/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6670134
>math is not real because the language, it's applications and results have been wrong in the past
>math is not real because humans make mistakes

prove that math exists without using math to explain it.

math is not some inherent property of nature, merely a highly unique pattern that is interpreted by our brains as a result of our biochemistry and predisposition towards searching for patterns

math is real because any intelligent species is bound to discover the same mathematical principles

this means mathematical theorems such as the pythagorean theorem exist without our knowledge of them

in some sense you could say that math is as real as the E field

>>6670141

Math is a man made tool. It isn't real. The laws that math is used to describe however are real and would exist with or without our knowledge of them.

>>6670146
correct
but either way, there are no physical implications
so w.e

>>6670146
>Math is a man made tool. It isn't real.
You are not very smart, are you?

>X is a man made tool, therefore X isn't real.

>>6670149
>unable to wrap head around a different interpretation
You are not very smart, are you?

>>6670150
Mirrors are a man made tool. They aren't real.

https://www.google.de/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&q=is%2Fmath+discovered+or+invdnted&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Wj7XU7WeMYKX_AbC04AQ#q=is+math+discovered+or+invented

/ thread

>>6670154
actually what is more akin would be:
the mirrors are real, but our reflection is only
a "fake" image that exists only in the brain

>>6670154
+1

As for my own opinion, I agree mostly with OP. I think the Universe is littered with patterns and anomalies everywhere. These patterns have a way of sorting themselves out and tend to replicate in the same manner on the whole. There are obviously mutations in the Universe also, but that doesn't lead to the unraveling of what I'm saying. The anomalies are also quantifiable; we give them values such as infinity, Pi, 2/3 for example, and any of the infinitely repeating sequences. Using observational experience, we can see on this planet that the maximum size anything can be on this planet is the planet itself. But over the last few centuries we have found the maximum size of anything to be much larger than the size of our planet. Given this, we may in fact be in a space where there is no maximum size or that there is a maximum size and we haven't figured out how to discover it yet. With these two possibilities, they will both lead to their own conclusions. If we live in a finite Universe, the ever repeating sequences WILL eventually truncate. If we live in an infinite Universe, then those sequences will either STILL truncate or perhaps they will not and follow the natural order in the Universe. All of these phenomena can be observed and likened to mathematical properties that humans have discovered in line with a better understanding with their environments. I do not believe Math is a human construct because the properties that are consisting within math (sums, products, fractions, and repeating sequences to name a few) are all natural phenomena we experience every day. Math is a natural phenomena that coincides with the structure of everything we experience. Perhaps you could liken it to, but it's not a very good analogy, that gravity isn't real because we can't physically grab some gravity out of space and play with it. It's there and we can infer it's mechanisms through experience (free fall and micro gravity, landing on other celestial bodies),

>>6670172
continuing..

We wouldn't know gravity existed if we didn't actually go there and test it out. Yes, we can use this thing called math to tell us its there. If math was a human construct, then what are the odds we could actually calculate the correct value of gravity on bodies VERY far from our home. I don't suppose we would be able to get close results, moreover, VERY precise results like we do. Math exists, and we can see it's being by the way it so accurately describes the Universe before we're able to test the ideas empirically.

I have tried to not use the word math unless necessary, as in the latter parts of my explanation. I'm open to more discussion. Great thread OP.

>>6670134
Look up Mathematical Platonism. Certain physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers (I know, that last word seems to be a swear word on this board) take this idea quite seriously - mathematical concepts and objects are eternal and unchanging, and in a sense give way to the physical world, much like the digits of software. It's unfalsifiable, but I think it's plausible. You should also give Max Tegmark's book Our Mathematical Universe a read sometime.

>>6670134
Obviously it isn't real, it has no physical form

Math is a science?

Ummmmm.... what?

Here's the correct answer.

On one level, yes, because it accurately explains the phenomena we observe

On the other level, no, because it simply describes nature, it doesnt explain it, fails to explain things on a universal scale, and cannot be applied to human nature.

>>6670134
Here's a thought - if you think that set theory is the foundation for mathematics (which may be controversial if one takes category theory to be the proper foundation for mathematics), one would be pressed to defend the axioms that underlie set theory. People who know more about the foundations of mathematics should say more.

>pic related

>>6670198
It's a formal science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science

>The definition of fact; 1) A thing that is indisputably true.

Nothing is "true" in an absolute sense.
If I were to say "My mother is a human being", then that's can be seen as a bunch of pressure waves wandering through the air, and I say it because it carries my intended meaning. I think of someone (my mother) and I assign an attribute to her. But there is no way to know that any recipient of that sentence gets the same meaning from this. For one, they might not understand the language. Or in their language, the pressure waves might mean "my car is red". And even if they speak English, they might not know what a mother is. The sentence "this sentence is in english" is also true in a naive sense, but if I translate it to spanish, it isn't anymore.
We can use the word "true" and mean an attribute of statements which we expect the other to agree upon, because when you say it they can react and try to confirm. But we can never know what they take from it when we say a sentence, and it's almost impossible that when you say something, the other person will take it to mean the same.
As a consequence, you can view "true" only to be an attribute of the /intendet/ meaning of the system (or person) formulating the sentence. But then, if a retard in the hospital intents to say "The sky is made of glass", and in his diluted mind he can confirm it to himself, then it's also true in that sense.

>>6670134
>The definition of real; 1) Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact.
>The definition of fact; 1) A thing that is indisputably true.
>Some would say that, given the above definitions, math is not real because the language

Yeah, but they're idiots and the rest of everything you wrote is predicated on your faulty interpretation the definition of 'real'. It says 'occurring in fact', meaning that for something to be 'real', it must 'be indisputably true that it's occurring'.

Let's apply your misinterpretation to something else, like phrenology. Phrenology has been falsified and no one considers it accurate or true, but it's definitely a real thing because people have practiced it historically.

So I guess all this conversation has shown is that a philosophy degree can teach you how to misread something from a dictionary and then apply it in such an abstruse and confusing manner that you end up concluding that things that are definitely real are no longer real.

Or in other words, it's useless.

>>6670134
Isn't math a framework invented by humans in order to help measure and predict events?

>>6670134
Wow I have not read this many misconceptions in such a small block of text before.
>The applications of mathematics don't actually have anything to do with the mathematics themselves. It's like if someone taught you to drive and then you got into a car crash because you drove wrong, it does not mean you were taught wrong things just that you are a dipshit who didn't know how to properly apply what they learned.
>Mathematics is not a science. Science is empirical and it's results are based on evidence. Mathematics is not empirical and its results are based on proofs in axiomatic systems (with absolute certainty).
>Math is not provably false. This sentence doesn't even make sense.
>Math is not a human tool, nor is it meant to communicate "factual" "laws" "governing" the "universe". Mathematics can be used to describe abstractions relevant to any universe, even ones that can't exist. It isn't actually meant for communication, it is meant for derivation. Facts, laws, and governing are all incredibly ambiguous terms and I could go on and on about why their use in this context is retarded.
>Math doesn't inherently have anything to do with the physical universe so it doesn't actually give a fuck about physical objects. Most mathematical objects (even basic ones like triangles) cannot exist in the physical universe. They are abstract.
>Math exists the same way regardless of the existence of humans or sentient life forms. Granted it would remain undiscovered (did the American continents not exist before Europeans discovered them)?
>Mathematics does not talk about "laws". It talks about theorems.

OP it sounds like you're very far away from even beginning to answer the question you've posed yourself. You need to take 1,000 steps back and ask yourself. "What is math?". There is a wealth of literature on the foundations of mathematics that I suggest you look into.

>>6670370
Formal Sciences aren't sciences, they're math. They're just named that for historical reasons.

>>6670464

You're creating misconceptions about my original post. Not interested in addressing them specifically because I'm in a rush. As a side note however all of my definitions are those taken from the dictionary. If those definitions are incorrect then please blame the dictionary and not me.

>>6670140
If the pattern exists in nature then it is inherent to nature.

>>6670370
Yaa, I have a problem with math being called a science. Pretty much everyone's definition of modern science is very different from math and logic.

>>6671070
patterns don't exist unless there's something to process a pattern. Same with math, but it's a bit of redundant question. Humans do exist, therefore math exists. If humans we're wiped out from the universe, math would also be wiped out.

>>6671087
Just because things aren't described by anyone doesn't mean the things that would be described don't exist.

Holy crap I'm amazed this thread has gotten this many replies, usually when people bring this up on /sci/ the response is summed up as 'go back to Philosophy 101 young man'.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Mathematical realism implies that entire universes, including self-aware substructures, exist, merely because they are described by (modeled by, existing as) mathematical structures.

I've been thinking about how the set of mathematical descriptions for our universe is infinitely large, and there might always be an even more microscopic layer of physical laws. Perhaps the entirety of mathematical existence boils down to a single set of macroscopic laws.

Baby steps here.

Two concepts to understand here: The map, and the territory. The territory is the universe in reality. The map is the picture of the universe you have inside your head.

The map is made of models. Models help you predict things that will happen in the territory. Maybe you have a model that says, "When I turn on the faucet, water will come out." We usually base models off of prior experience. For instance, someone can model an atom by comparing it to something they're familiar with, like a ball of pudding full of raisins.

We can test models by using them to make predictions called hypotheses, and then use experimentation to see whether the hypothesis matches the territory. This process is called science.

Models cannot be perfect. A perfect model would be both accurate and simple; however, those two qualities are inversely proportional, since a perfectly accurate model would be just as complex as the phenomenon itself. This is Bonini's paradox.

There are many languages to write models. Some languages yield more useful predictions than others. For instance, models written as logical conditionals can be more useful than ones written according to the laws of English grammar.

Math is another such language. It gets a lot of usage in science. This is because math is explicitly designed to describe patterns and structure, two things which appear a lot in the universe.

>>6671144
Houellebecq is great.

>>6671144
Now, map-territory confusion is when someone thinks something from their map exists as a quality in the territory. For instance, someone who says "Vegetables are disgusting" is confusing map and territory; "disgustingness" is a quality of the map, not the territory. A better thing to say is "I am disgusted by vegetables." But really it doesn't matter; that example is just semantics.

A better example is "wave-particle duality". Quanta don't behave according to human intuitions; there's no simple model. However, physicists didn't first realize this, and started switching between modelling quanta as waves and particles. They called this "wave-particle duality". This isn't a duality in nature. Quanta always behave like quanta. It's the scientists' models that kept switching. It's a quality of the map, not the territory.

Another example is probability. Probability is used to measure uncertainty, and depends on the state of knowledge of the observer, not objective reality. For instance, consider a person who flips a coin and covers it up with their hand without looking at it. The person doesn't know whether it's heads or tails; therefore, P(H), to them, is 0.5. However, after taking away their hand and looking at the coin, they see it's tails; now P(H) is 0 (plus some extremely small number, to account for a freak hallucination or solipsism etc). Despite this dependence on mental state, some believe probability to be a quality of objects in the territory. This point of view, called frequentism, is another example of map-territory confusion.

Finally, we examine mathematical Platonism. Math is a language we use to formulate models in the map. However, despite being part of the map, some believe math to be a part of the territory - that math is a formal science, and that there's some "other realm" between map and territory consisting of solely mathematical objects. This is another example of confusion: Math is part of the map, not the territory.

QED.

>>6671152
>Houellebecq is great.
... the French author?

>>6671098
Where does the pattern exist then? If there is absolutely no awareness of a pattern, not even a definition of a pattern, you can only say it exists in retrospect, but without humans you don't even have that. A pattern is a very different thing from a physical thing.

>>6671164
>Math is part of the map, not the territory.
You say this out of the blue, you have demonstrated absolutely nothing.

>>6671171
Yes, who else?

>>6671175
Nobody says mathematics is a physical thing.

>>6671178
Probably lots of ways to show that, but most simply, math can be developed independant of observation, therefore it'd have to be part of the map that this guy's talking about. If it was part of the territory you'd have no way of developing mathematics without constant reference to reality.

>>6671182
>my point

>>6671188
>If it was part of the territory you'd have no way of developing mathematics without constant reference to reality.
Isn't this the whole point of the debate? That mathematics as developed on the map turns out to be the same as mathematics in the territory?

>>6671193
Reality is not the same as physicality

>>6671194
There is no "mathematics in the territory".

>>6670134
by the same argument you can say that science is also not real.

if it has been wrong in the past then it cannot be factual and then cannot be real.

i think you are taking the wrong approach to this argument. math is a tool that can be corrected to act as a more accurate model of what is going on around us. math isnt really any more not real than any science or any observation people have made.


>>6670139
that is like saying "describe the english language in entirety without using any reference in english to describe it."

analogies from other sources only get you so far. you have to use the language to describe that same language

>>6670141
i don't think anyone is bound to discover math. i think that it is possible for no one in an intelligent species to make the abstract leap needed.

>>6671199
This reality is only that which can be demonstrated to be real, on the basis that no other such reality has presented itself. A pattern can only be demonstrated to exist abstractly, by humans.

>>6670154
no no no you see mirrors aren't real because our eyes aren't real. that's unrelated anon.

>>6671085
math consists of theories and theorems that are held to be true once proven true, and can be proven false by later research. if that isn't a science then your definition is different from my own.

>>6671200
Yeah you can say that, but I can say "there is mathematics in the territory". QED
seriously, what a stupid way of arguing this is.

>>6671115
i would hate to think that everything we know about the smallest scales in physics is actually just a set of macro rules for some other sub-sub-sub atomic structures

>>6671212
That doesn't mean that things which exist abstractly don't exist at all.

>>6671213
Apparently they are different, but mine comes from the origins of the philosphy of science. Science is supposed to be empirical (read Francis Bacon). Math is not empirical, so it's not a science.

>>6671219
How would the qualities of mathematics be in the territory?

>>6671226
How would they not be?

whatevs see y'all tomorrow

>>6671221
I never said that. Things which exist abstractly are dependant on the object which abstracts them. Remove the object, you remove the abstraction.

>>6671230
I'm sorry, I meant "what". What are the defining characteristics of "mathematics in the territory"?

>>6671182
>implying nonphysical things exist

Math is real because math is only chemicals in our brains. So, if your brain is not real then math is not real. However, if your brain is real then math is also an aspect of a real organ. It is an organic entity. It does not exist outside of an organic being.

Math is only real when used As a Relational tool which means it's only real when you compare it to yourself which means it's merely a tool used to connect things together so technically it's not real because it depends on the users perception ( a person )

Math actually exists. Just because it's been applied incorrectly and desired results were not achieved does not negate its reality. I can put a hat on my ass and get a sunburn on my bald head, yet the hat is still real.

>>6670139
Logic > math.

>>6670134
>The definition of real; 1) Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact.
>The definition of fact; 1) A thing that is indisputably true.
I dispute that "actually existing" and "true" are coherent, meaningful notions in any absolute sense.

In mathematics, it's irrelevant whether something is "true" or "false" in some absolute sense (whatever that might mean); the notions that matter are tautology and contradiction. You can ask whether a mathematical object is an accurate model of some aspect of the physical universe, but then it's an empirical question for science, and you've moved outside the realm of pure mathematics.

>>6670134
>The definition of real; 1) Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact.
>The definition of fact; 1) A thing that is indisputably true.
Light is real, thunder is real, heat is real, lightning is real, electricity is real, magnetism is real — but they aren't "things", so your definitions are inadequate.

>>6670154
That's called an equivocation, son.

Math is a coherent "way of doing things."

Do "way of doing things" exist?

Yes, because by "doing things" in a "certain way" we prove that it exists as a system of doing things.

Whether or not it is unchanging or corresponds to anything physical outside of methods is irrelevant. It's like asking if the rules of basketball exist when you are playing basketball, and then arguing that the rules of basketball don't correspond to anything. Try explaining people playing basketball without the rules of basketball. You could only describe the surface of what was going on..

>>6670134
If math didn't exist we wouldn't be talking about it right now.
Case closed.
/thread

I will continue to post this, it seems my ideas are slowly becoming infused into the social intelligence of the internet. After all, creative thought is merely the subconscious fusion of our experiences.

The universe is a self contained structure. It was Stephen Hawking who proposed a closed system universe: a globe-like model with a north and south pole which can be said to represent the big bang and/ crunch. In this model, the universe does not rely on any creator to set it in motion nor any amount of parallel universes for it to exist.
Time moves at an independent rate depending on separate energy states of two observers. Understanding this, time would have not existed before the big bang since there was no movement of space. So in our universe the past, present and future already exists. The most fundamental particles, many of which have still to be properly defined, and the interactionary forces between them are what give rise to what we have come to perceive as the dimensions of space and time.
As biological machines, our understanding of the universe is based on the biomechanical input of stimuli into the brain. Our nervous sytem lets us paint a subjective picture out of an objective world. For example, our perception of colour is actually a measurement of electromagnetic radiation.

>>6671952
The following are also, but not limited to, subjective interpretations of the mind: Temperature, spatial awareness, time, emotions, creativity, sound and mathematics. Mathematics actually only exists in our universe because the universe represents one whole, or the number 1. From the existence of the number 1 it is subsequently possible to derive addition and every other number and mathematical function, and it is worth noting that this is the reason we are able to properly define particles and forces, which may represent connections and symbolisms of more basic particles which are outside our scope of perception.
Time perception as the product of biological evolution: Energy has a tendency to become more and more disordered in future states, in a process defined as entropy. Evolution has thus designed biological organisms to collect energy from states where it is more available in order to be able to survive the future states. What this means is that we must consciously view the present in order to survive the future, but the future already exists as much as the present and the past do. The common sense notion of how we expect time to pass is an artifact of evolution. In reality, we are traveling both backwards and forwards in time. Feynman's diagrams help to illustrate this point by showing us that the lines and behaviours of particles in any chosen system are reversible, just by reversing the arrow of time.

Oh and by the way, the 'globe like model' is just a metaphor for eternity and shouldn't necessarily be taken literally. There is more but I haven't taken the time to write it down yet.

>>6671144
But since a simple model can describe a complex phenomenon, what leads you to believe that the universe couldn't be explained by a comparatively small number of rules?

>>6670134
ITT: /sci/ reveals itself to be mathematical platonists

Hey guys, if you think non-material things like maths actually exist, I know a great board for you! >>/lit/

>>6671952
>>6671954
The fuck is this new-age bullshit?

>>6671954
>Mathematics actually only exists in our universe because the universe represents one whole, or the number 1.
>>6672101
>>6672104
fucking rekt

Fact: i squared = -1
i occurs in a fact therefor i is real.

someone give me a phd

>>6670154
how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

>>6671207
so would you call the English Language a Real thing too? because as far as Im aware, Its a system of symbols, which is highly subjective

>>6672101
>being this new
/sci/ has always been predominantly mathematical platonists, as are most math people. You're the one who belongs in /lit/.

>>6672173
>babby's first post on a math board
http://math.tut.fi/~ruohonen/FL.pdf

>>6670134
Math is inductive, it is not a "system."
Let's not talk about the definition of real, I don't give a shit if math is real or not, and if you do then you have brain problems.
When it comes to "what is real" you're just going to have to make assumptions; you can't be universally right about it.

I say math isn't real because it is only an expression of logical thought using numerals and other symbols to abstract information.

>>6670134
>math is real
It uses real numbers so clearly it have to be real.