things. I apologize for not setting context properly. I am, as we post, developing my ideas about this (in fact, this is how I do it!)

"Mathematics" is a hard thing to define. Once we start taking away the symbology and terminology, what's left? "Relationships between things"? That's why I keep using that phrase, because it's the most abstract way I can think of to define the part of reality that is discovered, and not invented.

But "relationships between things" can be defined in ways besides mathematics. They can even be "experienced" or "felt" (i.e. sports players have a good feeling for kinetics, even though they'll never need to know an equation to catch a ball or judge whether they can plow through someone.)

So what is mathematics without the symbology and terminology?

 

[oldman]

So what is mathematics without the symbology and terminology?

Just what English is without words and grammar... dead in the water.

I do think that folk here are making heavy weather of all this. One perhaps needs the perspective of an evolutionary biologist on what we areto grasp the unbalanced anthropocentrism of our respect for the stuff we invent, like mathematics and space shuttles (both quite marvellous, by the way!).

I'm not such a person, but that atheist fellow Richard Dawkins is. If you skip the atheist polemic that almost fills his bestseller, The God Delusion, you could find quite interesting his analysis of our Middle World (as he calls it) on the last few pages.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

"Mathematics" is a hard thing to define. Once we start taking away the symbology and terminology, what's left? "Relationships between things"? That's why I keep using that phrase, because it's the most abstract way I can think of to define the part of reality that is discovered, and not invented.

But "relationships between things" can be defined in ways besides mathematics. They can even be "experienced" or "felt" (i.e. sports players have a good feeling for kinetics, even though they'll never need to know an equation to catch a ball or judge whether they can plow through someone.)

So what is mathematics without the symbology and terminology?

But if you apply the same reasoning, basically any topic that involves words coming out of peoples' mouths or any form of communication - that is to say, everything - can be said to be wholly invented. It's at least trivially true but it's not an especially profound assertion, indeed as I said above it seems basically tautological to me.

You might as well say that mathematics is invented because protractors and calculators and books and chalkboards are invented.

I think that the sense in which this “discovered or invented” question is being asked isn't about the nature of the terminology and symbology of the discipline, nor about the books in the field with those words and symbols printed in them, nor about the tools and devices used in the field, but rather about whether the subject of study is discovered or invented.

But as oldman says I'm definitely “making heavy weather” of this. :tongue2:

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm not such a person, but that atheist fellow Richard Dawkins is. If you skip the atheist polemic that almost fills his bestseller, The God Delusion, you could find quite interesting his analysis of our Middle World (as he calls it) on the last few pages.

I actually am an atheist myself, but I think that Richard Dawkins is almost completely filled with atheist polemic and some other unpleasant stuff, if you know what I mean.

⚛​

 

[Pythagorean]

But if you apply the same reasoning, basically any topic that involves words coming out of peoples' mouths or any form of communication - that is to say, everything - can be said to be wholly invented. It's at least trivially true but it's not an especially profound assertion, indeed as I said above it seems basically tautological to me.

You might as well say that mathematics is invented because protractors and calculators and books and chalkboards are invented.

I think that the sense in which this “discovered or invented” question is being asked isn't about the nature of the terminology and symbology of the discipline, nor about the books in the field with those words and symbols printed in them, nor about the tools and devices used in the field, but rather about whether the subject of study is discovered or invented.

But as oldman says I'm definitely “making heavy weather” of this. :tongue2:

⚛​

I think we're both perfectly clear on what we're talking about: the 'subject of study'. And I'm not meaning for this to be a competitive debate either, I'm genuinely stimulated by the conversation.

So... as a physics student it's only natural that I think all physical relationships are discovered. The more I study QM, the more bizarre it is that the fundamental building blocks of our universe are able to fit together into a nice clean picture that we can model with so simply in the macro world.

QM is perverse. Maybe the mathematics community fully embraces QM, I have no idea... but I wouldn't think so. (But then, if the mathematics community embracing it determines whether it's mathematics or not... then mathematics is surely invented).

My point is that mathematics may not fit so nicely into the universe as you're led to believe. Perhaps for your every day experiences, sure. Perhaps at the resolution with which you're able to perceive it, there is no flaw. That's how Newton saw it.

What is mathematics though, still? You haven't been able to define it? I'm kind of starting to think that maybe mathematics IS defined by the mathematics community.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think we're both perfectly clear on what we're talking about: the 'subject of study'. And I'm not meaning for this to be a competitive debate either, I'm genuinely stimulated by the conversation.

I think it's a great discussion too. Whereas it seems you may form your thoughts by articulating many different facets of an issue, I customarily take one side of an issue and see how sharply I can hone the argument for that position, then revise my thoughts based on that and the response I get to it.

QM is perverse. Maybe the mathematics community fully embraces QM, I have no idea... but I wouldn't think so. (But then, if the mathematics community embracing it determines whether it's mathematics or not... then mathematics is surely invented).

My point is that mathematics may not fit so nicely into the universe as you're led to believe. Perhaps for your every day experiences, sure. Perhaps at the resolution with which you're able to perceive it, there is no flaw. That's how Newton saw it.

Do you regard QM as not being mathematical? (I say with surprise.) I definitely find QM to be perverse too. And statistics as well, come to think of it… the concept of a random variable is somewhat different than the concept of a variable in the rest of mathematics.

⚛​

 

[Pythagorean]

I think it's a great discussion too. Whereas it seems you may form your thoughts by articulating many different facets of an issue, I customarily take one side of an issue and see how sharply I can hone the argument for that position, then revise my thoughts based on that and the response I get to it.

Do you regard QM as not being mathematical? (I say with surprise.) I definitely find QM to be perverse too. And statistics as well, come to think of it… the concept of a random variable is somewhat different than the concept of a variable in the rest of mathematics.

⚛​

I'm somewhat of a pluralist, I suppose. When it comes to making decisions in my everyday life, I'm a bit more decisive but philosophical arguments are generally very arbitrary and there's no wrong answer, but it's an opportunity to discuss real things with less limitations. A sort of brainstorming, anyway. I don't debate for funding or politics, I really just do it to learn and teach.

Well, obviously QM is not math; it's physics, so math is a tool in this context, but I guess I also meant to say that the math in QM is perverse.

As for statistics, I heard a joke the other day that made me laugh (it's probably well known in the math community, but I think it neatly describes one of my main issues with statistics):

Three mathematicians are out on a hunting trip. They see a deer. The first mathlete shoots, and misses, three yards to the right. The second mathlete shoots, and misses three yards to the left. The third mathlete (who happens to specialize in statistics) throws his hands up excitedly and shouts "we got it!"

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Three mathematicians are out on a hunting trip. They see a deer. The first mathlete shoots, and misses, three yards to the right. The second mathlete shoots, and misses three yards to the left. The third mathlete (who happens to specialize in statistics) throws his hands up excitedly and shouts "we got it!"

That's a good one.

⚛​

 

[ZapperZ]

I think we're both perfectly clear on what we're talking about: the 'subject of study'. And I'm not meaning for this to be a competitive debate either, I'm genuinely stimulated by the conversation.

So... as a physics student it's only natural that I think all physical relationships are discovered. The more I study QM, the more bizarre it is that the fundamental building blocks of our universe are able to fit together into a nice clean picture that we can model with so simply in the macro world.

QM is perverse. Maybe the mathematics community fully embraces QM, I have no idea... but I wouldn't think so. (But then, if the mathematics community embracing it determines whether it's mathematics or not... then mathematics is surely invented).

My point is that mathematics may not fit so nicely into the universe as you're led to believe. Perhaps for your every day experiences, sure. Perhaps at the resolution with which you're able to perceive it, there is no flaw. That's how Newton saw it.

What is mathematics though, still? You haven't been able to define it? I'm kind of starting to think that maybe mathematics IS defined by the mathematics community.

Maybe someone has referred to this already in the thread. I didn't check since it is way too long for me to read, especially something on a philosophical issue. But in case you haven't read it or are not aware of it, maybe you should read this Eugene Wigner's article on the unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Zz.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

What is mathematics though, still? You haven't been able to define it? I'm kind of starting to think that maybe mathematics IS defined by the mathematics community.

Sorry, I missed this question earlier. I would say that that mathematics is the study of the internal structure, relationships, patterns, and congruencies within geometries and things that are isomorphic to geometries. Except that I don't literally mean geometries, sort of like I was saying earlier in the thread I think there's something more fundamental than formal geometry and more concretely congruent to the physical world as opposed to the apparent abstraction of mathematical symbols like numbers.

(assuming that you were really asking for my definition of mathematics in the context of this discussion, rather than a definition from the mathematics community.)

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Totally excellent link ZapperZ. Way to fulfill your title of Mentor.

⚛​

 

[Pythagorean]

(assuming that you were really asking for my definition of mathematics in the context of this discussion, rather than a definition from the mathematics community.)

⚛​

I'm willing to bet I could hear the definition a hundred different ways and still have some ambiguity left.

 

[Pythagorean]

Totally excellent link ZapperZ. Way to fulfill your title of Mentor.

⚛​

yes; very fitting to our conversation.

ADDENDUM: to make this post useful, some excerpts from ZZ's link that I like:

On Math and Expression of Relationships Between Things

Secondly, just because of this circumstance, and because we do not understand the reasons of their usefulness, we cannot know whether a theory formulated in terms of mathematical concepts is uniquely appropriate. We are in a position similar to that of a man who was provided with a bunch of keys and who, having to open several doors in succession, always hit on the right key on the first or second trial. He became skeptical concerning the uniqueness of the coordination between keys and doors.

Math in Physics

Naturally, we do use mathematics in everyday physics to evaluate the results of the laws of nature, to apply the conditional statements to the particular conditions which happen to prevail or happen to interest us. In order that this be possible, the laws of nature must already be formulated in mathematical language. However, the role of evaluating the consequences of already established theories is not the most important role of mathematics in physics. Mathematics, or, rather, applied mathematics, is not so much the master of the situation in this function: it is merely serving as a tool.

I could probably read this a few times and pick up something new every time. Very dense.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This bit from it is a fabulous exposition on and pivotal historical example of the synergy between pure mathematics and physics:

“The second example is that of ordinary, elementary quantum mechanics. This originated when Max Born noticed that some rules of computation, given by Heisenberg, were formally identical with the rules of computation with matrices, established a long time before by mathematicians. Born, Jordan, and Heisenberg then proposed to replace by matrices the position and momentum variables of the equations of classical mechanics. They applied the rules of matrix mechanics to a few highly idealized problems and the results were quite satisfactory. However, there was, at that time, no rational evidence that their matrix mechanics would prove correct under more realistic conditions. Indeed, they say ‘if the mechanics as here proposed should already be correct in its essential traits.’

As a matter of fact, the first application of their mechanics to a realistic problem, that of the hydrogen atom, was given several months later, by Pauli. This application gave results in agreement with experience. This was satisfactory but still understandable because Heisenberg's rules of calculation were abstracted from problems which included the old theory of the hydrogen atom. The miracle occurred only when matrix mechanics, or a mathematically equivalent theory, was applied to problems for which Heisenberg's calculating rules were meaningless.

Heisenberg's rules presupposed that the classical equations of motion had solutions with certain periodicity properties; and the equations of motion of the two electrons of the helium atom, or of the even greater number of electrons of heavier atoms, simply do not have these properties, so that Heisenberg's rules cannot be applied to these cases. Nevertheless, the calculation of the lowest energy level of helium, as carried out a few months ago by Kinoshïta at Cornell and by Bazley at the Bureau of Standards, agrees with the experimental data within the accuracy of the observations, which is one part in ten million. Surely in this case we ‘got something out’ of the equations that we did not put in.”

To me this seems emblematic of the quest of science or even scholarship in general: there they were, mathematicians playing around with these fun and intricate matrix operations, then bam! a few decades or centuries later their work ends up pouring Miracle-Gro on the birth of quantum mechanics.

⚛​

 

[Pythagorean]

Heisenberg's rules presupposed that the classical equations of motion had solutions with certain periodicity properties; and the equations of motion of the two electrons of the helium atom, or of the even greater number of electrons of heavier atoms, simply do not have these properties, so that Heisenberg's rules cannot be applied to these cases. Nevertheless, the calculation of the lowest energy level of helium, as carried out a few months ago by Kinoshïta at Cornell and by Bazley at the Bureau of Standards, agrees with the experimental data within the accuracy of the observations, which is one part in ten million. Surely in this case we ‘got something out’ of the equations that we did not put in.”

The approximations that come into QM at this point make my head spin.

I remember feelng like I got hit with a five-car approximation train, BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM! one lecture very recently

 

[CaptainQuasar]

In contrast to Pythagorean's intelligent and insightful comment, http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/12/19" that reminded me of this thread. (The shouting, gesticulating guy would be me, of course.)

⚛​

 

[oldman]

The article by Wigner, so kindly unearthed by Zz, pretty much says it all:

Re WHAT IS MATHEMATICS?, Wigner says: "mathematics is the science of skillful operations with concepts and rules invented just for this purpose. The principal emphasis is on the invention of concepts"

Re WHAT IS PHYSICS? he says: "The physicist is interested in discovering the laws of inanimate nature." (my emphasis).

From sunny, warm SA: I'm off for a few weeks to what I think is the lovliest city there is: Cape Town. So I'm signing off now. Thanks for the company, folks. Great discussion!

Oldman.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Perhaps it demonstrates conceit on my part but if I'm not afraid to disagree with Penrose I'm not afraid to disagree with Wigner (who both, by the way, are physicists, right?)

From sunny, warm SA: I'm off for a few weeks to what I think is the lovliest city there is: Cape Town. So I'm signing off now. Thanks for the company, folks. Great discussion!

Happy trails!

⚛​

 

[krimianl99]

The labels and belief sets related to it are invented, the relations are discovered.

Thus it is mostly discovered in my opinion. It is really just a subset of deductive reasoning anyways to which the same question and answer applies.

 

[salguodojibwa]

mathematics is law

what does life or the universe care of your ponderings. Mathematics is a universal law. It is its own master and was neither discovered nor invented. It sought us out as it has all sentients.

 

[a2tha3]

there is no need for thumbs. We didn't invent them, we're just lucky enough to have them.
in my analogy though, thumbs are discovered, it is the inches that were invented...

This is very interesting to say that the inches were invented, because If I were to apply what you just said to math, but instead of your thumb use numbers (just lucky enough to have them) and then use equations, (which were invented according to your post;consider the equations the inches) then you could come to the conclusion that mathematics was invented.

I have been skimming through this topic, and found some excellent points for both sides.. I wonder would it be fair to say that Some of mathematics was discovered, while other parts of it were invented?

I mean, does it have to 100% invented or 100% discovered?

If you get into geometry, and think of shapes..were those invented? A simple shape in the beginning of time.. (Im sure you can think of some)

Actually I think I can argue everything is invented, because no one has really set restrictions on the word "invented".. does a volcano invent lava?

Forgive if I am not making much sense, I am having a hard time thinking with this dazzling headache, and hope most of you can get the gist of what I am trying to say.

 

[Pythagorean]

I mean, does it have to 100% invented or 100% discovered?

I've been thinking on this

A metaphor would be that if the somebody invents a plane, they can still make discoveries about the plane; discoveries that they did not invent, but are a consequence of their invention.

Discovering something about an invention is obviously discovery, so I can't refute that, but I'm not sure if the mathematics itself is being discovered or discoveries are being made about the mathematics that was invented (i.e. we discover that the mathematics is consistent if we follow the rules... we may discover that two rules we invented imply (or force) a third rule... but was that third rule purely discovered? I think it was invented when the first two rules were invented, and then discovered, but not purely discovered... I guess that's the point I'm getting at...)

In the end I guess there's the hidden question in this topic of whether mathematics exists in nature independent of humans... and I think it does not... I think it's a consequence of the way we think, how we like to organize things in our minds, how much we appreciate things "making sense".

As pointed out in the article that ZapperZ posted, we're lucky that math works out for us in regards to the physical sciences... well, some would call it luck. I call it brute force (a lot of people have been working at this for a lot of centuries... we were bound to get somewhere)

 

[CaptainQuasar]

BTW a related thread I've come across is [THREAD=201057]Tegmark's Mathematical Universe[/THREAD]. Not that I would consider this “Mathematical Universe Hypothesis” to be quite the same thing I'm saying, but it seems like a product of thinking along the same lines about whether mathematics is invented or discovered.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm willing to bet I could hear the definition a hundred different ways and still have some ambiguity left.

Just noticed this from last month: I'd point out that this is true of any definition whatsoever, not just the definition of mathematics. Human languages simply aren't the sort of thing where all ambiguity can be removed.

Along those lines I would mention that the word “discover” is pretty ambiguous in it's own right, e.g. “Christopher Columbus discovered America.” I think that one would have to get more specific about the meanings of the words “discovered” and “invented” before seriously tackling this question.

As I said above, there are of course all sorts of completely trivial ways in which mathematics was invented: mathematics has words in it and words are invented, mathematics uses chalkboards and chalkboards are invented, some constructs in mathematics are clearly just devices that are used to teach mathematics to humans, some constructs in mathematics are intermediate devices to assist humans in understanding more complex mathematical concepts, etc.

Basically my view in this is that considering anything that is present in every single darn field of study - like words, physical paraphernalia, teaching constructs, or intermediate conceptual devices and frameworks - within the scope of inquiry for whether mathematics is discovered or invented, is pointless and not really addressing the question. To put it another way, as I said above, I think the real question is whether the subject of study of mathematics is discovered or invented.

⚛​

 

[krimianl99]

what does life or the universe care of your ponderings. Mathematics is a universal law. It is its own master and was neither discovered nor invented. It sought us out as it has all sentients.

Yeah... Has to be one or the other lol...

Anyways the natural laws and our ideas related to them are two different things. An important distinction to make especially when dealing with concepts like infinity.

You can remove ambiguity by using a special type of definition that refers to the context a word is supposed to be describing. Then you just use deductive reasoning and experiences to determine the properties of that context.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You can remove ambiguity by using a special type of definition that refers to the context a word is supposed to be describing. Then you just use deductive reasoning and experiences to determine the properties of that context.

Ah, well, go ahead and remove the ambiguity from [post=1621309]my definition of mathematics[/post] for Pythagorean, would ya? Thanks.

⚛​

 

[Pythagorean]

To put it another way, as I said above, I think the real question is whether the subject of study of mathematics is discovered or invented.

⚛​

This is where I am too and my point (to a certain degree) is there is no 'subject of study' outside of your mind. Our brains have evolved (for some reason or another) to be able to think in a way that's mathematic-like. This is not special alone (there are animals that can 'count'). What is special about it to us is that we have self-awareness (or at least the illusion of it) and we can philosophize about the technique we use naturally, and eventually come to an agreement (remember, this is purely a human agreement about mathematics... and furthermore it's an agreement between a VERY SMALL fraction of the human race). These agreements are... (axioms perhaps). Only humans care or think about these axioms. The way beasts use 'mathematics' is the way you run from a swarm of bees as opposed to running from a bee... or would rush out of the way of a water tower dumping it's contents on you, but wouldn't be so frightened by the rain.

Mathematics rose out of human contemplations of interaction with the physical world. How we perceive the physical world is not perfect... we are limited to our sensory and processing. As a result of our supposed self-awareness, we are able to use our imagination to predict things that we can't sense... and it is from this that math was born... and pushed and poked and prodded to fit into place with the physical world. In fact, no mathematical formula will ever be able to predict a real-world event with 100% accuracy (down to the location of every elementary particle at given time...)

Time and space do not flow 1,2,3,4 like we imagine... order is a severely unstable thing in the real world... We're too huge (and too tiny) to notice the complete aspect of reality. Mathematics is a sort of human utopia, an Elysium Fields in this aspect that helps us to imagine beyond our senses.

 

[kenewbie]

I want to propose a neat little view I have on this:

Until such time as we have a working theory of everything that can be proved (which also requires a working way to prove something), *everything* is inventions. e v e r y t h i n g.

We are making stuff up to describe the what we see, until such time where we discover the truth.

k

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This is where I am too and my point (to a certain degree) is there is no 'subject of study' outside of your mind.

Then are you saying that you do not believe mathematics nor things isomorphic to it would be duplicated by a distant alien species, because they do not have human minds?

Mathematics rose out of human contemplations of interaction with the physical world.

That sounds like a physicist's description of mathematics. As a computer engineer I'm inclined to disagree and an accountant for example might disagree as well.

Modern computers obey Turing and von Neumann's principles not because those guys had modern computers to study and extrapolate from and not because modern computers were built to obey those principles, but because mathematical concepts like Turing machines and the various things they're isomorphic to are describing something that exists external to the human mind, some congruence in reality that is fundamental enough to be apparent both in the physical world and in mental/logical function and analysis in general.

In fact, no mathematical formula will ever be able to predict a real-world event with 100% accuracy (down to the location of every elementary particle at given time...)

Time and space do not flow 1,2,3,4 like we imagine... order is a severely unstable thing in the real world... We're too huge (and too tiny) to notice the complete aspect of reality. Mathematics is a sort of human utopia, an Elysium Fields in this aspect that helps us to imagine beyond our senses.

I again think you're talking about physics here. Physics is the discipline that concerns itself with building perfect models of the universe, then falls continuously short in its Sisyphean effort. This is almost like one field of study making Freudian projections on another.

⚛​

 

[Pythagorean]

This is almost like one field of study making Freudian projections on another.

⚛​

this made me smile

Then are you saying that you do not believe mathematics nor things isomorphic to it would be duplicated by a distant alien species, because they do not have human minds?

no, I think this is irrelevant.

The point is that without self-consciousness, mathematics does not exist. Aliens can be defined as hive-like or human like (up to the imagination so far) but either way my fundamental view remains the same. Mathematics is a product of self-consciousness.

I again think you're talking about physics here. Physics is the discipline that concerns itself with building perfect models of the universe, then falls continuously short in its Sisyphean effort.

Absolutely, I am... things like accounting follow human rules... of course things will work out perfect there... it's and invention designed to work with a previous invention (mathematics) for human comfort and ease!

All perfect models in mathematics are without doubt inventions (abstractions of human thinking). The only thing that can be discovered is the physical world outside of our brains. If there was no physical world, there would be no reason for a consciousness to create mathematics.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

It seems to me that we may have looped back to a trivial sense of "invented". If every product or analytic activity of self-consciousness is invented then everything is invented, whether or not the invention is prompted by something completely external to all conscious minds.

⚛​

 

[Pythagorean]

It seems to me that we may have looped back to a trivial sense of "invented". If every product or analytic activity of self-consciousness is invented then everything is invented, whether or not the invention is prompted by something completely external to all conscious minds.

⚛​

Not exactly. We all adhere to the same physical reality, everybody doesn't get to invent their own physics... but scientists (like Newton) do invent the math (or symbolism/diagrams) to help them understand the physical world. We're pattern making creatures, it's absolutely in our nature. We invented supernatural things to explain phenomena so that the pattern could be fulfilled. Math is a more sophisticated version of this need for us to complete patterns to make sense of things.

 

[meaw]

Is Maths correct ?

Hi,
This is my first posting. I wonder while we are spending so much time and energy in redefining either QM or GR, has anyone tried redefining Maths?
Here is why I think we should take a fresh look at Maths.

1. Neton said - space, time, mass and all other fundamental quanties are absolute. some derived quantities like velocity are relative. Laws of nature are absolute.

2. Einstein said - Only Laws of nature are absolute, space-time-mass everything is relative

3. GR said, space-time is not only relative, they freaking bend too !

4. I say - not even maths is absolute, it should vary too!

I have objection to Platonic view of absolute mathmatical reality. Why should mathematics be absolute, just because it makes life easier to assume so?

what if 1+1 is not 2 always. Under heavy curvature of spacetimemass, 1+1 may be 1.5.
In other word let the number line be bent :) any problem ?

Does anyone know if there are other who may have been thinking like this idiot ?
I consulted the doc, he suggested I should do some Yoga !

 

[oldman]

Not exactly. We all adhere to the same physical reality, everybody doesn't get to invent their own physics... but scientists (like Newton) do invent the math (or symbolism/diagrams) to help them understand the physical world. We're pattern making creatures, it's absolutely in our nature. We invented supernatural things to explain phenomena so that the pattern could be fulfilled. Math is a more sophisticated version of this need for us to complete patterns to make sense of things.

Since it has seemed such a struggle for folk to decide whether maths is invented or discovered, or indeed what maths IS, it might be worthwhile to go back to beginnings and consider where maths came from, and what kind of animals develop and use it. I've now suggested this in another thread (What is maths?).

I fully agree with what you say here. We are driven to make and recognise patterns and, I'd add, to talk about and describe them almost ad infinitum. Witness this thread!