Was math discovered or invented?

[SmithSmith]

What do you think?

[Gunman]

Most certainly invented, since it´s a thing that can only be "decoded" by the human mind.

[Quills]

Discovered. Maths is a universal truth, just like other natural sciences.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I suppose a bit of both. Objects and their relationships exist independantly to maths, but it is only when we impose maths upon something that we make sense of it. It would be daft to assert that 1 apple+1 apple did not = 2 apples before humans were there. However claiming that "1" and"2" for example are great discoveries is not quite right either.

When we talk about maths we talk about our direct understanding of reality. This isn't reality itself, only our understanding of it. Maths is an a-priori truth, and is created thus.

[Dyst]

This is a stupid question, yet a very interesting one considering so many people actually think it was invented...

It was obviously not invented, since mathematics is an universal truth, and no matter how we may fiddle with it, it will always be primarily.

If you have two dots, and get three more dots, you have five dots.

It is how we have applied the natural system (mathematics) into figures and shapes (numbers) that's invented.

[Much Commie Love]

Yeah...that's far about the truth. But...things such as multiplying, dividing, 1.0, 2.0, etc., and algebra, are pretty much invented afterwards. But numbers have already existed...in plurality. Buth math was invented to suit it...as a system around the natural numbers. That's atleast my view :P

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:55 PM
This is a stupid question, yet a very interesting one considering so many people actually think it was invented...


Why is it stupid, because it disagrees with your view? If others saw it as so self evident, then they would agree that it always existed.



If you have two dots, and get three more dots, you have five dots.
No you have dots+dots=more dots.


It is how we have applied the natural system (mathematics) into figures and shapes (numbers) that's invented.
I agree this is invented. What you are talking about wthout these is reality itself. Of course this existed prior to humans. Maths only exists when you invoke the processes and symbols that are man made, so as to understand this reality.

[AdamCecil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:19 PM
Discovered. Maths is a universal truth, just like other natural sciences.
Unfortunatly, we have yet to discover the truth behind all natural sciences. :(

[Gunman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:53 PM
I suppose a bit of both. Objects and their relationships exist independantly to maths, but it is only when we impose maths upon something that we make sense of it. It would be daft to assert that 1 apple+1 apple did not = 2 apples before humans were there. However claiming that "1" and"2" for example are great discoveries is not quite right either.

When we talk about maths we talk about our direct understanding of reality. This isn't reality itself, only our understanding of it. Maths is an a-priori truth, and is created thus.
Right you are!

[Dyst]

Why is it stupid, because it disagrees with your view? If others saw it as so self evident, then they would agree that it always existed.
No, it is stupid because it goes against facts.


No you have dots+dots=more dots.
OK, let me say it again.
You have 1 dot and 1 dot. You get 1 dot and 1 dot and 1 dot.
You now got 1 dot and 1 dot and 1 dot and 1 dot and 1 dot.

You can redefine it like you said, to dots + dots = dots. But you can also redefine it to 2 + 3 = 5.

And even though we have created the symbols for 2, 3 and 5 doesn't mean they doesn't exist as an amount.


I agree this is invented. What you are talking about wthout these is reality itself. Of course this existed prior to humans. Maths only exists when you invoke the processes and symbols that are man made, so as to understand this reality.
Well, yes. To understand it we need to use our own symbols. But the system exists within nature and is not man made.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:35 PM
You can redefine it like you said, to dots + dots = dots. But you can also redefine it to 2 + 3 = 5.


It exists as dots, humans create boundries for this to aid understanding.


And even though we have created the symbols for 2, 3 and 5 doesn't mean they doesn't exist as an amount.
Without the symbols it just is. Maths is the symbols and processes we use when dealing with raw reality. We aren't controlling reality when we use math, we are understanding the relationships in reality better so we can best interact with it. This existed prior to our meddling, we can just do more when we impose our order upon it.

Maths is arguably the only a-priori truth, along with definite tautologies. I think maths is very close to a tautology in itself.


Well, yes. To understand it we need to use our own symbols. But the system exists within nature and is not man made.
Yes, but the system itself is reality. Language didn't exist before us, but we now that things did. A rock existed whether or not it was called one, and "2"+"2"="4" whether or not we say it. However just as the language does not exist prior to human conception "maths" does not either. The underlying reality they seek to explain does.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:53 AM
What do you think?
as math is intrinsically factual in itself, it exists outside and within our understanding it was most certainly discovered

[Janus]

Math is a bit of both. Mathematical concepts were discovered but the way in which we chose to represent and explain them was invented. Also, I suppose that certain mathematical concepts such as imaginary numbers were invented in order to "fill in the holes".

[KC]

The relationships defined by math certainly existed before human involvement. However, math as a means of describing these relationships was most certainly invented. These relationships were discovered by man, but explained in mathematical terms, which is an invention used to explain these relationships.

It is just like language. Language was obviously invented. The word "rock" never existed, however, the thing in which we are describing with the word "rock" obviously did. Humans just invented the word "rock" as a means of describing the object that we know of as "rock".

All we have to do to answer this question is to separate the reality from the concepts we use to describe reality. From there, it is fairly obvious.

[Ol' Dirty]

Math is a way to interperate the material universe; it is nothing more, and nothing less. I believe that it was created.

[foreverfaded]

i thank that art of mathematics, the study of the measurements, properties, and relationships of sets, using numbers and symbols, has always been there. But the advanced studies of it such as algebra and calculus were invented using, the already their, mathematics.
this is my view, but i did take the definition from dictionary.com

[Dyst]

Math is a way to interperate the material universe; it is nothing more, and nothing less. I believe that it was created.
Well actually okay, Mathematics (the way we use it today) is man made.

But numbers are amounts, thus "reality", in itself. Not man made.

[Iroquois Xavier]

The Chicken...Or The Egg?

[Olly1990]

All the theories on the founding of mathematics are interesting and I am gonna remain neutral!! However, how can the complex divisions and countings in the prime numbers enigma be justified by the fact that we invented it (seeing as no person to date has found a definitive pattern or found a finite number, if there is one!!) :blink:

[Dreckt]

It is a quite interesting question though. Since math, so far, is the universal truth than it must have been discovered. But I think it would be a little bit of both. Back then, when we discovered the first things, we didn't take anything for granted. There were no rules. Birds could fly, humans couldn't. As simple as that.

So, how can it be both? Well, obviously we needed math for something. The first writings humans ever made were about how much a person owned i.e. how much cattle or dangerous items etc. At some point, when humans started to trade stuff we obviously needed math to calculate how much to give away and how much to take. Then eventually things got cheaper and more expencive, meaning the need for math probably grew (1.5 of a valuable stone equals three cows thus 0.50 = 1 cow).

So, ultimately, without remorse and counting with human stupidity, ignorance and knowledge at that time, yes, math was discovered. Talking in human terms and how we develop through time, math was first invented then discovered. Just like many other things we know of (but not all!).

[KC]

It's not an interesting question at all. The relationships already existed before people were even around. All people did was discover these relationships and explain them in an invented tool called mathematics. That's the answer to the question. It's simple.

[Voulacce]

Invented

[~*HastaLaVictoriaSiempre*~]

it all depends on how you use it. When we think of every day life we see it as a discovery. Somewhere along the line a caveman or an earlier being said 1 rock plus another rock is 2 rocks. But other types of math such as algebra and geometry were invented to find out more complex problems than just 1 stone wheel plus another stone wheel equals 2 stone wheels

somewhat logical answer, right? :huh: i think :unsure: no, i think thad' be right :)

[ComradeRed]

But geometry first came into "practice" for lack of a better term, for measuring plots of land quickly and effeciently for farming in ancient greece and egypt. Is this not an invention based on the material conditions to make the "land lords" rest easier?

Ditto for algebra, think of revenue = profit + expenditure, and price = revenue/quantity. What is the price that needs to be set to get a profit of $X? :huh:

[bezdomni]

Math and physics would exist even if there were no humans to "decode" it.

I remember learning this in 8th grade.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:41 AM
Math and physics would exist even if there were no humans to "decode" it.

I remember learning this in 8th grade.
Out of interest what was the argument behind this? I find school teachings rather hard to take as self evident, but then again I am naturally cynical.

It sounds similar to simply asserting that a tree falling in the woods would make a sound if no one was around to hear it.

[redstar2000]

It was a tool that was invented for the purpose of investigating objective reality.

Turns out to have been the most incredibly useful tool we've ever come up with. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Absolutely right, Red.

If Mathematics was discovered (an odd idea invented by Pythagoras, but canonised by Plato and disseminated by his disciples ever since -- Roger Penrose being one of the most recent examples), it would suggest that mathematical objects existed prior to, and independent of, the human mind/human activity, which has obvious anti-materialist and Idealist implications.

Now, the most important anti-Platonist philosopher of mathematics in the entire history of the subject (and by a long way, too) was Wittgenstein. In fact, his ideas, if right, would totally alter our view of the nature of mathematics (but in a way that is conducive to Marxism -- but not dialectical Marxism, with its appeal to 'abstraction').

http://philosophy.hku.hk/courses/old/laure...hil2060l15.html (http://philosophy.hku.hk/courses/old/laurencegoldstein/phil2060l15.html)

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/WittgMath.htm

Anyone really into this topic should read Mathieu Marion's book: "Wittgenstein, Finitism, and the Foundations of Mathematics" (Oxford University Press, 1998).

http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-823516-X

[Dyst]

It was a tool that was invented for the purpose of investigating objective reality.

Turns out to have been the most incredibly useful tool we've ever come up with.

It was discovered by human beings, but hardly invented.

For us, it is usefull to calculate various aspects of material reality.

We can do this with mathematics because it is the laws to which reality applies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Clearly, that makes you a Platonist.

[Lamanov]

Simple: it was invented because it is something that we do, it's our activity.

Even if it would represent an "universal truth" - and I wouldn't call it that - how can it exist independent of our thought if it doesn't have an active side of it's own? It can't. It's not something that "is" by itself, but something that is "done".

[Dyst]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 18 2006, 08:21 PM
Simple: it was invented because it is something that we do, it's our activity.

Even if it would represent an "universal truth" - and I wouldn't call it that - how can it exist independent of our thought if it doesn't have an active side of it's own? It can't. It's not something that "is" by itself, but something that is "done".
No.

It is we who use it for our own needs. But even if we didn't use it, it still would exist, allthough not materialisticly in itself, it would exist as a pattern and system.

Take the laws of physics, they would exist even if we hadn't used them for research.


Clearly, that makes you a Platonist.

Ok. So?

I just believe in the world as it was a computer program. What we see is the finished program in itself, the usable part. The code which controls everything about the program is patterns and systems, mathematics, in my opinion.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:06 PM
No.


It is very hard to argue between the two groups, all I can try and suggest is that you try the other view out an see how much sense it makes when you test it. I have seen math in both ways before, and currently share views with many others in this thread.


It is we who use it for our own needs. But even if we didn't use it, it still would exist, allthough not materialisticly in itself, it would exist as a pattern and system.
It exists, but not materially? :blink:

The pattern and system is not maths, but reality. Maths is only that which we use to describe these patterns.


I just believe in the world as it was a computer program. What we see is the finished program in itself, the usable part. The code which controls everything about the program is patterns and systems, mathematics, in my opinion.
This is a belief though, and not sufficient for knowledge. We all have our pet theories, but we should recognise them for what they are.

What I think is the problem here is how individuals are defining maths. Your definition sees maths as one and the same as objective, material reality. Mine, and other's sees it as our understanding of this reality. We are not saying that we created material reality, but we created the symobols, expressions and contexts in which we understand it.

[Dyst]

It exists, but not materially?

It exists materially of course, but not "in itself". As you said, I think we can use it to see reality in another language, sort of.


The pattern and system is not maths, but reality. Maths is only that which we use to describe these patterns.


Depends on how you view it.

In the context of this post, I think we are referring to mathematics as patterns and the system of patterns. Especially considering we can redefine numbers to geometrical shapes and rythm.


Your definition sees maths as one and the same as objective, material reality. Mine, and other's sees it as our understanding of this reality. We are not saying that we created material reality, but we created the symobols, expressions and contexts in which we understand it.

Yes, we created our way of understanding the mathematical system.

But we didn't create the amounts, rythm or even the geometrical shapes.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:06 PM
Yes, we created our way of understanding the mathematical system.


I think we are starting to reach more of an understanding now ;)

I see our understanding as the mathematical system.


But we didn't create the amounts, rythm or even the geometrical shapes.
This again is not what I would call maths. This is material reality, plain and simple. When you learn mathematics, you learn the system, the material reality is taken as self evident in many cases. It is the system that we all agree humans created, and it is this that is mathematics.

It is conceivable that we could have another system of relations between objects that exist, but the one we have is what we call mathematics.

We could (in theory) see numers only in their relation to the number 10. So 4 would become -6. It would be possible to fashion a working sytem that is different from our own (I admit my example is not the best, perhaps ComradeRed could do a better job). This new system could equally be thought of as mathematics if it proved just as functional, but the material reality remains independant.

I feel I have started to get a bit muddled^ so I will try another approach entirely. If a tree falls in the wood and no-one is around to hear, does it make a sound? (Bare with methere is apoint to this..)

[Andy Bowden]

edit-

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 11:49 AM

It sounds similar to simply asserting that a tree falling in the woods would make a sound if no one was around to hear it.
Yeah, perhaps, it is one of the most misunderstood questions in philosophy. I think this topic deserves another round (even though it's been answered a thousand posts before). Many would respond, 'Yes, of course the tree falling would make a sound, as it has done many times before'. Of course, this kind of answer misses the context the question is asked. It has to be answered with ontology and epistemology in mind. So, not your usual, ordinary answer like the sun rising every morning.

Sorry to go off-topic a bit. But, the question has a great relevance to the math question of the thread. Good call, Hegemonicretribution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Keiza:

"Ok. So?"

Well then your problems are only just beginning, for if mathematical objects pre-date humanity and the material world (which they will have to do if you are a Platonist, or if you do not care if you are), then you are in the same quandary as theists (even if you are not one of the latter).

This is easily stated: how can non-material objects account for anything material, or have any causal impact on them? They offer no resistance to material objects (since they have no physical structure), nor is it the case that gross matter has the wit or intelligence to obey their commands (even if the latter could issue any). So, the postulation of such Ideal objects prevents them from appearing in a scientific account of nature (despite what the majority of theorists think).

Moreover, if material objects 'obey' laws, then (as Leibniz clearly saw) they must be intelligent beings. So, your 'Platonism', whether you are aware of it or not, commits you to the idea that despite appearances to the contrary, you and I are surrounded by a potential infinite number of intelligences, all of whom understand the laws they have to obey, carry them out without question, and never fail in their duty to do so. This they can do because they have been programmed by some mind or other to do this (so your idea that nature is somehow ‘programmed’ was already thought of 300 years ago by that Idealist Leibniz). Hegel took this idea up, and added a temporal twist to it: nature is self-developing idea. All Platonists.

Now if you are happy being an Idealist that is your affair, but what you are doing posting on a revolutionary discussion board beats me.

But, your problems are only just beginning.

How can one lifeless ideal mathematical object force any other to do its will? How can -1 make 2 yield -2 when they are multiplied? [And why did it only do this when we invented negative numbers to help us account for debt and exchange, for example?] Why do some matrices yield the same result when multiplied like this AB = BA, but others do not, and AB <> BA [where "<>" means "not equal to"]? Are they rebels? Is there a class struggle going on in Platonic heaven? Has God yet to restore order?

So, precisely what is it that guarantees the necessity we see in mathematical processes (which question was highlighted in one of those essays I linked to earlier, albeit not in a clear manner (it was written over 30 years ago, after all -- the issues are now much clearer), but there is not much of any use on this issue posted anywhere on the internet; but see below)?

The only way to account for it (in Platonic terms) is to assume that these mathematical objects are minds too, and they do exactly as they are told.

But then you just get a shadow world, which mirrors our world projected into Platonic heaven, where if there is any change it is impossible to account for.

Indeed, what you get is a fetishised copy of human affairs (as Feuerbach saw), projected into heaven, and it fails to explain what it was invented to account for.

This is because, mathematical objects have to be personalised to explain necessity (they become the equivalent of the Greek Gods, negotiating their affairs in this unseen realm, arguing and &#39;contradicting&#39; one another). But why should an intelligence do what it is told, all the time, unquestioningly, unthinkingly? That would be sufficient grounds for saying that the alleged &#39;intelligence&#39; was not all that intelligent, especially if can&#39;t be left to its own devices. It would indeed be an automaton.

So, this theory doubles back, and now becomes naked Platonism again, where ideal automata (mathematical objects) just do what they are supposed to do, unthinkingly. No reason can be given for this, they just do it.

So, the theory that hoped to account for mathematical necessity (by postulating a hidden world of occult objects) cannot now account for it: all we have here are brute facts about what certain &#39;abstract&#39; objects do or do not do. They cannot obey laws since they are automata (obedience requires intelligence). Necessity is thus founded on brute contingency: this is the way things are, they way God chose things to be. In is in the nature of these &#39;objects&#39; just to do their own thing. End of story.

Now the Marxist account of mathematical necessity does not go down this route, but it can still account for necessity (but to do this it needs to ditch the remnants of Platonism, i.e., &#39;dialectics&#39;); it does so in a remarkably straight-forward manner. It links mathematical necessity to social processes, our development, our own definitions of &#39;necessity&#39; as they have changed (all grounded in material practices), thus cutting-off the need to appeal to dark Platonic beings to account for what we have invented (and have changed -- it is an odd sort of Platonist, for example, who thinks that Roman numerals once existed in Platonic heaven to account for Roman arithmetic; but which have since been given their redundancy notice (by God?) once we wised up and began using the Arabic number system).

[The best Marxist book on this is ‘On the Shoulders of Merchants” by Richard Hadden (State University of New York Press, 1994).]

Now these issues were brought into sharp relief by a book published a generation ago by Saul Kripke (&#39;Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language&#39;), who tried to re-interpret Wittgenstein&#39;s ideas in this area. This is a book of admirable clarity, great simplicity and thus of profound philosophical power.

Now, it is not to the point that Kripke got Wittgenstein wrong, the point is that this book almost single-handedly changed the direction of this part of modern Analytic Philosophy.

You can read some of the details here:

http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~witt/

[It is very difficult being a Platonist as a result.

If you type "Wittgenstein" + "Kripke" into Google you will see what a fuss this book created, and that is just on the Internet. The furore was much bigger in academia.]

Now the above is just an outline of the case against Platonism in mathematics. I hope to publish some more material on this at my site in order to drive yet another nail into the bargain basement Platonism you find in dialectical materialism.

[Dyst]

Well, Rosa you probably will think I am a fool when I say this, but I don&#39;t care much for Platon or any similar philosophers. It just seem stuffed with fairytales, unlikely metaphysical theories and confusing allegories, mixed in with all the interesting philosophical theories.

As Hegemonicretribution noticed, I&#39;d like to seperate our understanding (and in my opinion, communication with) the mathematical system from the system of amounts, rythm, etc. themselves.

English is my second language, and it is perhaps silly of me even to try to reply to your post. :P


How can one lifeless ideal mathematical object force any other to do its will?

Maybe you have misunderstood me, which historically speaking isn&#39;t very unlikely. I think that all is mathematical in nature. You&#39;ll call me a Pythagorean, but I believe that everything can be theoretically redefined to numbers (amounts) and redefined back into material reality. An example is rythm and geometry.

So I don&#39;t believe that some mysterious mathematical object forces anything. I think of the mathematical system as the laws of physics.

And politically I am a marxist, and yes, I am sure you can come up with a reason for this belief to be clashing with marxism, but no, that will not make me change my political stance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Incidentally, anyone who wants to read more (on the Internet) about the above view of the nature of physical &#39;laws&#39;, the best article is the following:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lawofnat.htm

It is written by Professor Norman Swartz, whose site goes into more detail:

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/contents.htm

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz.htm

Particulary his book &#39;The Concept of a Physical Law&#39;, availbale to download here (as a PDF):

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/physical-law/#dl

Available also here (chapter by chapter):

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/physical-law/

Naturally, this does not address the nature of mathematical &#39;laws&#39;, except by implication.

[However, comrades must not assume I agree with his positive account of the nature of physical laws (Swartz is a nominalist, I am not), but his negative comments (on traditional theories of &#39;law&#39;) are in line with my own views; I just push them further.]

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:06 PM
It is we who use it for our own needs. But even if we didn&#39;t use it, it still would exist, allthough not materialisticly in itself, it would exist as a pattern and system.

Take the laws of physics, they would exist even if we hadn&#39;t used them for research.

Not comparative. Mathematics "exist" only in abstacto, they do not have a concrete manifestation unles we make it our own subjective activity. The Laws of physics, au contraire, are manifested in concrete through the workings of nature.

Nothing can exist in abstracto by itself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJ-TC, and you can go further: nothing can exist as an abstraction (or as an abstract idea) either (unless one is a Platonist).

This is not based on any theory, but on the simple observation that &#39;abstract&#39; nouns are just the nominalisation of predicate expressions, which move destroys any proposition in which this is attempted, turning it into a list. So, any &#39;theory&#39; that attempts to use abstractions (of any sort) becomes impossible to state (since lists say nothing).

More details at:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm

[I am not attacking the ordinaty use of the word &#39;abstraction&#39;, just its confused philosophical alter ego.]

[Dyst]

Not comparative. Mathematics "exist" only in abstacto, they do not have a concrete manifestation unles we make it our own subjective activity. The Laws of physics, au contraire, are manifested in concrete through the workings of nature.

Nothing can exist in abstracto by itself.


You are wrong, considering everything is an amount.

This is a little "prescience" but the smallest piece of matter, which we don&#39;t know what is yet, would be able to be called 1. Everything consists of 1&#39;s multiplied by X.

And the example I made can be used everywhere else and with everything else as well.

But you are probably thinking of our way to understand mathematics, which is something completely different, and there I agree with you of course.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Keiza:

"but I don&#39;t care much for Platon or any similar philosophers..."

Of course, I only went down that route becuase you said "so what", but it now looks like you are bound to make all the mistakes that have been made by mathematicians (and amateur &#39;philosophers&#39;) down through the ages.

It is of no concern to me if you do indeed wish to reprise the last 2500 years of wrong turns in this area. But you at least need to be aware of the complexities you are lightly brushing aside (only to make the very same mistakes).

"but I believe that everything can be theoretically redefined to numbers (amounts) and redefined back into material reality..."

[I&#39;d like to see you do this. You&#39;d be the first in human history....]

Well, I think I have shown that this is not a viable option, unless you believe that numbers are alive (and can be in literally billions and billions of places at once, all obeying rules they &#39;understand&#39;, but are too dim to figure out themselves), and can make physical things move about the place.

These metaphysical sergeant majors of yours for all the world look like the gods of ancient Greece (and it is no surprise therefore to find that this is where the idea came from).

And why brute matter should pay any heed to such ideal objects defies rational explanantion. You are invited to try to fill in the gaps.

"but no, that will not make me change my political stance."

Who wants that? I am a Marxist too, but I do not find it consistent with Marxism to believe in an Ideal world under-pinning this one, especially if it explains nothing at all, and more especially if we can explain whatever occurs in this world with physical causes.

[Dyst]

"but I believe that everything can be theoretically redefined to numbers (amounts) and redefined back into material reality..."

[I&#39;d like to see you do this. You&#39;d be the first in human history....]

Okay:


the smallest piece of matter, [...] 1. Everything consists of 1&#39;s multiplied by X.




These metaphysical sergeant majors of yours for all the world look like the gods of ancient Greece (and it is no surprise therefore to find that this is where the idea came from).

How? What has this got to do with ancient fairytales of God creatures? I don&#39;t see this as a very "theistic" theory.

And mankind has been riddled with the existance of mathematics in all societies.


I do not find it consistent with Marxism to believe in an Ideal world under-pinning this one, especially if it explains nothing at all, and more especially if we can explain whatever occurs in this world with physical causes.

It is a fair point. It does not explain nothing at all with relevance to the cause of marxism.

And nothing in my theories goes against the fact that we can explain whatever occurs in this world with physical causes, really.

My theories are about the boundaries the material reality (the only reality) adheres to.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Keiza:

"the smallest piece of matter, [...] 1. Everything consists of 1&#39;s multiplied by X."

Says who? And who does the multiplying in reality (and who did this before we evolved; and who now does it on the outer fringes of the universe)?

Every piece? Have you examined them all? Are you sure you didn&#39;t miss the odd proton?

[You notice how you have to legislate for all of reality, before you have examined even a tiny fragment of it. A classic piece of Linguistic Idealism. Philosophers have been doing this for 2500 years, only they are quite open about it.]

"What has this got to do with ancient fairytales of God creatures?"

Of course mathematics itself hasn&#39;t, but unfortunately that is where your &#39;theory&#39; originated, and it requires the existence of intelligences right throughout nature to make it work (which fact is not unconnected with where this &#39;theory&#39; originated), as I argued earlier.

"And mankind has been riddled with the existance of mathematics in all societies."

I wasn&#39;t sure of the relevance of this.

I, for one, did not deny it. In fact, this is easily accounted for in materialist, not Platonic terms.

[However, you will find ruling-elites (or their theorists) in every developed society (like ancient Greece, China, Rome, India, Japan, etc.) concocting such Platonic ideas to account for mathematics, science and other branches of human knowledge -- and there is a Marxist reason for this too. If the world is fundamentally ideal (or a priori), and the state mirrors that world (with kings and emperors acting as God&#39;s representatives on earth), class oppression has a cosmic rationale to it. These same ideas dominate today (they are part of the &#39;ruling ideas&#39; Marx referred to); that is why the majority of theorists today are Platonists about mathematics.]

"My theories are about the boundaries the material reality..."

&#39;Boundaries&#39;? What &#39;boundaries&#39;?

Are you referring to other universes; or &#39;space&#39; &#39;outside&#39; this universe? How do you know it has any &#39;boundaries&#39;?

It seems to me that you are an idealist looking for something semi-material in which to ground your &#39;spiritual&#39; beliefs.

Good luck to you, but you will need to confront the objections I posed earlier to make your half-formed ideas work, and not just ignore them.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:55 PM
It was a tool that was invented for the purpose of investigating objective reality.

Turns out to have been the most incredibly useful tool we&#39;ve ever come up with. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
For once, I agree with you, man. :D

[Zingu]

Mathematics is a creation entirely created by the human mind. It is a lense that we look through to bring order to the universe around us.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 12:09 PM
Mathematics is a creation entirely created by the human mind. It is a lense that we look through to bring order to the universe around us.
Proof? Arguments?

How is it we were able to create it?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Keiza+Apr 4 2006, 03:03 PM--> (Keiza @ Apr 4 2006, 03:03 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 12:09 PM
Mathematics is a creation entirely created by the human mind. It is a lense that we look through to bring order to the universe around us.
Proof? Arguments?

How is it we were able to create it? [/b]
Put it like this, math is developing as we speak, yes?

It does not make sense to talk about the existence of math that we have never conceived of using as existing, as it doesn&#39;t except in a vague hypothetical sense. It does not yet exist as of yet, in the way that we mean when we say something exists.

So if there is a new aspect of reality, that needs a new mathmatical tool to understand it, we discover the reality, and create the necessary tool.

The pythagorians developed certain methods. They created them, but the relationships between aspects of reality that the methods were created to explain existed before hand.

To put it one more way...if I was to use an equation to find a value, then whilst the value itself may exist without my intervention, the equation would not.

[Dyst]

if I was to use an equation to find a value, then whilst the value itself may exist without my intervention, the equation would not.

I agree.

But I believe there are two different subjects. One of them is the mathematical system we use when doing calculations, often specific to help ourselves in some way. Here we use equations to calculate with values we in many cases have made ourselves.

We have put measures on reality, therefore we are able to calculate with it.

The other subject is much more about philosophical aspect of mathematics. Instead of using it for specific purposes it is more like how and what mathematics really is.

It is very hard for someone to describe, but my sig does a good job. Basicly, think about this: That which is inseperable and undevidable, that is, essentially, everything.

What I mean is, the smallest piece of material is undevidable. So is the shortest period of time (note rythm). This is, of course, theoretical, but if there exists a "smallest piece of material possible" then it is undevidable. And it is what everything consists of.

If it does not exist a "smallest piece of material possible" then the universe is, in reality, infinite.

You can say exactly the same as this with another language, like math, and it becomes clearer. Theoretically, the smallest amount of possible amounts, 1. Or 0,000000000001, it does not make a difference, it is the idea of &#39;One&#39; that matters.

But I&#39;m sure this was not what most people thought about. :blush:

[Hegemonicretribution]

Keiza, as far as I (and I think others here by the sounds of it) are concerned, the bit you agree is created, is what we take maths to be.

You are implying that "theoretically" there must be a smallest amount? This is not necessarily so, it is not in keeping with the nature of infinity. The whole point of infinity is that it can&#39;t be reduced to a highest or lowest term.

I don&#39;t get this "one" then again I can accept the nature of infinity as a conceivable explanation at least. Actually based on what is available, it is not the worst choice. Maths is actually often used to demonstrate the nature of infinity to someone that can&#39;t grasp it.

Are there more numbers, or even numbers? The answer is that there are infinite amounts of each, so you can not say more or less of either.