A simple argument for the existence of mathematical objects

[Prismatic]

The quote was not mine, but quoted from the message I was replying to. As far as I can see it is all nonsense.

[Wayne92587]

I have no argument with Prismatic’s statement that, " Singularity is a point at which a function can take no value such as the function 1/x when x = 0. As such a singularity has no numerical value whatever.”

Tibbir wrote;

Pure mathematics does not exist in the physical world it exists in the ephemeral world of thoughts and ideas, what I call logical existence, the world of words. So of course you can not measure 0 in time or space because it does not exist there it is just an idea.

I say that Pure Math does exist and is based upon a Pure, an Absolute, Singularity; O/1, Zero—O and One-1 being such a singularity.

I say that Singularity is an Individuality, an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity (the term Infinite as used meaning unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the INFINITE Nature of Nothingness) that a Singularity of Zero—O being a Real Whole Number has Physical Existence.

My arguments is that a singularity does exist; a Singularity being an individuality, an Indivisible Singularity; that the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, ect., do not exist.

The motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness of Time and Space, being meaningless has no Function; the Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness of Time and Space being Static, existing without displacement, without angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction, exists as motionless motion, Boundlessness Randomness; the accurate measurement as to Location and Momentum in Time and Space of a Singularity being Immeasurable, rendering the existence of a Pure, an Absolute, a minute, an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having no relative value, a numerical value of Zero—O, Uncertain.

I have no interest in the Indeterminacy of a Singularity, the existence or the non-existence of a Pure, an Absolute, Singularity, a Singularity of Zero--O.

My interest is limited to the Uncertainty of physical existence of a Singularity of Zero--O.

I say that the Universe, the Reality of Everything is born of Singularity; not a Single Singularity but a State of Singularity, the Quantum State of Singularity, a Steady, Static, State of Singularity, consisting of an Untold, an Infinite Number of Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularities; None having relative numerical value, each having a Numerical value of Zero—O.

O/1, before 1 issued forth, was thrust into the LIme Light, as the Realty of First Cause, the uncaused Cause, becoming the First in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process; O/1 being the same, Equal, each being a Minute, an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero—O; A Singularity not being subject to the Relativity of Time and Space, Cause and Effect; the existence of a Singularity being Everlasting, Eternal.

I will stop here and ask if this makes any sense before I continue.

Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail, the seed of all Living things---O. Ye, Amen Ra!

[Tibbir]

I am not sure I understand you.

As a singularity are you speak for instance of a black hole or 1/0.

I was certainly not implying pure mathematics does not exist. It is just that I have this impression that what we sense as a physical world is really abstract but I understand the physical world to be a subset of mathematics not the whole of mathematics. In logical existence there are no physical laws it is limitless you can do anything in your dreams. In our experience of the physical laws there are very mathematical limits.

I supect what we feel is not the whole of mathematics or every possible word, which is why I make a distinction between logical and physical existence.

[Wayne92587]

Singularity, O/1, these two being the same, of a Single Source, Origin, differ in name, meaning, relative, numerical value, in the Way, the Spirit, the Nature of Motion, as a Singularity of Zer--O is thrust into, issues forth into the lime light, is Alchemically Transfigure into a Singularity having greater relative, numerical value, a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity of Zero-O actually having less than little relative value, having a numerical value of Zero--O, having no function other than taking up Space, than being a place holder; the function of One—1, being that it is the first in a series, the beginning of continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, the Function of a Singularity of One-1, being an affect, being without cause, is that of the Reality of First Cause, the beginning of our System of Chaos, the deterministic Way, the Spirit, the Single True Nature of Motion of a Singularity of One--!, the Displacement of a Singularity of Zero-O, One-1, the Reality of First Cause having angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, meaning that the Existence of a Singularity of One-1 is Certain!

[Mmfiore]

Interesting topic. I think that the question of whether mathematical objects exist is a good question. Where we go wrong with mathematics is when we choose to believe that some mathematical object represents something in reality that does not exist or we choose a formulation that does not truly represent physical reality. This is a real problem in physics right now.

[Gulnara]

Word "numbers" could be deciphered as "name bearers". We take an object and name it, then we take a group of objects and name each group. I could call a representative of one person " Mars" and two of Marses I would call " Venus", while three of Marses or one Mars and Venus I'd call Yesus. In my problem Mars plus Venus equals Yesus. 1+2=3 That's it, that simple. Very approximate, of course, because each of representatives of human are different people in many ways. Be them apples, they are different too, but for rough work of counting and haphazard planning it might work, it works. There are other measures of people, of course: one person can be worth a thousand people due to his importance. 1=1000.

[Prismatic]

Word "numbers" could be deciphered as "name bearers". We take an object and name it, then we take a group of objects and name each group. I could call a representative of one person " Mars" and two of Marses I would call " Venus", while three of Marses or one Mars and Venus I'd call Yesus. In my problem Mars plus Venus equals Yesus. 1+2=3 That's it, that simple. Very approximate, of course, because each of representatives of human are different people in many ways. Be them apples, they are different too, but for rough work of counting and haphazard planning it might work, it works. There are other measures of people, of course: one person can be worth a thousand people due to his importance. 1=1000.

In philosophy it's called "theory of reference" and it has been studied extensively. There is a nice article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on theory of meaning which discusses it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/

[Gulnara]

I imagine a race of six-legged humanoids in a distant galaxy who don’t consider us “human” so you still have to attach conditions. Lawsuits have been conducted and won on the basis of such apparent absurdities.

If you wish to justify that the statement all humans have six legs is "true to some extent," you need to do better than that. The statement is false if there is a single human who doesn't have six legs. Given your penchant for spontaneity, I am reluctant to suggest you yourself as a useful exemplar of standard human anatomy, but count your lower limbs immediately without fail and report back to us.

This is where problem is: standards, generalizations. People separate people from everything else, they turn them into symbols, while some person can have six legs, and another zero legs, making them hardly standard objects to count. yet, this abstract insanity prevails,often to a point of real life having to be adjusted to the abstract calculations of the abstract objects. That is how far we are from the truth about ourselves, that is why we can not know winning lottery numbers; we do not have a hold on reality.

[Prismatic]

Gulnara wrote:

That is how far we are from the truth about ourselves, that is why we can not know winning lottery numbers; we do not have a hold on reality.

Of course I may be absolutely wrong, but I have a suspicion the reason we do not know which numbers will win the lottery is that they are chosen at random.

[Gulnara]

I think, Pris, ( I am not yelling ), that we simply are so primitive with our math, that it does not allow us to calculate what numbers will be winning. If we could, there would be no lottery game in existence. This "random" thing, it is, probably, a result of math being so incurably abstract, that it does not read real reality, but rather strives to recreate real reality to fit mathematical formulas. How can math, which is itself based on a randomness of everything, of our existence, claim that it can not know random? Or it is solid knowledge that knows everything, or it is random knowledge that can not create some super random, claiming it itself is sort of central truth. I understand, you are mathematician, and my words might sound hard for you, but my excuse is that this is philosophy forum, or may be because I am not a number, and not average, standard person.

I think we call "random" that which beyond our knowledge or ability to see, or calculate, but " random" should not be treated as an excuse to quit figuring, as proven insolubility. Sometimes the change of tool can do the trick.

[Prismatic]

I think, Pris, ( I am not yelling ), that we simply are so primitive with our math, that it does not allow us to calculate what numbers will be winning.

And I am pointing out that your reasoning is incorrect because lottery numbers are chosen at random and are therefore beyond the reach of any calculation no matter how sophisticated.

If you go to Monte Carlo you will see in the salon ordinaire dozens of gamblers recording every play of the roulette wheel, convinced there must be a hidden pattern which careful and patient observation will reveal to them. Year after year they sacrifice time and money to this foolish notion. They are the most faithful adherents of this church of the unwarranted assumption.

[Gulnara]

I understand that pattern of random is unreachable, because people do not have the tool, and math is not the tool. Lottery numbers are not chosen, who chose them? They are predetermined in a way misunderstood by people.The moment the numbers show up, they become known without any calculations. It is people's set up of lottery to squeeze money out of people in advance, which makes mystery out of no mystery. If money were to be paid at the last moment, nothing would be earned, or everyone would claim winning numbers, dividing the sum by million of people, thus each person earning his 1 dollar back. So, this is the great law of randomness, that we learn of it the moment it shows up? But so is the entire life.

[Prismatic]

I understand that pattern of random is unreachable, because people do not have the tool, and math is not the tool. Lottery numbers are not chosen, who chose them? They are predetermined in a way misunderstood by people.The moment the numbers show up, they become known without any calculations. It is people's set up of lottery to squeeze money out of people in advance, which makes mystery out of no mystery. If money were to be paid at the last moment, nothing would be earned, or everyone would claim winning numbers, dividing the sum by million of people, thus each person earning his 1 dollar back. So, this is the great law of randomness, that we learn of it the moment it shows up? But so is the entire life.

You seem certain that lottery numbers are predetermined. You might tell us how you know this and by whom they are predetermined.

[Wayne92587]

Tibbir wrote;

Posts: 16 ( View: All / In topic )

Post Number:#63 May 7th, 2012, 9:54 am

I am not sure I understand you.

As a singularity are you speak for instance of a black hole or 1/0.

I was certainly not implying pure mathematics does not exist. It is just that I have this impression that what we sense as a physical world is really abstract but I understand the physical world to be a subset of mathematics not the whole of mathematics. In logical existence there are no physical laws it is limitless you can do anything in your dreams. In our experience of the physical laws there are very mathematical limits.

I suspect what we feel is not the whole of mathematics or every possible word, which is why I make a distinction between logical and physical existence.

Wayne wrote;

I see a Logical existence as being a Rationalization.

—Usage. Although RATIONALIZE retains its principal 19th-century senses “to make conformable to reason” and “to treat in a rational manner,” 20th-century psychology has given it the now more common meaning “to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that seem reasonable but actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious causes.” Although the possibility of ambiguity exists, the context will usually make clear which sense is intended.

Singularity is Three Fold, Trismegistus. 1. The quantum, Steady, State of Singularity, consisting of an untold quantity, number of Individualities, infinitely finite indivisible Singularities each existing in it own personal Celestial Sphere, each the center of it own Universe, World of Reality, none having relative, numerical value, none subject to the relativity of Time and Space, none subject to the relativity of cause and effect; the existence of a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, each having a numerical value of Zero—O, nada, Zip, Nothing; the Existence of said Quantum, Steady, State of Singularity being Uncertain for several reasons. a. Singularity being Infinitely Finite, is immeasurable. b. The Motion of a Singular, existing without displacement, not allowing for the accurate measurement as to Location and momentum in Time and Space.

2. The Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness having a numerical value of Zero—O; an Individuality, a Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity of Zero—O, not being subject to the Relativity of Time and Space, being born of an Affect, the State or Condition of the Quantum, Steady, State of Singularity.

3. The Reality of First Cause being the First Singularity to have relative, numerical value, to have a numerical value of One-1, to have Displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and directions; The Reality of First Cause being the First in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, being the Single direct material cause of the Physical Universe of the Physical Reality of Everything.

I could conclude that the Quantum State, the Steady State of Singularity, that the NoThingness that filled the Emptiness prior to Moment of Creation could be defined a being a Black Whole.

-- Updated May 23rd, 2012, 1:13 pm to add the following --

The selection of a Lotto number is neither random nor determined.

Numbers can not be randomly chosen simply because only objects can be randomly chose.

[Gulnara]

Gulnara wrote:

That is how far we are from the truth about ourselves, that is why we can not know winning lottery numbers; we do not have a hold on reality.

Of course I may be absolutely wrong, but I have a suspicion the reason we do not know which numbers will win the lottery is that they are chosen at random.

That's interesting: random does not match random, and organized does not match random ether. Organized numbers, the way we count days and months and years, can only match the same organized system, which is illusionary outcome. We do not have a hold on reality. Why? Is it because we thrust ourselves into a niche of mathematical approach in science? Or is it because reality is out of realm of predictability, comparison, planning and rational? Take lottery games: they are just cute white balls, with patches of paint on them. Forget the numbers, they could be letters, or images. Math has nothing to do with lottery numbers. No calculations or formulas apply. What applies is aerodynamics and mechanics. Since patches of paint are all different, they change character of each ball, so it makes sense to study their different characters and relationships to each other.A type of objects social studies, that's what we need to even remotely understand what happens with lottery balls. Not everything is math that has numbers on it.