↪Sir2u Sorry for butting in, but the universe was behaving in a mathematical way (physics + chemistry) long before humans (biology) even entered the fray so to speak. I dunno, just saying. — Agent Smith

:grin: :up:

Do you acknowledge that the numbers we put onto material objects describe what was already there before human started writing numbers? — ucarr

If you acknowledge that humans spoke the numbers for thousands of years before they wrote then yes, I can do that.
But that just means that numbers were invented for counting before writing was invented for accounting. It in no way shows that numbers are part of the articles they describe.

Sorry for butting in, but the universe was behaving in a mathematical way (physics + chemistry) long before humans (biology) even entered the fray so to speak. I dunno, just saying. — Agent Smith

Actually, you are right and wrong. Could something be described mathematically if math has not been invented?
Colors have always existed, drab brown being one of the worst ever imagined. But until someone invented a method of naming them. Now it has the illustrious name of Pantone 448 C. Could it be possible that the same has happened to numbers?
We now use math to describe the universe, but we had to invent the math(numbers and equations) to explain it, to make the calculations fit reality. And a lot of explanations turn out to be wrong.

Read my reply. :cool: :smirk:

Actually, you are right and wrong. Could something be described mathematically if math has not been invented?
Colors have always existed, drab brown being one of the worst ever imagined. But until someone invented a method of naming them. Now it has the illustrious name of Pantone 448 C. Could it be possible that the same has happened to numbers?
We now use math to describe the universe, but we had to invent the math(numbers and equations) to explain it, to make the calculations fit reality. And a lot of explanations turn out to be wrong. — Sir2u

I see. I'm right and wrong. Right in that the mathematical laws of nature preexisted humans, but then, this is where I err, humans had to invent the math necessary to describe these laws.

Since I acknowledge that humans spoke of the numbers of things (perhaps without using the word "number") thousands of years before they developed the writing of numbers, you, therefore, per your stipulation, acknowledge that humans put numbers onto material objects to describe what was already there before they developed the writing of numbers?

...numbers were invented for counting... — Sir2u

Since you've made this statement, do you acknowledge that material things are countable?

Could something be described mathematically if math has not been invented? — Sir2u

Could something be described fluxmatically if math has not been invented? Could something be described noxmixically if math has not been invented? Could something be described (fill in the blank with your own word) if math has not been invented? Could something be described...

Colors have always existed, drab brown being one of the worst ever imagined. But until someone invented a method of naming them. Now it has the illustrious name of Pantone 448 C. Could it be possible that the same has happened to numbers? — Sir2u

Since I can write a sentence in parallel to your sentence, do you acknowledge that if your sentence is valid, then my sentence is valid? See my parallel sentence below.

Numbers have always existed, 3.1415929... being one of the worst ever imagined. Then [but until] someone invented a method of naming them. Now it has the illustrious name of Pi. Could it be possible that the same has happened to colors?

We now use math to describe the universe... — Sir2u

Since you have made the above statement, do you think if follows that the universe, which pre-dates human math, has always been describable via the language of math?

we had to invent the math(numbers and equations) to explain it, to make the calculations fit reality. And a lot of explanations turn out to be wrong. — Sir2u

Do you agree that when you say, "humans had to invent the math to explain the universe," you are saying, again, that math was invented to explain the innately mathematical nature of the universe?

Do you agree that from this it follows that math expresses its form and content in connection with the form and content of the universe?

Do you agree that when you talk of math striving to fit reality, and sometimes failing, you imply that math fails in its core mission when it doesn't fit reality?

I have asked you if you would give 2-stone and 3-stone the same number. Are you unwilling to answer this question?

Right in that the mathematical laws of nature preexisted humans — Agent Smith

How could they exist if math had not been invented. The universe exist before humans did, and humans wanted to describe it. So they invented the names of colors, shapes, sizes and many other characteristics that objects have. Mathematical laws are made by mankind to do that job, describe. They are nothing more than a specialized language.
Math is the human's way of describing the universe's characteristics as well but they had to do a lot of trying to get the formulas to fit the reality. And they have still a very long way to go and a lot of methods to invent to get to the end.
We humans believe that it must be a universal way of describing things, even going to the extent of send mathematical messages into space in the hope that beings from other worlds will understand the concepts. Maybe they will but there is always the possibility that they have other methods of doing it.

therefore, per your stipulation, acknowledge that humans put numbers onto material objects to describe what was already there before they developed the writing of numbers? — ucarr

Yes, just as they put colors, shapes and lots of other stuff.

Since you've made this statement, do you acknowledge that material things are countable? — ucarr

Of course they are, did I not make it clear enough that was the reason for inventing numbers.

Could something be described fluxmatically if math has not been invented? Could something be described noxmixically if math has not been invented? Could something be described (fill in the blank with your own word) if math has not been invented? Could something be described... — ucarr

Oh dear, you do go on a bit don't you. And you are good at invent gobbledygook. Humans need to describe things, they will always find a way to do so. A river gets deeper one day and some measures it at 5 meters, the next day someone else measures it a 17 feet. Did the level rise or lower? Metric and standard are two methods of measuring, but both describe the depth of the river. There are many examples of measuring systems for anything that can be measured. And they have all been invent by humans.

Numbers have always existed, 3.1415929... being one of the worst ever imagined. Then [but until] someone invented a method of naming them. Now it has the illustrious name of Pi. Could it be possible that the same has happened to colors? — ucarr

Would we even know about Pi if someone had not invented a method to work it out and describe it? The same goes for black holes, they say that they have always been there, but until recently they have invent the mathematical equations to more or less prove their existence.

Since you have made the above statement, do you think if follows that the universe, which pre-dates human math, has always been describable via the language of math? — ucarr

I suppose it has, and I know that is the only method of doing so that humans have discovered. But I cannot be sure whether other methods exist or not, and neither can you. All we know is what the science department has told us.

Do you agree that from this it follows that math expresses its form and content in connection with the form and content of the universe? — ucarr

That is what humans made it for, it would not exist still if it did not work to some extent.

Do you agree that when you talk of math striving to fit reality, and sometimes failing, you imply that math fails in its core mission when it doesn't fit reality? — ucarr

If math was perfect why did it take so long and have so many theories thrown out or overturned by new theories? If the math had been there all along why does it need to change. The simple reason is that while the universe is describable mathematically humans have still not figured out all of the math necessary to do the job and are still working on invent new ideas and methods to do so.

I have asked you if you would give 2-stone and 3-stone the same number. Are you unwilling to answer this question? — ucarr

I honestly thought you were joking when you asked such a ridiculous question. But I think that you yourself answered it when you called both of them piles of stones. Same name would even fit 20-stone.

If math was perfect why did it take so long and have so many theories thrown out or overturned by new theories? If the math had been there all along why does it need to change. The simple reason is that while the universe is describable mathematically humans have still not figured out all of the math necessary to do the job and are still working on invent new ideas and methods to do so. — Sir2u

The reason is more likely that most of the universe has no mathematical structure. Already three bodies interacting gravitationally do not move on mathematically well-defined ways, unless specific boundary conditions are fulfilled. So a mathematical universe is a fiction, a myth.

Material Numbers
If a thing has many uses within the real world, is that proof of its reality? — ucarr

I suppose you're indirectly asking if Reality is necessarily Material or Physical. The Non-Physical Reality thread is seeking a similar clarification of Realness. :nerd:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12585/non-physical-reality

My questions originate from the opposite end of the continuum. — ucarr

I take this to mean you think numbers are metaphysical, however everything you listed as properties of numbers originated from your personal brain state which in a neurological sense is entirely physical and doesn't need a metaphysical explanation.

Likewise, the use of numbers by others is always inseparable from brain state. Can you show any way numbers exist in the absence of a biological brain state?

For me, the question of 'what is information?' is answered by brain state and brain state only. The question of 'what are numbers?' is a sub category of information and answered as brain state and brain state only. If your brain projects some meaning to the external environment that would be a false perception and it is still only a physical brain state holding a concept of numbers.

Wittgenstein has elaborated an argument against numbers being metaphysical.

My questions originate from the opposite end of the continuum. — ucarr

I take this to mean you think numbers are metaphysical — Mark Nyquist

Your inference about my intentions makes perfect sense, however, my language is faulty, and thus your conclusion is opposite of what I tried & failed to communicate.

In the above statement, I was trying to say that while Wittgenstein was promoting the physicality of numbers by attacking their metaphysicality, I am promoting the physicality of numbers by establishing their objective materiality.

What you inferred is much closer to what I wrote but didn't intend, hence you correctly misinterpreted what I incorrectly expressed. (How's that for labrynthine mishegoss?)

All of the above is to inform you that, given my physicalist intentions re: numbers, your position & mine are not on opposite sides of the aisle.

I'm not perfectly clear on whether or not you allow that number is a physical attribute present in material objects. Since the brain is a material object, and you believe information is answered by brain state and brain state only, this would seem to indicate you do make such allowance.

But then you conclude by saying,

If your brain projects some meaning to the external environment that would be a false perception and it is still only a physical brain state holding a concept of numbers. — Mark Nyquist

Since you put stock in the physicality of numbers via neural networks, how do you reconcile this with saying the ascription of numericality to the external environment is a false perception?

...most of the universe has no mathematical structure. Already three bodies interacting gravitationally do not move on mathematically well-defined ways, unless specific boundary conditions are fulfilled. So a mathematical universe is a fiction, a myth. — EugeneW

I say "not mathematically well-defined" and "non-mathematical" are two different things. Moreover, "not mathematically well-defined" does not do away with the abundance of mathematically well-defined physics. (Is not the warpage of spacetime by celestial bodies well-defined?)

This tells me your conclusions that, "most of the universe has no mathematical structure" and "the mathematical universe is a fiction," in light of the evidence provided, are cognitive leaps. Can you support them with evidence more decisive?

P.S. You can throw open the shutters onto a new vista for me by detailing a non-mathematical physics.

f a thing has many uses within the real world, is that proof of its reality?
— ucarr
I suppose you're indirectly asking if Reality is necessarily Material or Physical. — Gnomon

I don't take it that far. With the above I'm implying that establishing the physicality of a thing is a good means of establishing the reality of a thing.

I haven't jumped to the conclusion physical reality precludes non-physical reality.

I'm not perfectly clear on whether or not you allow that number is a physical attribute present in material objects. Since the brain is a material object, and you believe information is answered by brain state and brain state only, this would seem to indicate you do make such allowance. — ucarr

Well, yes, I see it as my brain holding or containing the physical or numerical attributes of an external material object. That's my view and thanks for clarifying your original post. I'll try to read some more here.

I went round and round last summer on the 'What is information?' question and there never was much consensus so you might find the same pattern for a 'What are numbers?' question.

Duplicate deleted.

Since you've made this statement, do you acknowledge that material things are countable?
— ucarr

Of course they are, did I not make it clear enough that was the reason for inventing numbers. — Sir2u

I think your affirmation here forms the heart of our discussion.

We both know that material things are countable. This means material things can be counted.

Something about material things makes them countable.

Mind you, the language that does the counting, math, does not make material things countable.

Being countable is part of the makeup, part of the being of material things.

Math, the language of counting, only entails the means of counting; it doesn't create the possibility of something being countable; it merely provides a means for doing the counting of countable things.

We know this because, as you've been saying, human mathematicians are still struggling to count certain things for which the mathematical expression is not yet resolved.

We suspect that these as yet uncountable things will eventually become countable, when their mathematical expression gets resolved, but the fact of their being countable prior to math being able to actually do the counting makes it logically clear that math does not impart countability to these material things, otherwise we would not struggle to count them. Instead, all we would have to do is create some math that imparts countability to these things and then they would be countable.

We both know that's not how the world works.

Something about material things makes them countable. — ucarr

Being countable means being able to be placed in a one-to-one relationship with the integers (or counting numbers). The integers are a human invention. Being placed in a one-to-one relationship is a human activity. Being countable is not a property of material things sans humans. Or minds, at least (corvids, monkeys, etc. may be able to count).

Math, by definition, does make material things countable.

How could they exist if math had not been invented. — Sir2u

Well, what about cosmology - the Big Bang Theory for example? Scientists project backwards from the knowns of the present - speed of expansion of the universe (accelerating), estimates of mass of the universe, etc. - and they find that the universe must've begun 13.8 billion years ago. Then they searched for corroborative evidence and found it as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). All these projections into the past are mathematical in nature. In other words, given humans are only a 300k year old species, it follows that the universe was mathematical way before humans came into existence.

The reason is more likely that most of the universe has no mathematical structure. Already three bodies interacting gravitationally do not move on mathematically well-defined ways, unless specific boundary conditions are fulfilled. So a mathematical universe is a fiction, a myth. — EugeneW

Thank you. At least someone else understands that math is just another language used to describe the universe. :100: :party:

Since you put stock in the physicality of numbers via neural networks, how do you reconcile this with saying the ascription of numericality to the external environment is a false perception? — ucarr

Something to test any model of material numbers is to understand that material numbers can only exist in the physical present. Any numbers that references the past or future cannot physically exist in a past or future location but must exist in a present physical form (brain state only). This should point out the necessity of numbers physically existing as brain state only. So references to past numbers can only exist in the physical present and the most obvious form is physical brain state...dynamic neural networks that physically exist in the physical present only.

When we think about material numbers it may be in a framework of a time continuum but the material state can only be in the physical present and located in a physical brain.

Let me open the shutter and give you a bright shining vista. A belvedere. Spacetime is curved, and curvature can be quantified, by tensors. Ricci tensors, Einstein tensors, metric tensors, Riemann tensors, mass-energy tensors, or whatever tensors. The are collections, tuples of tuples, of number concerning positions and lengths, time and durations, a lot of (partial, directional, single or multiple) derivatives thereof, and a dual flat, Minkowskian, (co)tangent space is introduced locally, to facilitate calculations.

Then on this space particles fields couple with an eternal and all-pervading field of virtual particles by means of which they reach out to other particles (Haag's theorem says virtual particles are math constructs, but a similar argument can be constructed for real particles). If they get no interaction, they will get lost in space hopelessly.

These particles and their couplings to the virtual field (by charges, which are considered the generators of the force mediating fields, giving the misleading image of force being the result of particle exchange, which doesn't happen), these particles and their couplings to the to the virtual fields between them (the intermediary fields, like the field of intermediary vector bosons in the weak interaction, or the photons between charged particles), are described by quantum fields, as you certainly know.

The coupling to the virtual fields, and the couplings of these fields to other virtual fields, is represented by Feynman diagrams. There are an infinity of them, corresponding to increasing numbers of interactions with and of the virtual "glue". The charge of particles determines the glue strength, i.e. the coupling strength. If this coupling is strong, like is the case for the color force in the strong nuclear force holding quarks together, the
Feynman diagrams contribute more and more instead of less and less, as is the case in the electrons interacting. And because quarks can never be asymptotically free, the perturbation approach can't be used to describe quark interacting with other quarks, as the perturbation approach assumes the particles to be free before and after the interaction. If the quarks are close to each other, the effective coupling is small, letting them run fairly free while forming a proton, neutron, pion, or more generally, hadrons and mesons.

To describe the motion of these quarks the approach with Feynman diagrams (the perturbative approach) won't work. There are other non-perturbative approaches like those lattice calculations assuming a discrete structure of spacetime. Supercomputers are used to do calculations in this color charged realm.

So perturbative QFT is applicable in a very limited domain, and extending it to curved spacetime complicates the the app. QFT in curved spacetime was used by Hawking in his description of the eponymous radiation. But the calculation is approximate. It's rather well understood, but there is no connection involved between the information inside and the radiation. This connection has been established recently (by entanglement), but there is no consensus.
So the math never describes exactly and at most approximations can be made. Which simply means no exact structures exist. Which means they don't exist at all.

Thank you. At least someone else understands that math is just another language used to describe the universe. :100: — Sir2u

Indeed. And anyone claiming it to be a universal language is unconsciously adoring an absolute god. Which is present for everyone. The universal god.

Something about material things makes them countable.

Mind you, the language that does the counting, math, does not make material things countable.

Being countable is part of the makeup, part of the being of material things. — ucarr

Could that something that makes them countable be their presence? Based on the idea that you cannot count things that are not there to be counted, maybe this is so.
I can count my ideas about how to solve a problem, I can count sheep on the field or in my mind, I can even count how many times you have failed to provide any detailed proof to back up your way of thinking. But I find it incredibly hard to count nothing. You try it, how many diphthongs are in the following paragraph?



How many did you find? None I guess.
You did not find any because there were none to find, If I had written any there they would have been easy to find.
The logical conclusion is that what makes objects countable is simple their presence.

We suspect that these as yet uncountable things will eventually become countable, when their mathematical expression gets resolved, but the fact of their being countable prior to math being able to actually do the counting makes it logically clear that math does not impart countability to these material things, otherwise we would not struggle to count them. Instead, all we would have to do is create some math that imparts countability to these things and then they would be countable.

We both know that's not how the world works. — ucarr

I don't know who we are but maybe you are right, or not. Who knows, mankind might be extinct before the can invent languages complicated enough to describe the rest of the universe.

Well, what about cosmology - the Big Bang Theory for example? Scientists project backwards from the knowns of the present - speed of expansion of the universe (accelerating), estimates of mass of the universe, etc. - and they find that the universe must've begun 13.8 billion years ago. Then they searched for corroborative evidence and found it as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). All these projections into the past are mathematical in nature. In other words, given humans are only a 300k year old species, it follows that the universe was mathematical way before humans came into existence. — Agent Smith

Yes they do just that. They have invented a language that describes the universe in its current state and they use that to. Then they use the same language to look for evidence of it being true. From that it follows that it has only been possible for humans to describe it for a few years.

You can do the same with a couple of photos of someone that were taken a few years apart, you can guess what they looked like in the past and what they will look like in the future. Then go and look for pictures of them in the past to see if you were right or hang around for a few years to see if they change the way you predicate.

Yes, it has only been possible to describe it (the mathematical nature of the universe) very recently, geologically speaking that is, but the universe was/had to be mathematical before we learned how to describe it, no?

I'm beginning to have doubts about this though - the reverse extrapolation into the past leads us to the big bang singularity (the mathematical models we have seem to, as physicists like to say, break down). Does this mean the universe wasn't mathematical? What if retracing a series of logical syllogisms finally led back to a contradiction or meaningless statement? What then?

but the universe was/had to be mathematical before we learned how to describe it, no? — Agent Smith

Fact is that most of the universe can't be mathematically described and a lot of math can't be found in the universe. Because it's non-mathematical.

Math, by definition, does make material things countable. — Real Gone Cat

Numbers do not represent objects they specify the quantity of objects, the length of object, the weight of objects. But not the objects themselves. — Sir2u

Do you know you're entangling mental objects with physical objects? I suspect your premise here is rooted in subjective materialism.

Subjective Materialism -- The only knowable reality is the represented image of an external object. Matter as a cause of that image, is unthinkable and therefore nothing to us. An external world as absolute matter unrelated to an observer does not exist as far as we are concerned.The only knowable reality is the represented image of an external object. Matter as a cause of that image, is unthinkable and therefore nothing to us. An external world as absolute matter unrelated to an observer does not exist as far as we are concerned.

An external world as absolute matter unrelated to an observer...

I think this is the lynchpin of the scientific method. Are you okay with science reverted back to the period before the scientific method?

Regarding,

QFT in curved spacetime was used by Hawking in his description of the eponymous radiation. But the calculation is approximate. It's rather well understood, but there is no connection involved between the information inside and the radiation. — EugeneW

You say,

So the math never describes exactly and at most approximations can be made. Which simply means no exact structures exist. Which means they don't exist at all. — EugeneW

I think your above quote is the gist of your premise our universe in not mathematical. With these three sentences, I think you're conflating the signifier with the signified.

If we look retrospectively at Newtonian physics through the lens of Relativity, we can assert that, beyond a certain region of velocity, Newton's Laws are (now) unacceptable approximations. To go on from there to say,

Which simply means no exact structures (for near-light velocities) exist. Which means they don't exist at all. — EugeneW

Entails making a cognitive leap that is a real whopper.

I say you make the same cognitive-leap whopper when you claim the present day limitations of the Hawking Radiation measurements amount to probitive evidence the universe in non-mathematical.

...because quarks can never be asymptotically free... — EugeneW

Asymptotic freedom ≈ forever approachable but never arrived at? Quarks are really solitary?

Since I'm curious, I'll spout off with a shot in the dark. Is there at least a faintly tangential connection between elementary particle perturbation & the introduction of asymmetry, with rapid inflation of the pre-Big Bang universe?

If there's a scintilla of truth in this speculation, doesn't that tell us the pre-Big Bang universe was unstable?