Math was created within a closed system. Think of a language written in symbols. We came up with math because we need to describe the physical world predictably and reliably. We could have come up with a whole different numbering system than the one we have now.I wish to explore this because we have come up with many mathematical formula that describe how the universe operates from the famous formula such as e=mc2 which has practical applications to many others.
Or is maths completely independent of the physical universe and it just so happens that some mathematics is good at describing some aspects of the physical universe and in fact supersedes it? — simplyG
Is maths embedded in the universe ?
And if so does it point to a creator ? — simplyG
And if so does it point to a creator? I wish to explore this because we have come up with many mathematical formula that describe how the universe operates from the famous formula such as e=mc2 which has practical applications to many others.
But even simpler than that take for example 1+1 = 2 this can correspond to reality. Though in itself a simple mathematical calculation one apple and another apple means you have effectively applied the math to the real world.
The question is what came before? maths or apples (or the universe) and if maths can theoretically describe anything does that mean that reality is a subset of mathematics made manifest ?
Or is maths completely independent of the physical universe and it just so happens that some mathematics is good at describing some aspects of the physical universe and in fact supersedes it? — simplyG
We will be showing that the spontaneous emergence of self-sustaining webs is so natural and robust that it is even deeper than the specific chemistry that happens to exist in earth; it is rooted in mathematics itself.
There's a mathematical reality woven into the fabric of the universe that you share with winding rivers, towering trees, and raging storms.
Mathematics is only useful insofar as it applies to reality. — chiknsld
I view Mathematics as the meta-physical structure (inter-relationships, ratios, proportions) of the physical universe (objects, things). In other words, Mathematics is the Logic of Reality. In that case, the math (logic, design) is prior to the material implementation (stars, planets, plants, animals). Math doesn't "supersede" the matter, but it necessarily preceded the Big Bang execution of the program of Evolution that produces the Reality we see around us. Hence Math/Logic may be the abstract invisible essential ding an sich that makes concrete substantial things what they appear to be to our senses. :smile:Or is maths completely independent of the physical universe and it just so happens that some mathematics is good at describing some aspects of the physical universe and in fact supersedes it? — simplyG
No.... And if so does it point to a creator? — simplyG
This question doesn't make sense.The question is what came before?
I think a subset of mathematics usefully describes subsets, or aspects, of reality and the rest (most) of mathematics does not. As suggested by Max Tegmark (David Deutsch, Seth Lloyd, Stephen Wolfram et al), the universe might be nothing more than a lower dimensional mathematical structure (i.e. a reality, n. naturata) imbedded in higher dimensional mathematical structures (i.e. the real,, n. naturans).... if maths can theoretically describe anything does that mean that reality is a subset of mathematics made manifest?
Not insofar as physical systems are (Quantun Turing) computable.Or is maths completely independent of the physical universe ...
I agree as I wrore above.... and it just so happens that some mathematics is good at describing some aspects of the physical universe ...
I don't understand what you mean here by "supercedes".... and in fact supersedes it?
And if so does it point to a creator?
— simplyG
No. — 180 Proof
Mathematics is the language in which God has written the Universe
— Galileo
This is a good starting point for a new thread because I was trying to discuss with @schopenhauer1 in the Kit Fine thread about what is existence without an observer.It seems to me like this is partially right, and partially missing something. Sans some interpretation of consciousness where mind does not emerge from or interact closely with nature, it would seem to me that our descriptive languages have a close causal relationship with nature. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It is the other war around; the universe is embedded in mathematics. pi is a geometric proportion but it can, with infinite precision, be expressed as infinite series -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_formula_for_%CF%80
Numbers are eternal objects and the universe is designed around them. — EnPassant
Math was created within a closed system. Think of a language written in symbols. We came up with math because we need to describe the physical world predictably and reliably. We could have come up with a whole different numbering system than the one we have now.
I feel that your question is similar to saying that the periodic table of elements has always been embedded in the universe waiting to be discovered.
I feel that your question is similar to saying that the periodic table of elements has always been embedded in the universe waiting to be discovered. — L'éléphant
But even simpler than that take for example 1+1 = 2 this can correspond to reality. Though in itself a simple mathematical calculation one apple and another apple means you have effectively applied the math to the real world. — simplyG
there is no reason to believe that this language applies to those proportions independently of the process we go through to think in terms of that language. — Julian August
“Normal English, though, I calculated was over 50% redundant. You know certain words follow each other, and there’s grammar rules. When you learn a language, you inherently know the statistics. That’s why you can drop letters, and even words, and still understand the message.”
Looking at the redundancy in English gives Shannon his Big Thought #2. Compress your information. Eliminate the redundancy. Just send what you can’t predict.
And then he asked a question that nobody had really thought of before. Is there a minimum size, a minimum number of bits, that I can shrink my information to, and not lose anything essential? He discovers there is a minimum. And he shows how to calculate it. His formula is based on the probabilities in the message. It has a very intriguing form. It’s almost identical to a fundamental quantity in physics called entropy.
He discovers there is a minimum. And he shows how to calculate it. — Patterner
His formula is based on the probabilities in the message. It has a very intriguing form. It’s almost identical to a fundamental quantity in physics called entropy.
Shannon, the pioneer of information theory, was only persuaded to introduce the word 'entropy' into his discussion by the mathematician John von Neumann.
The theory was in excellent shape, except that he needed a good name for ‘missing information’. ‘Why don’t you call it entropy’, von Neumann suggested. ‘In the first place, a mathematical development very much like yours already exists in Boltzmann’s statistical mechanics, and in the second place, no one understands entropy very well, so in any discussion you will be in a position of advantage’. — Source
To this point, I would argue that thinking of math as a "closed," system can be misleading in this context. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Further, mathematical statements are true in all possible worlds, not just in the world we've happened to experience — Wayfarer
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.