Discovered or Invented

[Anonymous No.15157750]

Is Math discovered or invented?

[Anonymous No.15157842]

>>15157750
Invented to describe something that has been discovered.

[Anonymous No.15157872]

Quantity has always existed …

[Anonymous No.15157886]

>>15157872
Quanitity only existed when we developed the language to describe quantity. The concept of quantity did not exist among indigenous australians, for example.

[Anonymous No.15157898]

>>15157750
as discovered as DnD cheese strats

[Anonymous No.15157912]

>>15157886
Are you sure about that?

[Anonymous No.15157918]

>>15157886
Um, no, quantity exists without human input.

[Anonymous No.15157921]

I had to be invented to be discovered

[Anonymous No.15157930]

>>15157750
Some are discovered, some are invented.

[Anonymous No.15159632]

>>15157750
discovered and its name invented

[Anonymous No.15159686]

>>15157750

Nobody knows. Occam's Razor is in favour of thinking it was invented, but if you have faith in particular religions, the objective existence of universals is sometimes involved.

[Anonymous No.15159689]

>>15157750
Invented expressions of disocvered relationships.

[Anonymous No.15159765]

>>15157750
Invented

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIkyqLDl9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOwG-hcd_k

[Anonymous No.15159770]

>>15157750
Here's an article that argues for a form of mathematical Platonism as a way of explaining why reality exists.

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/

[Anonymous No.15159773]

>>15157886
Doubt. You telling me they couldn't distinguish between one of something and two of something? But this is irrelevant anyway. If I say "there are two apples in the bowl", the statement is true or false in virtue of something real and external to me. If I didn't exist, that in virtue of which my statement would be true or false could still exist.

[Anonymous No.15159776]

>>15157886
>Quanitity only existed when we developed the language to describe quantity
The concept of quantities only came to be when humans made it up, but quantitive relationships obviously had to exist in the first place for humans to create abstractions around them.

[Anonymous No.15159804]

>>15157750
People confuse math and geometry. Math is mostly invented, geometry is discovered.

[Anonymous No.15159833]

>>15159804
Arithmetic is also real. You can count real things.

[Anonymous No.15159852]

>>15159804
Geometry is a branch of math.
So you're claiming geometry is both invented and discovered.

[Anonymous No.15159900]

>>15159804
>Math is mostly invented
Can you give us some examples of these mathmatical inventions ?

[Anonymous No.15160066]

Math is invented. But not by man

[Anonymous No.15160067]

>>15159900
>Can you give us some examples of these mathmatical inventions ?
Gravity

[Anonymous No.15160070]

>prime numbers exist
invented

[Anonymous No.15160093]

>>15157918
Nope, that's just an illusion.

[Anonymous No.15160098]

>>15157750
Mathematics is just logic applied to quantities. Is logic invented or discovered? Statements can be true or false regardless of us, so I think it's fair to say the process of inference is about discovering other truths, not inventing them. However, the abstraction is invented. The logical objects involved in the process of formalizing logic do not exist in the real world, even if they're useful to describe reality. I believe the same is true to mathematics. Quantities exist, but the abstraction of it does not.

[Anonymous No.15160105]

>>15159900
Imaginary numbers. This shit ain't real.

[Anonymous No.15160116]

>>15160105
>Imaginary numbers
Its called complex sweetie

[Anonymous No.15160118]

>>15159900
pi, 1+1=2, digits, operations

[Anonymous No.15160121]

>>15160105
>Imaginary
>>15160116
>complex
>>15160118
>pi, 1+1=2, digits, operations

So these things were not there before someone invented them ?
Like:
>>15160067
>Gravity

[Anonymous No.15160134]

>>15160121
>So these things were not there before someone invented them ?
>Like:
The phenomena we call gravity has always existed. Labeling and identifying a phenomena is entirely separate from comprehending its underlying mechanics.
If I did not know of humidity I could make the argument that plants produced water in the early hours of the morning. I would be able to create an entirely reliable and predictable model to explain this phenomenon. I could give this event a fancy name, open a school and teach other people about it.

[Anonymous No.15160136]

>>15160134
To be clear, I'm making the argument that gravity is not a fundamental force.

[Anonymous No.15160165]

>>15160134
>If I did not know of humidity I could make the argument that plants produced water
But yet again, both might be true

[Anonymous No.15160169]

Just like
>gravity is not a fundamental force.
Might be both fundamental and non-fundamental

[Anonymous No.15160181]

>>15160169
I'm of the opinion that gravity is only fundamental in forcing our one-eyed view of the universe. I do not believe that it's a force at all. It's a phenomena that we have labeled gravity and nothing more. Its very good at predicting things, but has put a glass ceiling on our understanding in the process.

[Anonymous No.15160203]

>>15160181
>I do not believe that it's a force at all.
What do you believe it would be then? Any clue?

[Anonymous No.15160212]

>>15160203
It's my guess that it's a result of magnetism, which is a result of electricity, which is a result of acoustics. Everything is energy in motion.

[Anonymous No.15160224]

>>15160212
So gravity is energy in motion ?

[Anonymous No.15160229]

>>15160224
While not quite descriptive enough, yes. I would start with researching the electric/plasma universe model. While they're equally off the mark as the standard model, both sides are describing 1 half of the same coin.

[Anonymous No.15160354]

>>15157842
/thread

[Anonymous No.15160400]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KooPsEE7E-Q