• Aiden
    1
    Math fundamentally seems to be a system that was invented as a way to further master and categorize the world we found ourselves in. It's a thing that has evolved in many ways becoming ever more complex although still relatively sticking to its fundamentals as a core. It is assumed by many with the proper application of maths we can eventually solve and conquer everything in our universe.

    My question is why does a system whos core principles were invented thousands of years ago have the potential to explain all things. it seems kinda egocentric to me to believe that a human-built system has such power. It's said that math is a universal language do to the idea that any intelligent species will have created, or in this case, discovered the concept of maths. This seems like a form of projection to me as you must assume that any other intelligent life will have the human aspect that makes them have to be able to add and subtract to figure things out. Is there a limit to mathematics? and is it possible to be advanced without having a system of math?



    I'm sorry if this isn't proper for this forum, this is my first attempt at a post so I don't really know what I'm doing.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    It wasn’t really ‘invented’. Roger Penrose has a nice way of summing up ‘reality,’ ‘mathematics’ and ‘consciousness’ by saying they all appear to operate under different sets of ‘rules’/‘laws’ yet they are also intertwined with each other.

    I haven’t come across any arguments for psychologism that don’t have gaping holes in them.

    A great many mathematical discoveries are made without any regard for the physical world. Long after such discoveries people do, sometimes, find that these discoveries are of practical use in terms of modeling reality - physics and mathematics feed of each other quite a lot (some would even argue they are different sides of the same entity).
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    My question is why does a system whos core principles were invented thousands of years ago have the potential to explain all things.Aiden

    Because we tailored math do to so [PDF]:

    "Human beings function like sieves that pick and choose from among thoughts and ideas. We bundle the thoughts that are related by symmetry of semantics and declare such statements to be mathematics. We do not say that there exists some perfect mathematical truths and we humans find many different instances of that truth. Rather, we say that there are many different instances of a mathematical fact and we humans bundle them together to form a clear mathematical statement.

    .... Both the physicist and the mathematician chose their statements to be applicable in many different contexts. We bundle perceived physical phenomena in the same way we bundle instances of mathematical truth. It is not a mystery that the abstract laws of physics are stated in the abstract language of mathematics. Rather the regularities of phenomena and thoughts are seen and chosen by human beings in the same way."
  • jgill
    3.9k
    A question that arises from time to time. If one were to accept Tegmark's Mathematical Universe concept the question is seen in a different context though an answer remains problematic. Apparently it's not known whether Tegmark himself has confidence in his ideas. As a retired mathematician, the MU seems far-fetched but intriguing. Other than that, who can argue with Einstein? :cool:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.