/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9910479]

Let's take an imaginary trip back to the time and place where mathematics as we know it did not yet exist, and wonder, how can you speedrun all of math, or even a portion of it towards what we have today.

Since no related symbols to the topic exist, how would you e.g. recreate numerals, adding and defining them from absolute scartch?

In this progress we can asnwer the question if math is invented or discovered.

[Anonymous No.9910482]

[Anonymous No.9910490]

>>9910479
>Discovered or invented
It's the same as asking if the universe is discovered or invented. In our discussions, our minds only reference our idea of the universe. Our idea is invented by our minds, it is based on what we think of as the 'ultimate universe'. This idea was invented by us, willingly or not. In the same way, mathematics seems to be the precise way reality arranges itself.
But we apparently can never deal directly with the universe in conversation, we must utilize the 'universe' and 'mathematics' to describe it, even if for every intention and purpose, they are wholly practical, accurate, and all encompassing

[Anonymous No.9910581]

>>9910479
>>9910482
>>9910490
Good idea to rebuild math and references, simplify it too, and its teaching methods. Math is very important. Our whole universe could be made of math. A gigantic fractal structure. Self sustaining in its own setup, and our spacetime as an emergent property.

#FractalUniverseRevolution !

[Anonymous No.9910582]

>>9910581

[Anonymous No.9910584]

>>9910581
>Our whole universe could be made of math
It isn't. Numbers are magic, but there is a whole lot more. Even with numbers, the witch way of their nature is spookey.

[Anonymous No.9910587]

>>9910479
I finger.
II finger.
III finger.
IIII finger...
V... because a full hand makes a V shape.
(For all intensive purposes a dog is a sphere.)

Now 4 becomes IV.
:D

[Anonymous No.9910604]

>>9910582
Thank you for the inspiration. Yeah, we are moving in a similar direction too. And from what I understood, there is nothing that prevents the theory presented in your post from being part of a fractal structure with mathematical properties that allow us to refine rendering it up to observations of forces and particles (think Nima's Amplituhedron).

I see the difference between 'reality can be a fractal' vs. 'is not' and 'it certainly is', to be a philosophical difference rather than something that can be measured. Either way, open minded research is necessary.

>>9910584
Numbers either exist or not, but humans have less logical reasons to exist than numbers. We are numbers dreaming of becoming humans, rather than humans using some concepts of addition, and pretend to have understood what numbers are.

[Anonymous No.9910731]

>>9910587

I like you :)

What you are doing there is you are modelling your fingers by drawing an I, II and so forth. Representing your fingers with a drawing, in a same sense you can draw a house, but now you can just draw a I, instead of lifting your finger. Good job, Anon.

Can you imagine a way you could define + now, without actually using the +, as you did with your I, II, III?

[Anonymous No.9910733]

>>9910584

Numbers are definitely not magic, our hero 9910587 just basically defined I, II, III, IIII, V without using any numbers in the progress, only his fingers.

[Anonymous No.9910739]

>>9910731
You could have a "root" number and just like in Roman numerals, anything to the right is added. Anything to the left is subtracted. Anything above, multiples, anything below division. If you're going to keep using symbols, there no reason to not use +,÷ etc.

[Anonymous No.9910757]

>>9910739

Aah, it just seems that at the moment we don't even know what substraction or adding is in mathematics, all we have are I, II, III and so forth, we haven't even inveted multiplication yet or dividing that matter, all we have are basically two hand and fingers pointing. How could you recreate the symbols of adding and substracting with those fingers?

[Anonymous No.9910763]

>>9910739

Clarifying a bit more, in the same way the I represents a finger pointing up while your other fingers are not.. pointing up.. in a same way, what could you use to represent the modern +?

And no worries wither, not many can do that, we can show you how you can do that, if you want!

[Anonymous No.9910766]

>>9910757
Nigga, what are you doing? Is this some shitty social experiment?
>Hurrrr we put our fingers together like a cross
Wow, look at us reinventing math for literally no purpose. Replying was my fault though. I thought this thread was about stream lining our inefficient way of communication, not to have you walk us through how people invented math. It's not really of much consequence is it?

[Anonymous No.9910779]

>>9910766

Yea, unless you want to create an AI with cognitive abilities, it has to be able to create complex system from something that is first simple, to "understand" what mathematics is from absolutely scratch, apparently this is not your cupt of tea, so that's fine, moving on. And no, not a social experiment, just trying to the right people also interested in this topic.

[Anonymous No.9910796]

>>9910779
>Grug have I stick
>Grug have I other stick
>Grug name I 'one' it sound better
>Grug finger look like stick
>Grug now have 'one one' stick
>Grug think 'two' sound better
It's not like this is a mystery man. A caveman picked up a rock and grunted indicating the number of rocks he had. Then it stuck because humans are social creature and learned through interaction.

[Anonymous No.9910818]

>>9910796

Do you consider that to be a scientifically fulfilling answer to how mathematics has been created over time, most importantly, is it in a form where mathematics can be defined without using mathematics, the same way as you can define numbers with fingers?
All that for no AI can understand mathematical symbols in the first place, the difference between a calculator and a human is that humans have created it by doing the actions what you somewhat described there - learned.

You have now kinda defined what "one" is with a model of a stick, we have a long way to go still, let's continue?

[Anonymous No.9910849]

>>9910479
I suggest we attempt calculus skip. When calculus is discovered, you can clip through the wall to skip all the way to analysis if you do a very precise sequence of inputs. So far only TAS bots can accomplish this skip but someone could try.

[Anonymous No.9910857]

>>9910849
No one is interested. Why not actually talk about something interesting? Like how inefficient written language is. That sounds fun.

[Anonymous No.9910909]

>>9910857

Aah, if the inefficiency of languages is something you are truly interested in, we are going to stick together for a really long time, you are hanging out now with specialist in that topic.

This goes exaclty in the same category as this topic, creating mathematics - creating languages, if you understand this process, you will also understand why you can not deliver an idea, a message you have in your "mind" effectively to another person using words,
are you truly interested in thips topic, may I ask?

[Anonymous No.9910913]

>>9910849

Gotta admit, that does sounds like cheating, skipping thousands of years of progress, especially since it seems we are still struggeling how even recreate symbols such as + - from scartch, not even mentioning diving, multiplication.

[Anonymous No.9911335]

>>9910581
http://www.butterflyeffect.ca/Close/Pages/MandelbrotSet.html

[Anonymous No.9911451]

>>9911335

Would you like to give a pesonal comment about that link you shared with us, in a nutshell what it's about?

[Anonymous No.9911554]

>>9911451
FractalWoman, first competitor in 'Building A Universe Competition' #BAUniC with a complete working model of a universe of fractal that can be rendered whole or partial, and the theory and maths about it, and methods to render the appropriate parts of the Mandelbrot Set that make sense in our view from classical physics, presents here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuWg8rd5i6Y a recent breakthrough she had about how to compute complex numbers. The code is the render version of old and new methods. And I think that is a great example of how to rethink math to the observed results, + very much a significant stepping stone towards the #FractalUniverseRevolution

[Anonymous No.9911873]

>>9911554

How should this exactly change my view of the observed universe and I already I know how models work, how you create a functional mathematical model from observations, what exactly is the part where I should "rethink"?

[Anonymous No.9911938]

>>9911873

This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4fQxAmYXU is the base of the theory. From there, where dimensions arise, where causality makes sense, etc, is coming. And out of observations too, which anybody can repeat.

[Anonymous No.9912827]

>>9911938

Now we wait

[Anonymous No.9912828]

Shia LeBouf is going to beat Joe Rogan's ass in the Octagon!

[Anonymous No.9912832]

>>9912827
Now we find fractal explorers to get their eyes and intuition to where physics could Specifically be, rather than generically be as presented. Which is why the attempts to #FUR you.

#FractalUniverseRevolution to #FUR you and me too : P

[Anonymous No.9912924]

>>9912832

In all honesty, I have no interest to spend time repeating her tests and see for myself if her claims are correct or not, doesn't really help to answer the questions I am personally interested in even if she was correct. Good luck finding the souls interested in that topic!