[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 355 KB, 1536x826, 1 WZZ9OWp3QJjcswTITitJKw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10388960 No.10388960 [Reply] [Original]

So is math like the "code" of the universe? Why can so many phenomenon and alleged natural "laws" be modeled through mathematics, which is entirely a human creation?

>> No.10388963
File: 6 KB, 246x205, neetcha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10388963

if you force yourself to describe everything in numbers, you will find numbers everywhere

>> No.10389061

>>10388960
Math and the universe share a similar (metaphysical? Transcendental?) root, time and space. Math models time with arithmetic and space with geometry. But whether or not math is powerful enough to find the one code at the root of it all is the question, although it is good at modeling disjointed particular things there is no unity.

>> No.10389450

>>10388960
>So is math like the "code" of the universe?
No.
>Why can so many phenomenon and alleged natural "laws" be modeled through mathematics, which is entirely a human creation?
Because math is a logical system of quantification. If it can be quantified, it can be translated into math. Reality can be quantified and, therefore, written in terms of mathematics. Math was literally designed to make sense of reality.

>> No.10389453

>>10388960
>which is entirely a human creation?
Calculus was designed to model physical laws

>> No.10389503

>>10388960
Math is more like the code of the human brain. It aligns with our observations, not the actual universe.

>>10388963
This, sort of.

>>10389061
No, this is hubris.

>>10389450
Cart before the horse.

>> No.10389533

>>10388960
>which is entirely a human creation?
Because it is not a human creation.
An alien species could be different in every possible way from us, but their math would be identical.

>> No.10389541

>>10389533
This is a slogan, not a fact.

>> No.10389543

>>10388960
Because it was discovery, not creation.

>> No.10389550

>>10389061
Kant's model of mathematical comprehension is pretty outdated.

>> No.10389630

>>10389503
>Math is more like the code of the human brain. It aligns with our observations, not the actual universe.

not even close

>> No.10389671

>>10389630
Show me some Math that doesn't align with observation.
Show me an observation that wasn't from the perspective of a human.

>> No.10389672

>>10389541
>You are faggot.
This is a fact, not a slogan.

>> No.10389682

>>10389672
Nice. I'm sorry you don't know how facts work.

>> No.10389687

>>10388960
If math (as a general subject) is defined as the set of all logically true, provable statements derived from constant axioms, and our universe operates logically based on rules which do not change, it follows that the rules of the universe are a subset of mathematics. Not everything we've discovered in pure math describes our universe, but due to our perspective being so firmly rooted in our universe, it's unsurprising that a lot of the math we take interest in does.

>> No.10389705

>>10389687
Or rather than rules, I should have said "the mechanisms of the universe are described in the abstract through a subset of math"

>> No.10389716

>>10389705
Math includes false and not provable statements too. There are disciplines of Math with axioms that are not constant, specifically probability.

Let me ask you this, do you think there is more or less to the universe that we cannot observe?

>> No.10389794

>>10389716
The axioms we build probability off of are constant. What we can say about probability is consistent (i.e. the rules of probability do not change over time) even if the outcomes of any particular application are probabilistic.

I'm not sure what you mean by your question

>> No.10389806

>>10388960
The universe doesn't give a fuck about math. Math is just recognizing number patterns

>> No.10389813

>>10389794
The probability of something being between 0 and 1 is an arbitrary axiom. It is altered for different disciplines of Probability.

>> No.10389841

>>10389550
That's easy to say

>> No.10389875

>>10389671
>Show me some Math that doesn't align with observation.
Show me a perfect circle in the world? Or any mathematical shape. Math is compared to the world purely by analogy. The ideas of "existence" or "nature" or "perception" are also concepts that compare wholly with observation.

>Show me an observation that wasn't from the perspective of a human.
You're saying that math, being conceptual, is something that can be compared to observation. And that all observation is from the perspective of a human, who can't see outside of his own perspective. I mean, yeah I get it, but very superficial my man.

>> No.10389909

>>10389875
So you went from "Not even close" to "Very superficial." If these are both you, your arguments suck.

As for the first part, Math is not compared purely through analogy, and you didn't show me anything either.

Read Two Dogmas by Quine, and Munkres and get back to me.

>> No.10389920

>>10389909
You've said nothing at all. At least I gave some arguments with my ad hominems. Give me something

>> No.10389941

>>10389920
You said that math aligning with our observations was "not even close" And then you said math aligning with our observations is superficial.

You don't even know what you're arguing.

>> No.10390057

>>10389941
There has got to be a name for this type of argument. Fking smoke screen ninja vanish argument. Inkblot and swim away argument. Criticism of nothing argument. Actually you're just sitting there making criticising statements because why? No idea, but I was hoping that you would actually say something interesting.

>> No.10390070

>>10388960
Because they are consistent. If they were not consistent they could not be modeled. Math is not necessary to learning the laws, you can learn to hit a baseball with a bat, or throw a pitch with extreme precision through experience because they behave consistently. You do this by building a model in your mind completely void of the concept of math.

>> No.10390085

>>10389909
math is ultimately analogy, numbers dont exist "empirically", they are abstract relations derived from our intellect and mind.

>> No.10390221

Math is the universe. The stars have shown me the end of the numbers.

>> No.10390322

>>10390057
Its actually called the better argument. You contradicted yourself.

>> No.10390383

>>10390085
A number, numerical symbol is creation. If i have 3 apples in front of me that quantification is real. So in our interpretation numbers a very real. To refute this is to refute the earth is round.

>> No.10390386

>>10390221
fucking retard shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of my board. If you're gonna try doing ababou at least put some fucking effort into it. Absolute fucking brainlet.

>>10388960
Mathematics is a human creation. Think about how mathematics was created throughout the centuries. You WILL notice it was created to explain the physical phenomena. People who are surprised that mathematics describes the physical phenomena so well are brainlets - it was made for that purpose!
You seem to presuppose that humans somehow should be incapable of understanding physical phenomena. But clearly we do, so what's the problem? Why WOULDNT humans be able to understand natural laws?
I find your question rather silly, but I hope you can expand on it after reading my response ^^

>> No.10390412

>>10389533
>>10389541
>>10389672

Notation would be different. As well as conveying it communicatively. However if we met ETs and made a break through of what they tried to describe to us. I bet anything that there math would be very very similar to ours. Have you tried thinking about something different, alternate but comparable to the Peano axioms Or other axioms such as euclids? Its a rabbit hole that is brain twisting when ACTUALLY thinking deeply about this.

>> No.10390426

>>10390386
I think you need some mathematical maturity before making such assertions. You need to understand that Notation is a merely a label on a pop can. Mathematics is the soda. It is quantity, space, change etc. We created symbols to describe the phenomena. You need to discern Symbolic representation from physicality. I can tell you my emotion in english or i can have a facial or body expression that indicates ome emotion.

>> No.10390443

>>10390412
If Aliens exist, it is just as likely they do Math the same as us as it is that they do it differently. Its a stupid statement.

>> No.10390444

>>10390426
Fucking shit dude, im willing to bet $10000 that i have WAY more mathematical maturity than you do and prove it in obvious ways.
Also your post is completely schizo and until you start making actual sense in your arguments i will not engage with you anymore.

>> No.10390445

>>10390443
This is what i said. Again the notation would most likely be different. It was different hear on earth thousands of years ago. There would be barriers but essentiially the notions of quantity, space and change would stay the same.

>> No.10390454

>>10390444
I gave you analogies and somehow you cant understand them. This is so sad. Please read carefully and try to digest what I just said.

>> No.10390460

>>10390445
I'm not talking about notation. Math for humans starts with the axioms. That is the foundation. Then we move forward "logically." The "logic" may be human biological wiring, but for sure it is the foundation. Now though I have no idea how alien "logic" could work, it could be radically different.

>> No.10390463

>>10388960
Because math can describe a lot of things. Basically I think it's mandatory for a universe, at least one that's not utterly incomprehensible, to be described by math at least to some extent. Imagine a place in which you can't count, where you can't speak about coordinates or simply assign values to things in general. It would be bizarre, right?

Also, it's not all coincidence. When you're describing new physical phenomenons, you start looking for mathematical frameworks that'd work well with them, and new useful insights will be found in said frameworks exactly because you're trying to use them to describe reality.

>> No.10390465

>>10390386
>People who are surprised that mathematics describes the physical phenomena so well are brainlets - it was made for that purpose!
Brainlet detected. The first math was used by Mesopotamian merchants to calculate their expenditures and profits.

>> No.10390466

>>10390463
>Basically I think it's mandatory for a universe, at least one that's not utterly incomprehensible, to be described by math at least to some extent. Imagine a place in which you can't count, where you can't speak about coordinates or simply assign values to things in general. It would be bizarre, right?
Isn't that how the universe was at the time of the "Big Bang" - formless, lacking any ontologically discrete objects? It would be hard to stable assign values to anything.

>> No.10390469

>>10390460
If aliens had a different logical process then us i bet somewhere down the road the ideas of quantity, space and change would be very similar considering the physical 3D TD space we observe. If by some miracle they interacted with us from a higher dimension then the axioms of quatity, space and change would be different yes. The chances we find ourselves in thst situation are impossible. If we interact in the same physical structure then it would be the same abstractly.

>> No.10390472

>>10390469
I'm not saying it wouldn't. I'm just saying its not a fact that it would. If we could understand how Math could be done differently, someone would have a Phd in it. I'm saying it could be physically incomprehensible.

>> No.10390476

>>10390466
I don't know, but when there's a spacetime, there's already some structure present in that, right?

>> No.10390487

>>10390472
I would disagree seeing as our axioms may have a different approach to one another but factually quantity space and change are axiomatic and ubiquitous.

>> No.10390491

>>10390487
Math isn't the axioms, Math is a path from the axioms.

>> No.10390494

>>10390465
>Brainlet detected. The first math was used by Mesopotamian merchants to calculate their expenditures and profits.
Fucking idiot. You just refuse to see the bigger picture do you? The merchants used math to apply it to the real world. So did other people. They sought a rigorous explanation of what was going on in the real world and so they found one. What is surprising about that?

>> No.10390501

>>10389813
Sure, but every statement we construct on those axioms is dependent on the axiom not changing for the cases we're considering. Otherwise you wouldn't have an axiom, and couldn't make any definitive statements.

>> No.10390508

>>10390501
You're right. I misunderstood what you meant by constant. I thought you meant constant between disciplines.

>> No.10390528

>>10390491
So then define mathematics

I feel like it should be

[eqn]axioms\subset logic\subset mathematics[/eqn]

There are axioms that define quantity, space and change. Thus to apply these in real life the axioms wouldn't change. See the beauty of math is that you dont go from theoretical to application. It's a flucuation between each other, they are compliments to one another in such a way where we can make distinctions nd similarities by carefully defining everything. This why pure math influences physics and vice versa.

>> No.10390543

>>10390528
Axioms are independent of logic. Logic could be biological. An alien race, with the same axioms, could do the math there after in such a way that we biologically could not understand. All I'm arguing is it's possible.

>> No.10390551

>>10390494
Actually they applied math, a human construct, to money, which is also a human construct.

It's easy to understand how we can use math to model simple distances, quantities, shapes, and other basic shit. Why math corresponds so well to fundamental rules of the universe is a pretty big mystery. Instead of e=mc^2, it could be something that is impossible to model mathematically, but still creates an orderly world.

>> No.10390583

>>10390543
Actually i agree axioms are there own thing but they suppliment math. By biology do you mean the neurologically or psychologically.

>> No.10390584

>>10388960
Math is a human construct we built to help us understand the universe. It describes things well because it was designed to describe things well.

>> No.10390620

Math doesn't model natural laws perfectly, it gets close enough. You come up with a formula that somewhat represents the relationships between the objects the law describes, then you fine-tune it with an arbitrary number until it works (e.g the gravitational constant), kind of like turning on a focus-dial on a telescope until the focus is right.

Math is no more the code of the universe than a painting of a horse is the code of a horse.

>> No.10390652

>>10388960
maths is a tool and nothing more

>> No.10390656

>>10389450
>Math was literally designed to make sense of reality.
You're thinking reality.
Maths was designed for recipes and later metallurgy and trajectory.
That's all there is to it.

>> No.10390661

>>10390656
*philosophy, not reality
brainfart

>>10390584
that's physics

>> No.10390663

>>10389503
>hurr u cant no nuffin durr
SHUT the fuck up.

>> No.10390829

>>10390663
Great argument. Are you a woman of color? Hidden figure?

>> No.10390835

>>10390583
Axioms don't supplement math, they are the foundation of whatever discipline you're working in. They are accepted as assumptions, no matter how apparent or impossible they may be.

>> No.10390838

>>10388960
Math is no real. Change my mind

>> No.10390846

>>10390583
Sorry, for the second part....
I don't know if logic is physiological, neurological, or biological at all. My only point is that if there is something that can think logically, and is biologically different, they could have incomprehensibly different logic. Possibly, not probably, not factually. So I don't accept the claim that math is universally accepted throughout the cosmos.

>> No.10390853

>>10390838
Did you get trips?

>> No.10390898

>>10390221
Thank you, brother. I now see the light.

>> No.10390904

>>10388963
FPMIP

>> No.10390974

>>10390469
Our dimension can be based on higher dimensions, so their mathematics could be pretty similar to ours with some of things. We can do calculations of things in them, but beings inhabited there, could develop other interpretation which would be more intuitive for them. It could be, because it would fit their thinking in extended way, or just describe nature of our universe in better way

>> No.10390985 [DELETED] 
File: 6 KB, 440x389, penis_size_avg.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10390985

Math is everywhere. It's even used in sexual topics where we measure penis size and notice that certain races that bigger average penises than other races.