- #1

Icebreaker

Would you say it's

**discovered**or**invented**?- Thread starter Icebreaker
- Start date

- #1

Icebreaker

Would you say it's **discovered ** or **invented**?

- #2

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus

Gold Member

- 827

- 15

- #3

- 163

- 0

It presumes no such thing. Perhaps not all forms of intelligent beings are able to comprehend mathematics. Some intelligent beings might find it easy, some might find it hard (I think we fit in this category), and some might find it incomprehensible. Who knows?Kerrie said:To say that Mathematics is discovered has the presumption that any form of intelligent life in our universe has the ability to understand Math also.

Again, I don't see this as being necessarily so. There is no proof that reality is constructed along mathematical lines. There is only data perceived and interpreted by humans that suggests reality may follow mathematical laws. Again, who knows?To say that Math is invented is doubting the existence of the reality we are a part of, which can be a disruptive thought to many.

- #4

- 27

- 0

so my answer is this: math is a means to describe physical reality much like language is a means to describe our thoughts, while physical reality and our thoughts exist independently of the way they are desribed. therefore, both math and language were invented to describe concepts already discovered.

this post took me

- #5

Icebreaker

Physics is the means to describe reality. You don't really *need* math in physics to actually describe it -- you can do it in english. It just happens that using math in physics is a lot more practical. Math wasn't invented/discovered with the sole purpose of describing reality.

Saying that math is "discovered", assumes that an answer exists whether we know it or not, and it is only a matter of time before we find it. Saying otherwise means that an answer may not exist... but what it means, I can't really interpret.

Saying that math is "discovered", assumes that an answer exists whether we know it or not, and it is only a matter of time before we find it. Saying otherwise means that an answer may not exist... but what it means, I can't really interpret.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #6

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus

Gold Member

- 827

- 15

So, you have lent your constructive criticism on my answer, now where is yours? Is math invented or discovered, and why do you think so?cragwolf said:It presumes no such thing. Perhaps not all forms of intelligent beings are able to comprehend mathematics. Some intelligent beings might find it easy, some might find it hard (I think we fit in this category), and some might find it incomprehensible. Who knows?

Again, I don't see this as being necessarily so. There is no proof that reality is constructed along mathematical lines. There is only data perceived and interpreted by humans that suggests reality may follow mathematical laws. Again, who knows?

- #7

- 74

- 0

Mathematics is an idea.

- #8

arildno

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 9,970

- 132

- #9

- 27

- 0

i think math was "invented"Icebreaker said:Physics is the means to describe reality. You don't reallyneedmath in physics to actually describe it -- you can do it in english. It just happens that using math in physics is a lot more practical. Math wasn't invented/discovered with the sole purpose of describing reality.

Saying that math is "discovered", assumes that an answer exists whether we know it or not, and it is only a matter of time before we find it. Saying otherwise means that an answer may not exist... but what it means, I can't really interpret.

edit: we know an answer exist by the very definition of a problem. whether you find it's logical or not .. well, that's subjective.

honestly, i don't understand why you equate the discovery of math with a logical universe.

Last edited:

- #10

saltydog

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 1,582

- 3

We create Mathematics as a metaphor for our perceptions (discovery). In our absence there is no Mathematics. The earth revolved around the sun before we got here but the math describing it wasn't.

SD

- #11

Icebreaker

I did? Where?etc said:honestly, i don't understand why you equate the discovery of math with a logical universe.

- #12

- 27

- 0

i can only assume that by "answer" you meant something logical ( because math is ruled by logical principals ).Saying that math is "discovered", assumes that an answer exists whether we know it or not, and it is only a matter of time before we find it.

yes, no, maybe?

- #13

- 416

- 1

I'm currently writing on a book I call,Icebreaker said:Mathematics. Would you say it'sdiscoveredorinvented?

I am completely convinced that the following conditional statement is true.

Obviously is isn't incorrect even every detail. Fortunately most of mathematics is on solid ground. In fact the bulk of mathematics from the early Greeks up until about 1850 is salvageable. This even includes the calculus which was introduced around 1700.

However, around 1850 (or shortly thereafter) the mathematical community has made a terrible wrong turn away from the ontological

Please note that I'm not saying that

Unfortunately I believe that you will find that the vast majority of modern mathematicians are all for continuing on this path. Most of them are not the least bit concerned whether mathematics correctly reflects any quantitative ontological behavior that the universe might exhibit. In fact, most of them will argue that it isn't even the purpose of mathematics to address or be concerned with such issues.

I totally disagree of course. I believe that there is a lot to gain from understanding just which parts of mathematics were

- #14

- 163

- 0

Yes, but don't take it personally.Kerrie said:So, you have lent your constructive criticism on my answer, now where is yours?

My answer is: I don't know.Is math invented or discovered, and why do you think so?

- #15

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus

Gold Member

- 827

- 15

Well, you must know something if you are in a position to critisize! That's a pet peeve of mine-able to tear up one's argument but have none of your own.cragwolf said:My answer is: I don't know.

Perhaps there are other forms of intelligent beings who comprehend math beyond what we do. When I said if math was discovered, we automatically assume that it is "real" and thus other forms of life would be able to discover it too. Being disovered means our mathematical formulas aren't just "made" by humans, but exist for any form of intelligent life to discover as well.It presumes no such thing. Perhaps not all forms of intelligent beings are able to comprehend mathematics.

Note I did say the reality "we are a part of". If you and I agree that 2 + 2 = 4, then I can safely say that we are of the same reality.There is no proof that reality is constructed along mathematical lines. There is only data perceived and interpreted by humans that suggests reality may follow mathematical laws.

So crag, what is your criticism of this idea? And why?I lean towards the idea we invented the language of math once we discovered how it works.

- #16

Les Sleeth

Gold Member

- 2,166

- 2

What are you talking about? No proof? What kind of proof do you need before you accept that major aspects of physical reality, at least, can be mapped by math? That is either an incredibly ignorant statement or you are just being contrary.cragwolf said:There is no proof that reality is constructed along mathematical lines. There is only data perceived and interpreted by humans that suggests reality may follow mathematical laws. Again, who knows?

- #17

Les Sleeth

Gold Member

- 2,166

- 2

Imagine a universe where there is nothing but absolute chaos. Will math work? Even if you say probabilities can be formulated, if the chaos is absolute, probability is shot to hell.

Math is a language that corresponds to the order that exists in our universe. The more order there is in a situation, the better math works; the less order there is, the more one has to fall back on probabilities.

We*invented* the math, but we could only because we *discovered* that order is solidly part of our universe.

Math is a language that corresponds to the order that exists in our universe. The more order there is in a situation, the better math works; the less order there is, the more one has to fall back on probabilities.

We

Last edited:

- #18

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 6,786

- 8

True in general, but the amount of order required for math to get a grip is constantly being reduced - and probability is no longer the only recourse. Consider complex systems and deterministic chaos, two fields that have grown up in my lifetime, to handle stuff that would have been a mytery to the greatest when I was a kid. Or consider consider the evolution of thermodynamics from Clausius (linear closed systems at equilibrium) to Onsager (linear open systems near equilibrium) to the present (nonlinear open systems far from equilibrium).Les Sleeth said:Math is a language that corresponds to the order that exists in our universe. The more order there is in a situation, the better math works; the less order there is, the more one has to fall back on probabilities.

- #19

Les Sleeth

Gold Member

- 2,166

- 2

Well, I'm nothing if not a generalist.selfAdjoint said:True in general . . .

But would you still agree: no order, no math.selfAdjoint said:. . . the amount of order required for math to get a grip is constantly being reduced

Last edited:

- #20

- 163

- 0

You do know the difference between proof and supporting evidence?Les Sleeth said:What are you talking about? No proof? What kind of proof do you need before you accept that major aspects of physical reality, at least, can be mapped by math? That is either an incredibly ignorant statement or you are just being contrary.

- #21

Les Sleeth

Gold Member

- 2,166

- 2

Absolutely, it is one of my favorite subjects. I think, however, you've chosen the wrong subject to be skeptical about. Order in this universe is likely more confirmed than any other single property.cragwolf said:You do know the difference between proof and supporting evidence?

- #22

- 43

- 0

X-RAy was discovered!!Icebreaker said:Would you say it'sdiscoveredorinvented?

mathematics was definitely invented, don't forget the imaginary numbers..

square root of -1 i

Last edited:

- #23

- 76

- 0

The fact that we write 33 as 33 and not as "-, is due to maths as a language. But the fact that 33 + 33 = 66 is a law of the universe.

Basically, I'm getting confused.

- #24

- 43

- 0

Yeah I guess you can call it grammar of size, shape, and order…

- #25

- 416

- 1

The whole idea of negative absolute numbers is an invention. In reality (that is to say that ontologically speaking) the universe never displays anMicroburst said:X-RAy was discovered!!

mathematics was definitely invented, don't forget the imaginary numbers..

square root of -1 i

Number is suppose to be the idea of a cardinal property of a set or collection of things. So how can we imagine a set that contains less than no objects? We can't. The idea of negativity is actually a concept that has to do with relationships between sets. So the idea that there can be an "absolute" number -1 us absurd. All that can exist is the number 1 that has a property of being negatively relative to some other quantity. How the mathematical community as a whole let that one get by is completely beyond me.

Imaginary numbers are actually the same type of thing. They represent ontological ideas of quantity, but the

If you give me 3 bucks, it looks negative to you, but it looks positive to me. Yet the actual quantity is always 3. The negativity doesn't belong to the concept of number. It's a relative property between sets,

The idea of

This is one very good illustration why mathematics is

Yes, current mathematical formalism most certainly is an

Unfortunately we didn't take that route so modern mathematics turned out to become a mere whimsical invention that may or may not reflect the true nature of the universe. Most mathematicians don't seem to be very concerned about whether its ontologically correct anyway. They're having too much fun satisfying arbitrary axioms.