Convert a philosophical statement to a mathematical formula?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of converting the philosophical statement "Nothing matters" into a mathematical formula. Participants explore various approaches to this conversion, touching on models from symbolic logic and set theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the feasibility of converting non-mathematical statements into mathematical equations without selecting a specific model, suggesting that multiple models exist.
  • Another participant proposes a set-theoretic representation, indicating that the set of things that matter is empty, denoted as \mathcal{M}=\emptyset.
  • A different participant expresses a preference for symbolic logic, presenting a formula that asserts no element in the set of Things has the property of Matters.
  • Some participants engage in a side discussion about the aesthetics of mathematical symbols, particularly the existential quantifier represented as an upside down 'E'.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a single method for converting the statement into a mathematical formula, with multiple competing views and models being proposed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ambiguity in defining what constitutes a "model" for such conversions and the subjective nature of choosing mathematical representations for philosophical statements.

phnud
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to convert the statement 'Nothing matters' to a formula?

Thanks in advance.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There is no single "correct" way. In general, there is no way to change any non-mathematical statement into a mathematical equation (or other mathematical statement) without choosing a specific "model". And there are always an infinite number of ways of doing that.
 
Thanks for your response.

Can you possible steer me in the right direction for choosing a model? This is not my field. I am a writer briefly dipping his toe into an ocean of numbers.
 
phnud said:
Can you possible steer me in the right direction for choosing a model? This is not my field. I am a writer briefly dipping his toe into an ocean of numbers.

[tex]\mathcal{M}=\emptyset[/tex], where [tex]\mathcal{M}[/tex] is the set of things that matter.
 
Thank you, CRGreathouse.
 
I would prefer symbolic logic over sets to mathematics,

For all x: x is an element of Things, it is not true that there exists an x with property Matters.

[tex]\forall x: x \! \in Things, \neg (\exists x \vee x \in Matters)[/tex]

Besides, the upside down E's and A's are cool.
 
Phrak said:
Besides, the upside down E's and A's are cool.

I like it! They're very cool.
 
Phrak said:
Besides, the upside down E's and A's are cool.

Upside down E's ? :rolleyes:
 
Jarle said:
Upside down E's ? :rolleyes:

The existential operator typeset as an upside down 'E.

http://wapedia.mobi/math/XGV4aXN0c3t4fXtcaW59XG1hdGhiZntYfVwsIFAoeCk=
It is not a mirrored 'E. Note the position of the middle bar.
The Mathfont used in PF does not do this justice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
901
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K