What is mathematics?

[Steve3007]

Are you asking me or Synthesis?

And how do you know that the first proto-man was called Brute?

[Hereandnow]

Steve3007 wrote:
However, I cannot think of any concept that defies understanding in the spoken word. Please, anyone, show me a concept that – we – cannot understand?

Consider: in all that you put forth as explanation f any concept, you employ in your explanation the same language that you are supposed to be explaining. Talk about the logical intuition at work in mathematics requires you to not use logic. Of course, there is much you can say, it would all be encased within the assumption that logic can explain itself. But inside that explanation, there would be the logic at work, forming assertions, denials, hypotheticals, and so on. But how can this kind of thing be right? be true?--if you have no third non-logical standard to deploy? A bit like explaning water by splashing around in one way or another. But can you, if you can stand the metaphor, climb out of the pool altogether and then, from that detached alien place of objective perspective, talk about what you "see"? Or better, isn't it the case that the very mention of a third possibility like this just sheer nonsense? AS if I could even pose the question at all.

[Synthesis]

Synthesis:

Remove mathematics and see the world with better clarity.

So what you're saying is:

world - mathematics = clarity

Yes?

No. Reality - interpretation = clarity

[Woodart]

Synthesis:

(Nested quote removed.)


So what you're saying is:

world - mathematics = clarity

Yes?

No. Reality - interpretation = clarity

How is your interpretation devoid of math - please explain? Are you talking about a still mind? If so, this is off topic - unless you can relate a still mind to math?

[Synthesis]

(Nested quote removed.)

No. Reality - interpretation = clarity

How is your interpretation devoid of math - please explain? Are you talking about a still mind? If so, this is off topic - unless you can relate a still mind to math?

Math is simply a language, the language of science. But, like all languages, is is complete contrived. Math was made up in an attempt to make human sense out of the natural world. Just like everything else was made up, e.g., the sun god or the rudimentary understanding of physiology in the year 1000CE. Man seems to be uncomfortable just saying, "I don't have a clue," so s/he makes all kinds of stuff up, math included.

I don't believe most of the other species are too worried about the classification and measurement of the natural world [although, who knows], but the take home message here is that our intellectual prowess is weak and the world is far to complex for any of us to have much of a clue as far as what's going on. Fortunately, there is no need because if we are willing to let go of this need to know, then we can simply see things for what they really are instead of attempting to make Reality conform to our simply minds. Reality exists outside of our ability to know. Even if we were able to process the change of all things, what would it matter?

[Fan of Science]

We have speedometers on our cars that tell us the speed we are going as we accelerate. These speedometers could not work without the concepts of zero and infinity. So, how would getting rid of math, so we cannot even have something as basic as a speedometer on a vehicle help us see the world more clearly? It wouldn't.

The financial system would collapse as one could not even keep track of debts without the concept of zero. Not to mention, risk calculations and econometrics involves a lot of sophisticated math. Just try being an insurance company without the use of statistics and see how quickly you go out of business.

Perhaps the fastest new occupation is a data miner, who is basically an applied mathematician, using statistics to be able to draw causal inferences from a mountain of data. Without math, this whole occupation disappears.

Complexity theory is being used extensively right now not only in economics, but also in cancer research. Kiss this good bye if one rids the world of math. The use of complexity theory actually gives us better insights into numerous fields than we previously possessed with outdated 17th century mechanistic thinking.

Don't even get me started on solid state physics, geo-synchronous satellites, gps tracking services, even the use of electronic communication that transmits data mathematically.

Get rid of math, and one may as well live in a cave.

[Woodart]

(Nested quote removed.)


How is your interpretation devoid of math - please explain? Are you talking about a still mind? If so, this is off topic - unless you can relate a still mind to math?

Math is simply a language, the language of science. But, like all languages, is is complete contrived. Math was made up in an attempt to make human sense out of the natural world. Just like everything else was made up, e.g., the sun god or the rudimentary understanding of physiology in the year 1000CE. Man seems to be uncomfortable just saying, "I don't have a clue," so s/he makes all kinds of stuff up, math included.

I don't believe most of the other species are too worried about the classification and measurement of the natural world [although, who knows], but the take home message here is that our intellectual prowess is weak and the world is far to complex for any of us to have much of a clue as far as what's going on. Fortunately, there is no need because if we are willing to let go of this need to know, then we can simply see things for what they really are instead of attempting to make Reality conform to our simply minds. Reality exists outside of our ability to know. Even if we were able to process the change of all things, what would it matter?

Well apparently you are not talking about a still mind – rather a simple life. Seems quite a contradiction from the one you live. Writing on a computer - with measured grammar and punctuation – with two distinct paragraphs. All of this has a logic and mathematical flow to it. Even if you live in a cave, as Fan of Science suggests, you will take your logic and learning with you. No hermit – once cultured by civilization – escapes civilization. Again, hermit talk is off topic – not related to math.

[Synthesis]

(Nested quote removed.)

Math is simply a language, the language of science. But, like all languages, is is complete contrived. Math was made up in an attempt to make human sense out of the natural world. Just like everything else was made up, e.g., the sun god or the rudimentary understanding of physiology in the year 1000CE. Man seems to be uncomfortable just saying, "I don't have a clue," so s/he makes all kinds of stuff up, math included.

I don't believe most of the other species are too worried about the classification and measurement of the natural world [although, who knows], but the take home message here is that our intellectual prowess is weak and the world is far to complex for any of us to have much of a clue as far as what's going on. Fortunately, there is no need because if we are willing to let go of this need to know, then we can simply see things for what they really are instead of attempting to make Reality conform to our simply minds. Reality exists outside of our ability to know. Even if we were able to process the change of all things, what would it matter?

Well apparently you are not talking about a still mind – rather a simple life. Seems quite a contradiction from the one you live. Writing on a computer - with measured grammar and punctuation – with two distinct paragraphs. All of this has a logic and mathematical flow to it. Even if you live in a cave, as Fan of Science suggests, you will take your logic and learning with you. No hermit – once cultured by civilization – escapes civilization. Again, hermit talk is off topic – not related to math.

What I am getting at is that we must "understand" the limits of the intellect, using language [in this case, math] as an example. I am not suggesting that we should not engage in conversation nor should we be isolated in any way, instead, I am arguing that we should realize that our intellect can only penetrate so far due to the notion that we are simply incapable of processing Reality in real time.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a problem because it is not the knowing which is important, only the staying on track, of being present in the here and now. Any interpretation necessitates leaving Reality and creating a mythical existence known as our own reality.

[Woodart]

What I am getting at is that we must "understand" the limits of the intellect, using language [in this case, math] as an example. I am not suggesting that we should not engage in conversation nor should we be isolated in any way, instead, I am arguing that we should realize that our intellect can only penetrate so far due to the notion that we are simply incapable of processing Reality in real time.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a problem because it is not the knowing which is important, only the staying on track, of being present in the here and now. Any interpretation necessitates leaving Reality and creating a mythical existence known as our own reality.

What you don't seem to get is that changing the topic is not your right. You are new here - read the rules - stay on topic.

[Synthesis]

What I am getting at is that we must "understand" the limits of the intellect, using language [in this case, math] as an example. I am not suggesting that we should not engage in conversation nor should we be isolated in any way, instead, I am arguing that we should realize that our intellect can only penetrate so far due to the notion that we are simply incapable of processing Reality in real time.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a problem because it is not the knowing which is important, only the staying on track, of being present in the here and now. Any interpretation necessitates leaving Reality and creating a mythical existence known as our own reality.

What you don't seem to get is that changing the topic is not your right. You are new here - read the rules - stay on topic.

I am "on topic." It is you who mis-understands what am saying [or it that possible].

And, btw, thanks for the personal warning message. How nice to be able to issue such in your own conversation.

[Burning ghost]

Synthesis -

It may be helpful if you understand that woodart is somewhat of a mystic (sixth sense and more than six senses shows this quite clearly, or it could be a simple misuse of language again? Either way we are left guessing what is being said more often than not in the list provided). Look at the list of "ideas" and try and find one that makes sense or attempts to use any depth of thought.

Example

(1) Meaning precedes language ... a completely contrary statement. Also woodart covers this over a little by saying "meaning or cognition" as if they a synonymous.

(2) Next we see a statement saying that "language can be art", yet there is no explanation as to what this means?

I have already expressed the absurdity of suggesting women understand time first because of menstruation whilst ignoring other obvious biological functions available to non-female, non-fertile or infantile humans.

woodart -

Before you say it this is not an attack on you it is an declaration of blithe use of language and lack of clarity. It is a critique and calling your statements "absurd" is also a valid critique because an absurd claim is an absurd claim. I would hope I am not alone in drawing this conclusion. If you can show how it is not absurd by all means try.

I would like more than what look like random speculations. I assume you have more to say I'm just not inclined to play a back and forth for several pages just get one morsel of clarity. In other subjects, such as art, I would be more willing because "art" is a very ambiguous term and a highly subjective one that deals with many things such as aesthetics. I would have hoped you'd expanded on this kind of thing rather than declaring that "art is a kind of language" and expecting us to grasp what this means?

Of course we can move into semantics and I imagine you could defend this with references to ancient Greek and how they used the term "art", and the differentiation of "technique" and such. We are not ancient Greeks though so a better and fuller expression of these seemingly random ideas would be better for everyone concerned I think?

[Synthesis]

Synthesis -

It may be helpful if you understand that woodart is somewhat of a mystic (sixth sense and more than six senses shows this quite clearly, or it could be a simple misuse of language again? Either way we are left guessing what is being said more often than not in the list provided). Look at the list of "ideas" and try and find one that makes sense or attempts to use any depth of thought.

Example

(1) Meaning precedes language ... a completely contrary statement. Also woodart covers this over a little by saying "meaning or cognition" as if they a synonymous.

(2) Next we see a statement saying that "language can be art", yet there is no explanation as to what this means?

I have already expressed the absurdity of suggesting women understand time first because of menstruation whilst ignoring other obvious biological functions available to non-female, non-fertile or infantile humans.

woodart -

Before you say it this is not an attack on you it is an declaration of blithe use of language and lack of clarity. It is a critique and calling your statements "absurd" is also a valid critique because an absurd claim is an absurd claim. I would hope I am not alone in drawing this conclusion. If you can show how it is not absurd by all means try.

I would like more than what look like random speculations. I assume you have more to say I'm just not inclined to play a back and forth for several pages just get one morsel of clarity. In other subjects, such as art, I would be more willing because "art" is a very ambiguous term and a highly subjective one that deals with many things such as aesthetics. I would have hoped you'd expanded on this kind of thing rather than declaring that "art is a kind of language" and expecting us to grasp what this means?

Of course we can move into semantics and I imagine you could defend this with references to ancient Greek and how they used the term "art", and the differentiation of "technique" and such. We are not ancient Greeks though so a better and fuller expression of these seemingly random ideas would be better for everyone concerned I think?

Burning ghost...

I am here to explore language and meaning, not to define who is what, when, where, or why. I understand that I come from a fairly unique perspective, but I would hope that such would be welcomed and not condemned. The adherence to the linearity of not only language, but to all things, is what coerces folks into regurgitating the same old arguments. 1+1=2, 2+2=4, so on and so forth, ad infinitum. In a world that lacks such structure, 1+1 can equal 52, but only if you break out of the confines of the what has been shoved down everybody's throat.

The question was posed, "What is mathematics?" I suggested that it was nothing but a convenient [lazy] way to support illusory suppositions [as is all language]. I would think that people would jump for joy at the prospect of discussing such an idea instead of going down the same old dead end road.

What I am attempting to get across here is that there is another way to view reality [or Reality, if you wish]. Access is through abandoning the relative [that which can be know and is in constant flux] and embracing Reality [that which can not be known, but is discrete and permanent]. This is where the Truth lies, be it in mathematics or anything else.

And, woodart, sorry if you believe I have changed the topic again, but I believe you will find that the most interesting journeys always include unexpected detours and side adventures!

[Magicpotion]

Math is too complex and needs the logic of spoken language in order to express itself.

Nowadays for sure, but maths didn't need to be very complex if we're talking about it's genesis. What if you imagined that the earliest symbols were about things and numbers of things? Like roman numerals before any written letters? Do you put the concept "one" first or the symbol '1'?

My key point here is that logic developed simultaneously with spoken language in order to be coherent. Then the skill of logic was used to develop the more complex math language. What do you think of my idea that logic developed simultaneously with spoken language in order to be coherent?

I don't think logic is something inherent to spoken language but is a principal feature of the physical universe. We all know and describe it as such (when we point to evidence for our arguments) but somehow detach the method of logical reasoning from it's source. You cannot define logic as something like the psychology of reasoning but dismiss that this reasoning is predicated upon the logically-consistent laws of the universe.

Ultimately I think your idea is plausible but I don't know how you could verify it. In my own experience, I remember being a kid and beginning to grasp logic in my mind, formulating arguments and translating them into spoken language and it was all incredibly satisfying and seemingly miraculous. But I think this was because I was beginning to understand fundamental truths about the nature of the universe and how consciousness is able to perceive and express these things..

I think logic is something more like the laws of physics (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) and more closely-related to the math that existed before humans in the universe. It precedes spoken language in that it's based around perception of matters of fact, states of affairs - the way things are/work in the natural world, how they are so governed by the laws of the nature. Look up how the stoics thought of the term 'Logos'.

I'd still argue that spoken language needs the logic of mathematics just as equally to express itself, it's just that language is mostly what we're conscious of. So much of this calculating process goes on at a subconscious level, it's hard to even be aware of it happening in real life. You could say that the very act of forming words or constructing a logical sentence has it's basis in the minute mathematical calculations going on in your brain. But of course, this again depends on how you define mathematics.

Language is like second nature to us; it's so abundant and intuitive that we forget how we had to learn all of the (logical) rules of the game before being able to play it. These very parameters have a mathematical basis that we usually look past simply because they don't hold value in ordinary conversation (unlike philosophy) and because language is our primary means of expression, the only way you can point to them is with language itself.

[Woodart]

Magicpotion wrote:
I don't think logic is something inherent to spoken language but is a principal feature of the physical universe. We all know and describe it as such (when we point to evidence for our arguments) but somehow detach the method of logical reasoning from it's source. You cannot define logic as something like the psychology of reasoning but dismiss that this reasoning is predicated upon the logically-consistent laws of the universe.

I agree logic - or what I would describe as order - is inherent in the universe – before man – just like types of math exists before man.

Magicpotion wrote:
Ultimately I think your idea is plausible but I don't know how you could verify it.

I do not think verification is possible – it is an eternal hypothesis.

Magicpotion wrote:
I'd still argue that spoken language needs the logic of mathematics just as equally to express itself, it's just that language is mostly what we're conscious of.

You may be right here – I think it is exceedingly difficult to separate logic from math and vice versa.

Magicpotion wrote:
Language is like second nature to us; it's so abundant and intuitive that we forget how we had to learn all of the (logical) rules of the game before being able to play it. These very parameters have a mathematical basis that we usually look past simply because they don't hold value in ordinary conversation (unlike philosophy) and because language is our primary means of expression, the only way you can point to them is with language itself.

Good points – using language to describe language is a tricky business.

[The Beast]

My hallucination coincides with the description of mathematics as being a discrete and permanent language. The empirical evidence suggests what it is not. A language in which same words have different meanings or word translations which lost all the original meaning. My hallucination is one of expertise in modal logic, philosophy of language, mathematics, and analytic philosophy… or not. It is in the philosophy of mind that I find a correlation among hallucinations corresponding to bias. As such, some preference for rat burgers might suggest the King Rat Spectrum of hallucinatory dementia.
The paradigm in language hallucination is one of energy transfer. Same food organisms do not produce the same visions. In an analogy; Language intake does not produce the same ideas. The evidence is clear. A mathematical result is a permanent one. The narrative of language and mathematics might have found a common ground but, like Frege, it is forgotten as they might be too simple for the majority of the experts. In the previous, the empirical evidence might find a representation in a function surrounded by the pertaining narrated propositions. In any case, I believe that only God knows everything.