Math: is the nature of a physical object abstract, logical or beyond logic?

[Sculptor1]

Even so, if both objects can be described through abstract mathematical structures, what does that mean? And so there are at least two kinds of observable things, right?

I wonder if you are having a laugh?

I've asked you this question again and again.
What "two kinds" of observable things are you talking about?

[3017Metaphysician]

Even so, if both objects can be described through abstract mathematical structures, what does that mean? And so there are at least two kinds of observable things, right?

I wonder if you are having a laugh?

I've asked you this question again and again.
What "two kinds" of observable things are you talking about?

Animate and inanimate objects?

[Sculptor1]

Even so, if both objects can be described through abstract mathematical structures, what does that mean? And so there are at least two kinds of observable things, right?

I wonder if you are having a laugh?

I've asked you this question again and again.
What "two kinds" of observable things are you talking about?

Animate and inanimate objects?

Why the question mark?
What makes you think that these two represent an adequate way to sunder the entire universe?
What makes that choice one that is mandated by maths?

[3017Metaphysician]

Even so, if both objects can be described through abstract mathematical structures, what does that mean? And so there are at least two kinds of observable things, right?

I wonder if you are having a laugh?

I've asked you this question again and again.
What "two kinds" of observable things are you talking about?

Animate and inanimate objects?

Why the question mark?
What makes you think that these two represent an adequate way to sunder the entire universe?
What makes that choice one that is mandated by maths?

LOL. Very perplexing indeed. Similarly, what makes you think animate objects are so mysterious? And if the are, how so?

I'm wondering if both math and consciousness (some animate objects ) are essentially metaphysical qualities as objects or things found and/or observed in nature... ?

[Sculptor1]

I wonder if you are having a laugh?

I've asked you this question again and again.
What "two kinds" of observable things are you talking about?

Animate and inanimate objects?

Why the question mark?
What makes you think that these two represent an adequate way to sunder the entire universe?
What makes that choice one that is mandated by maths?

LOL. Very perplexing indeed. Similarly, what makes you think animate objects are so mysterious? And if the are, how so?

I cannot answer that since I never said that, nor did I so much as imply
But well done for trying to avoid answering the question.

I'm wondering if both math and consciousness (some animate objects ) are essentially metaphysical qualities as objects or things found and/or observed in nature... ?

Wonder away - but why not answer the question?
Is it because you realise that maths cannot approach most questions?

[3017Metaphysician]

Animate and inanimate objects?

Why the question mark?
What makes you think that these two represent an adequate way to sunder the entire universe?
What makes that choice one that is mandated by maths?

LOL. Very perplexing indeed. Similarly, what makes you think animate objects are so mysterious? And if the are, how so?

I cannot answer that since I never said that, nor did I so much as imply
But well done for trying to avoid answering the question.

I'm wondering if both math and consciousness (some animate objects ) are essentially metaphysical qualities as objects or things found and/or observed in nature... ?

Wonder away - but why not answer the question?
Is it because you realise that maths cannot approach most questions?

LOL,

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.

True or false?

[Sculptor1]

Why the question mark?
What makes you think that these two represent an adequate way to sunder the entire universe?
What makes that choice one that is mandated by maths?

LOL. Very perplexing indeed. Similarly, what makes you think animate objects are so mysterious? And if the are, how so?

I cannot answer that since I never said that, nor did I so much as imply
But well done for trying to avoid answering the question.

I'm wondering if both math and consciousness (some animate objects ) are essentially metaphysical qualities as objects or things found and/or observed in nature... ?

Wonder away - but why not answer the question?
Is it because you realise that maths cannot approach most questions?

LOL,

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.

True or false?

no

[3017Metaphysician]

LOL. Very perplexing indeed. Similarly, what makes you think animate objects are so mysterious? And if the are, how so?

I cannot answer that since I never said that, nor did I so much as imply
But well done for trying to avoid answering the question.

I'm wondering if both math and consciousness (some animate objects ) are essentially metaphysical qualities as objects or things found and/or observed in nature... ?

Wonder away - but why not answer the question?
Is it because you realise that maths cannot approach most questions?

LOL,

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.

True or false?

no

What does that mean?

[Sculptor1]

I cannot answer that since I never said that, nor did I so much as imply
But well done for trying to avoid answering the question.

Wonder away - but why not answer the question?
Is it because you realise that maths cannot approach most questions?

LOL,

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.

True or false?

no

What does that mean?

No is a negative.
You presented a LIST, then asked "true or false?". I am saying it is not true or false.

[3017Metaphysician]

LOL,

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.

True or false?

no

What does that mean?

No is a negative.
You presented a LIST, then asked "true or false?". I am saying it is not true or false.
It's not difficult. Is English not your first langauge.

Yes, I just learned English, so I need you help. Are you saying that all of those propositions are false? How is that possible?

[detail]

Math is a language , that even includes a uml or a epistemic or doxastic logic formulation or even statistics, probabilities or geometry.
A metaphyisical object wich cannot be described by math is perhaps an ill posed formulation of a problem or an ungraspable ,like god and
the problem that infallibility includes the possible incapability for stating god certain expressions. Like the phrase:" I am infallible thus i err." Which could be perhaps fixed by stating that the two informations can not be stated at one time in a Kripke Model. Even metaphysical concepts like belief and possible or necessary conditions can be formulated in this way. So metaphysical object have to have some kind of connection to feelings which can vary from time to time for every oberserver , but even this could be formalized. The existence of true types after the russel paradox which are no sets but can be defined like a set is already something very hard to imagae without the power of abstraction. But all that is non provable , like life after death shall not be discarded , do to its usefullness in society.

[3017Metaphysician]

Math is a language , that even includes a uml or a epistemic or doxastic logic formulation or even statistics, probabilities or geometry.
A metaphyisical object wich cannot be described by math is perhaps an ill posed formulation of a problem or an ungraspable ,like god and
the problem that infallibility includes the possible incapability for stating god certain expressions. Like the phrase:" I am infallible thus i err." Which could be perhaps fixed by stating that the two informations can not be stated at one time in a Kripke Model. Even metaphysical concepts like belief and possible or necessary conditions can be formulated in this way. So metaphysical object have to have some kind of connection to feelings which can vary from time to time for every oberserver , but even this could be formalized. The existence of true types after the russel paradox which are no sets but can be defined like a set is already something very hard to imagae without the power of abstraction. But all that is non provable , like life after death shall not be discarded , do to its usefullness in society.

I agree, math is a metaphysical language!

[Sculptor1]

no

What does that mean?

No is a negative.
You presented a LIST, then asked "true or false?". I am saying it is not true or false.
It's not difficult. Is English not your first langauge.

Yes, I just learned English, so I need you help. Are you saying that all of those propositions are false? How is that possible?

No.
I am saying that you cannot answer yes or no to a list, unless they are all true or all false.
So the only valid answer was "no", as "true" or "false" cannot be answered yes.

[3017Metaphysician]

What does that mean?

No is a negative.
You presented a LIST, then asked "true or false?". I am saying it is not true or false.
It's not difficult. Is English not your first langauge.

Yes, I just learned English, so I need you help. Are you saying that all of those propositions are false? How is that possible?

No.
I am saying that you cannot answer yes or no to a list, unless they are all true or all false.
So the only valid answer was "no", as "true" or "false" cannot be answered yes.

Sorry, I'm not following you there. Perhaps taking one statement at a time will help you focus on parsing those propositions. Shall we start with an easier one and work our way up? For instance:

6. "Math has no Darwinian survival advantages." Are you saying that that statement is neither true or false, but instead, somehow indeterminate?

[The Beast]

Hello.

I propose that math can be used to describe the physical and the metaphysical. With math we think of the duality wave/particle of existence and the metaphysical zero, infinity and beyond. This which is physical can be described by math as existent and bounded by an observer POV. The boundless POV is not possible from a physical observer, and it can only be attained from a metaphysical point of view. Math acknowledges the metaphysical point of view. Although, it is also true that some logic systems do not use the metaphysical symbols. A physical POV can only imagine a metaphysical reality if nonexistence is considered a metaphysical description or if it considers a physical or metaphysical eternal existence. If the observer is physical and acknowledges the metaphysical Truth then Truth is measured and bounded by the physical in a proposed/mirror imperfect evolving form/observer of the metaphysical mirror. Further, the forces of Nature like Gravity or the weak force…etc can be considered metaphycal forces shaping the physical evolution and Thought whether considering the metaphysical Truth or not it is also shaping the pronoun/numeric evolution by installing itself. So, I Math therefore I bound Truth or the metaphysical to Thought. Here I assert that Thought is metaphysical and therefore exists.