/sci/ - Science & Math

probably they launch a flying saucer, launch another one, and that makes three flying saucers

>>4907186
If they're somewhat advanced, it seems like they would stumble upon something similar to what we call math.

>>4907186
I argue that physics is physics, that evolution by natural selection is a not-"chaotic" process, and that it seems highly likely that the idea of natural numbers, rational numbers, and probably even reals, has great utility for the intellectual machinery needed to process it. I find it highly likely that other intelligent creatures, if they have an industrial society, where they design things like us, will have /exact/ analogues for naturals, integers, rationals, and reals. Probably a lot more too.

Note I haven't answered whether math is "objectively true", whatever the fuck that means.

>>4907190
But would they have the same concept that 1+2=3?

>>4907198
yes
we shouldn't expect the symbols, grammar, and syntax to be identical; but the relationships between quantities and measure of quantities itself is universal

>>4907186

I'd expect yes, although I'd be very surprised if general arithmetic was done in the same base.

>>4907210
also, we shouldn't expect the same base system. we're base 10; different civilizations throughout human history even have used different numerical bases, like the mesoamericans who used base 20

>>4907219
Well, the base is probably a small number, and I'd hazard an even number (not sure why at the moment, hunch), so I wouldn't be "surprised" if it was base 10. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised it was base 8 either.

>>4907222

Ancient sumerians used base 60

>>4907227
I'm counting that as "small" for the purposes of that earlier post.

We're not going to see base 10452, for example.

>>4907229
why not

>>4907196
That's only if the laws of physics here are the same laws of physics where "they" are from. I guess, technically, if they're from our own "galaxy", then yes. But what if they come from beyond what we are able to measure...where the physical laws may be different.

>>4907186
If the same same laws exist there as here...then i'd say yes. Especially if mathematics is fundamental to the universe, instead of just an explanation of it.

>>4907233
Evolution would favor a brain structure where it's much more optimal to work with smaller bases. A culture would almost certainly through cultural evolution arrive at a more effective and mentally efficient number system, and 10452 is not that.

>>4907241
>A culture would almost certainly through cultural evolution arrive at a more effective and mentally efficient number system, and 10452 is not that.

Isn't that unless there is something fundamental in the mathematics of the universe revolving around 10452 that we don't understand yet?

>>4907233
Well, humans came to use base 10 because it was based around the number of fingers we have which was essentially used as our first method of counting. Even today we teach kids to count their fingers and toes, it's only natural we choose base 10 because it's mirrored in our biology.

While it is certainly possible for some other creature to have 10452 appendages I highly doubt it likely. More likely we will see a base consistent with a reasonable number of appendages assuming most bases are based off appendages. If such a case is true all integers between 1 and 100 seem fairly valid with most probably being between 1 and 30.

>>4907247
Irrelevant. If we haven't found it yet, neither would they (likely), and thus they'd be stuck with the same problem we have - history.

Also, I really really doubt that number is in any way "special" as you suggest.

>>4907250
There is no such thing as "base PI" for the purposes of this discussion.

>>4907247
>>4907241
What about base pi? Is that possibly a more efficient number system...since pi shows up all over the place where it "shouldn't"?

>>4907250
Pi only shows up where is should be.
Nonetheless I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately pi is not a number. It's a proportionality that we are able to rationalize with numbers.

>>4907264
>PI
>Not a number
lolwut? Sure - it's not an integer nor rational, but it's still a real number.

I'd be very surprised if these aliens didn't use a number system with a base which was a power of 2.

>>4907264
>Pi only shows up where is should be.
Doesn't pi show up in equations that don't have to do with circles?
And IF so, does that imply some fundamental circular stuff in the nature of the universe?

>>4907186
They will have mathematics. And it will not be similar to our own. But the parts of our mathematics that overlap theirs will be identical.
That is, if they have the concepts 2,3,6, times and equality, then they also have 2*3=6. They may be lacking one of these concepts though.

>>thread
>>4907186


What about "zero"? It's an abstract concept; it doesn't exist in the universe. A non-negative is not the same as zero (i.e. -1 +1 is a different physical phenomena as 0). Is it possible that such beings would not have that in their mathematics?

>>4907265
Pi is the proportionality between a circle's circumference and diameter. It is represented by a number but it is not, in itself, a number.

>>4907279
I think those parts are basic enough to be universal. I wonder if an alien number system might be continous and not unit based. Such as some kind of geometric representation.

Mathematical logic is a defining property of life. It's inconceivable that intelligent beings would not be aware of it, unless it was so intuitive to them that it needed never be formalized. I see that as incredibly unlikely, but not impossible.

>>4907283
Technically all numbers are abstract concepts and don't exist in the universe.

>>4907286
>Mathematical logic is a defining property of life
>defining property of life

>>4907283
All of mathematics is an abstraction. We assume simplicity to make sense of things, and this allows us to construct models. The consistency of these models hold regardless of the system they're applied at and regardless of the world at large.

This pic explains a bit

math is a universal language, as are the elements.

>>4907288
Ow!

Making selective choices based on distinctions is what life does.
>please don't hit me again

>>4907287
Maybe i should have said that all numbers represent something that exists in the universe, and zero doesn't. Kinda brings up an ontological (think i have that right) quandary...how did we come up with zero if it doesn't exist/can't be experienced?

>>4907284
Aren't all numbers a proportional (a stretch) or relative relationship between other numbers. Ex. what does 2 really mean if there is not such a thing as 1.

>>4907295
Aren't you thinking to much into it? Think back to how they taught you zero in elementary school. If I have two apples, and I eat one, I have one apple left. If I eat that apple, I have zero apples. There is an absence of apples in my possession.

Besides, the whole concept of black holes and possibly the big bang is based on the concept of nothing. There is absolutely nothing there; not even time exists. That is the absolute definition of zero, is it not?

And numbers as we know them may not exist, but there will still be a "one" and a "two". If the aliens have one apple, it is still one apple. It may not be "one" in their minds, and they may have some greater understanding of what we consider "one" to be, but the fact remains that it is a single existence.

>>4907295
If you don't have "1" but "2" then the logical relationship to the next number will be twice that, so that whatever number follows "2" will be twice that, let's say "4". It just shifts the definitions and changes nothing.

>>4907286
I think that's most certainly possible. If the natural habitat of the aliens does not really have discrete quantities, they probably won't come up with them; or maybe much later as a very esoteric topic.
Imagine some sort of sentient krill/plankton swarms. Swarms can merge and split, and the number of members in a swarm is not a known quantity to the swarm itself (like we don't know how many neurons we have). The way in which they reason would be strictly continuous (temperature, current, swarm size, swarm density, illumination, distance, etc.)

>>4907301
> If I eat that apple, I have zero apples.
Seems to me that losing one apple (1-1) is an entirely different concept than no apples (0) because you still remember that there was an apple there for you to eat to begin with...kind of like trying to explain ice to someone who has only ever known the desert. Actually, there is/was a native American (i think) language that had no word for ice because it had never been experienced.

Did anyone prove anywhere that by necessity a form of life from another solar system would have developed a brain?

If not, how could they reach a form of life which is capable of abstract thought?

>>4907309
>Imagine some sort of sentient krill/plankton swarms.
>The way in which they reason would be strictly continuous
That's pretty cool.

>>4907301
>Besides, the whole concept of black holes and possibly the big bang is based on the concept of nothing. There is absolutely nothing there; not even time exists. That is the absolute definition of zero, is it not?
Isn't there a huge difference between 1/∞ and 0?

>>4907319
>You will never be a sentient swarm of krill
sadfrog.jpg.avi

>>4907319
>You will never be a sentient swarm of krill
sadfrog.jpg

>>4907251
What if a lifeform evolved with intuitive comprehension of visual ratios as we evolved with intuitive comprehension of auditory ratios?

Yea, aliens smart enough would inevitably discover the same number systems as us as they are pretty universal.

The natural numbers are obvious as a counting system which you would have to guess aliens would come up with, and the inclusion of 0 just follows from adding a additive identity to the system. Then the aliens would want additive and multiplicative inverses eventually or the stuff you can do is very limited, so there are the rational numbers. To do most interesting things in higher maths you need a system that is complete, so eventually aliens would realise they can extend their math if they give evey set a supremum and create the real numbers. also they would want to algebraicly close the system, and create the complex numbers

>>4907314
If you don't know of apples in the first place, what were you counting?

>Abstract units... of which you always have some, but never none. You can't see them, but I know they're there.. always watching....

>>4907337
>If you don't know of apples in the first place, what were you counting?
Exactly. If they're there, then i'd be using numbers greater than (not including) zero, and if they're not...
--> >>4907295
>Kinda brings up an ontological (think i have that right) quandary...how did we come up with zero if it doesn't exist/can't be experienced?

>>4907347
>Kinda brings up an ontological (think i have that right) quandary...how did we come up with zero if it doesn't exist/can't be experienced?

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Logic is the same everywhere, not mathematics

>>4907351
>Why is there something instead of nothing?
That's a statement out of context, isn't it? "Why is there something instead of lack of something?" can be experienced/observable. Where does the concept of nothing come from, which isn't observable and can't be experienced. Hence the ontological quandary.

>>4907357
>Implying logic and mathematics aren't the same thing
Formalist master race reporting in.

>>4907379
The reason that there's "something instead of nothing" is because somewhere you had to draw the line. When is the point at which you consider a random clump of molecules or visual likeness of such to be an apple?

"Something" exists because you've defined it. "Nothing" is the logical contrast to that definition.

>>4907426
>"Nothing" is the logical contrast to that definition.
yeah, which is why i was saying in another thread that logic is a mind-fuck. It seems to me that all logic is based on assumption. '"Nothing" is the logical contrast to that definition' implies that dichotomies are an inherent phenomena....an assumption.

>somewhere you had to draw the line
I try to separate "seems" from "is". I think that ultimately perception must be included in assertion of facts....if they are going to be considered facts in the platonic (i think i have that right) sense. How can perception of reality not be included in observation being fact when it's my/our perception that allows us observe in the first place? I'm pretty much stuck in a mind-fuck loop that can't be alleviated by by facts or truth. And if "facts" gives me no solace...then i'm merely left with perception, or what life feels like,...and i have a severe emotional disorder so i refuse to fall back on or indulge my emotions/reality.

No, OP. In Oceania 2 + 2 = 5.

depends if they exist in 3rd density or not

Not only would they have discovered math but it's structures would be isomorphic to our own. We already have examples of the latter here on here Earth.

They would OP. The NSA published some papers on it back in the day. How we'd rely on mathematics to communicate with extraterrestrials if we ever made radio contact. Something that may vary however is our axiomatization, which is somewhat arbitrary in some senses (though in the way we practice mathematics in modern times it's become a huge deal). Hell, they may not even axiomatize or may do something even better. Either way, the mathematics themselves will still be the same.

>>4907234

Mathematics are independent from the laws of physics. This is what allows mathematics to talk about any kind of space and any kind of universe. Also why many people consider string theory such a huge cop out.

>>4907248

Base 10 is kind of a crappy base to be honest. Also, it wasn't until the hindu numeral system in the 400s that decimal started becoming big and even then it wasn't until a persian dude in the 800s wrote about them that they spread out more (called arabic numerals or something in euroland now because of it). Roman numerals weren't really base 10 or any base for that matter and arguably neither were chinese numerals. Mesoamericans continued using base 40 math and other crazy shit until the euros brought indian math to the americas.

Any base defined as a function of y=2^x on the naturals (without 0) would be much more sane than 10.

>>4907519
This poast is full of fuck, read with caution before you believe this is cogent.

>>4907500
>Mathematics are independent from the laws of physics.
I do understand the point. And here's the other side of it i propose/am thinking about...

What about something like the hologram theory stuff, (from my limited knowledge) that the whole of the universe is merely a projection of information. Wouldn't mathematics and information basically be one in the same?...and mathematics being fundamental to and precede the laws of physics, instead of the other way around? ....Math as a cause instead of a description.

Or would is this the same as:
>Also why many people consider string theory such a huge cop out. ?

>>4907525

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhshali_Manuscript
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

Eat dick

>>4907532

I'm somewhat familiar with hologram theory as well and I don't know why you would draw that conclusion. That said, mathematicians who have platonism as their foundation (as opposed to formalism, intuitionism, etc..) do in fact believe that is the case.

In other words, the universe is just a subset of the mathematics. The mathematics are inherent in reality.

Consider that mathematics can talk about an unlimited number of dimensions of an unlimited number of types. It can talk about crazy non-euclidean spaces many of which not only don't have any real life parallels but can't even be described geometrically.

>>4907292
It would be hard to describe our understanding of atomic particles. There is most likely a whole array of smaller particles that exist within an atom, and we will have to show them we can only positively identify one kind.

>>4907535
Your bad history lesson isn't even what I was... Ah forget it, you're probably adopted and that's the best you can do.

>>4907548
and by one kind I mean nothing beyond the atom.

I guess we could draw a visual depiction, with orbiting electrons and whatnot, but who's to say that only represents an atom?

>>4907551

You think 2*5 is a good base?

>>4907546
>In other words, the universe is just a subset of the mathematics. The mathematics are inherent in reality.

Yeah, that's what i was talking about. Being a layman there's lots of shit in my head i don't entirely understand (or apparently at all) ;)

Though, the supposed universality of physics and fractal nature of it all, to me somewhat implies an imposed system from finite intelligence and complexity arising from the processing of the "rules" (kind of like Conway's game of life).

I think the best thing when encountering ET life would be to explain our numbering system. Once they have the basis of that, it would be piss easy to explain everything else.

>>4907546
>>4907562
>Consider that mathematics can talk about an unlimited number of dimensions of an unlimited number of types.
Can string theory, etc, still be true though? Can an infinite number of dimensions and types be "reality" and we not understand it yet?

>>4907582
String Theory could theoretically be applied to all kinds of Universes. This is one of the problems many people have with string theory. The laws of physics and fundamental particles that it would generate depend on the configuration of the calabi yau space. So the theory can be adjusted to the evidence regardless of what the evidence is (if the theory is wrong, they just jiggle some numbers to make it fit). Another large problem is that it's arguably not a valid hypothesis since it can't really be experimented against (similar to why religion doesn't form a valid hypothesis).

As far as all of the constructs in mathematics actually being physical constructs? No. Even irrational numbers can arguably not exist in the physical world due to quantization.

No.

Our mathematics are based in a decimal system? why decimal and not another number?

Because we have 10 fingers.

/thread.

>>4907600
Wow, you really are retarded.

Did you even read the thread?

>>4907600

Mathematics are the same regardless of base.

What base is this triangle in.

>>4907593
>As far as all of the constructs in mathematics actually being physical constructs? No. Even irrational numbers...

What role (if any) does metaphysics play in this? Could the mathematics that cannot be physical constructs be metaphysical constructs? And the mind, sort of, can be experimented on. It seems to me that the physical and metaphysical are two sides of the same coin.

And, i'm guessing, the mathematics of the metaphysical could then be the same as beings from across the galaxy/universe.

Also, if the universe[es]/system is imposed, and mathematics are platonic...could the mathematics that cannot be physical constructs here be constructs from outside the system?

and yeah i know i'm starting to stretch things a bit.

>this retarded thread
>implying number base has anything to do with mathematics

Real mathematics (logic, proofs, algebra, calculus) is universal. Who cares how alien children learn to count?

Besides, all the numeric messages we've sent into the void have used the natural base (binary). Look up images of the Voyager plaque.

>>4907612

base 10

>>4907600
>>4907746
>>4907426
Guys, that's not what this thread is about.

We puny earthlings count in a multitude of logarithms. Base 2, base phi, base 10, base 60. I don't know if the natural logarithm is used for a literal number system, but it could be.

Most people here know this and that's by and large not the subject of this discussion.

Don't make me go F=m*a on your asses.

>>4907775
>base phi
that sounds interesting. What kind of notation is used for non-integer based numbers?

I once developed a counting system for a brainfuck-like computer language that only had increment and a type of function call. The most compact number representations climbed in length proportional to the Fibonacci sequence, so that is kind of like base-phi.

>>4907814
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio_base

You probably don't even have to look at numbers and maths that would be constructed by a supposed alien lifeform. On Earth, there are civilizations that never spoke to one another that separately came up with their own methods of counting and maths. Some of them didn't get as far as others, but still the mathematics was still there.

I suspect the same to be true of any being intelligent and capable of coming up with a mathematics system. How they represent these things is different, but they all mean the same thing.

>>4907186

Depends on what kind of race the alien being were communicating is. Maybe they are bi-peds that have 15 fingers and toes, they are also similar to the human where as they constantly go to war with everything. This hinders their evolution until slowly they are able to detect are signals and could care less about what number system we use and come and obliterate us. I mean wouldn't we eventually do the same? It's written throughout history. Humans are an advanced virus.

I believe it all depends on the species.

detriment ism
big out of here
lsd

now math is a system we use to model things that happen for no raisn

human math is a reflection of human computative processing/nervous system

No one knows, and no one can answer that OP. The only thing we can do here is guessing, which is basically just pulling shit out of our asses.

Dude, math is a system that human created, so it is possible that everything that we study is wrong. Maybe in the future someone changes all the curse of physics and math. But if we believe that our system is right, everything works! So aliens could have created, for example, different numbers of ours (like ↔, ╔, Ä, ◘, •, ▒, ╔↔, ╔ ╔ , ....)