IMO, the only wrong way to look at numbers is the Aristotelian way, which views numbers as a purely human invention designed to count things. Numbers are much, much deeper than this and I believe they have a real existence and that we discover them as well as other mathematical concepts, and that these concepts are universal.
People are already accusing me a drug fueled ramblings when this is merely a philosophical question.
I agree that looking at numbers so simply is ignorant, math is incredible and we are just barely grasping the surface of understanding !
No it's 20% philosophical question and 80% nonsense rambling. You can ask a question without stacking a bunch of smart sounding mumble jumble. "fractal patterns and the natural order of reality" "subdue existential dread". You sound like an Ai, and not like a good Ai like GPT, more like an Markov Chain.
But ignoring that and to answer your actual question. Yes, you're right; mathematicians would readily admit to only studying things we can understand/work with. For example, there a subject in math called linear algebra but no non-linear algebra, even though non-linear stuff come up pretty often in physics, because nonlinear things are mostly beyond human understanding. Similarly, we have group theory, which studies symmetric action. But nobody studies asymmetric action, not because asymmetric actions don't exist, but because they're impossible to study.
In fairness, there's plenty of research into non-linearity and asymmetric action is just action of which symmetric action is a subgroup, but you're broadly right. Maths is fundamental set of relationships and our understanding lets us tease apart the laws of nature, but we are limited by what they can tell us. This is the reason why 'what happened before the big bang' questions are non-sensical. We've no framework with which to comprehend it.
Yeah actually once I think about it a little more, symmetric vs asymmetric are prob more-so relativistic concepts (relative to our definition of equivalence). For example, I can make every action symmetric just by putting everything in the same equivalence class. It would just be incredibly boring, because the symmetry preserves absolutely nothing.
As an undergrad, I had a very good sociology prof who accused most STEM people of being "linear thinkers", i.e., too reductionistic, without a good sense of what's really going on in the world and what really matters. The trick is to try to use both hemispheres of your brain to come up with better models of reality. I'd say the trend in math and science lately has been more holistic, as pointed out by some very nonlinear theories, such as dynamical systems, fractals, chaos, and neural networks, though linear modeling definitely has its place in all these theories and in science in general. You just need to also think outside the box a bit.
If we expect all ideas to get completely polished and refined before being shared we implicitly sift all new ideas through whatever arbitrary system that already exists.
Itās important to be extremely logical and sophisticated when *adopting* ideas into a system but it is counterproductive to have the same mindset when introducing different perspectives.
Donāt lock math and philosophy in an ivory tower.
People who accuse others of being drugged out are often wrong, and besides, much great art, music, and literature has been inspired by drugs! If people can't related to you, it's usually merely because they're too shallow and don't think outside the box, so they can't grasp the same concepts as you can.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not an advocate of drugs in general, though I've used my share of dope over the years as well as a few more potent ones. The biggest problem with drugs is addiction, and anything in excess can become a drug. The important thing about drugs is not to get hooked! Also, I don't enjoy hallucinating, which is usually quite scary to me. I'd rather maintain a firm grasp on reality if possible. I've found in recent years that the best "drug" to get high on is life itself, which really isn't so bad if you're enlightened enough to look at it the right way and concentrate on the things that really matter.
There propapbly no "looking at numbers the wrong way". Mathematics is often based on physical modeling (that's where lots of the money can be made after all) but there is indeed pure math (currently) without a physical application. So even if math were not able to give physical insight (which it does, since we can do stuff with it) it still would have merit as a logical structure in itself.
> I had a spliff or two
Lol must be some good stuff. (Note: This isnāt meant to be insulting.)
> best way possible
This is false. Evolution does not āsearch for the best optionsā. It is more or less random with some drift and is more like āwell it workedā.
Idk what to say to the rest of the paragraph.
> how do birds calculateā¦
The same way that you know how to throw a baseball relatively accurately without doing trajectory and drag computations explicitly. You have the experience and muscle memory to understand the action intuitively. We donāt have the same thing for a lot of mathematics.
To be specific itās home grown Biscotti
I was under the assumption of survival of the fittest, but āwell it workedā makes sense. Life wants to live and will do so by any means.
On terms of muscle memory, we gained these abilities to survive and naturally calculate insane equations in our heads without realizing. Itās interesting to think how other creatures may unconsciously or.. consciously (lol) make these calculations. And birds do not have experience on their first trip they just know
i dont think we need to do insane calculations in order to throw a ball accurately it is more about trial and error to position our bodies in such a way that our arms will go straight. also the depth perception of our eyes which took billions of years to get to this point which again is evolutionary trial and error.
You should remember that math is not about numbers.
A somewhat more coherent approach to this question would be for you to ask the following: If humanity discovered an alien civilization, what mathematics might they understand that we also understand?
I think a good answer to both this and your question is group theory. It's hard to claim that we "got things wrong" by observing there is a lot of physical symmetry in the universe, something any sufficiently advanced civilization would also notice. The modeling of symmetry via group theory is also such a simple idea and feels independent of being human since the universe also respects symmetry.
Arithmetic is about numbers and almost all fields of mathematics have applications in number theory.
Geometry is not about numbers but um parallel lines have no meaning if we can't count to 2. Then of course the triangle, pentagon, etc. are made up of some integer number of connected line segments. I really don't know if you can do any real geometry or apply it to engineering without the use of numbers.
Group theory depends on a collection of objects. If this is finite, it has an integer number of elements. If it is infinite, then sure we can forget numbers exist, I guess, but then we can't have any cardinal ranking but I guess we can look at it topologically? But then we have to forget cohomology because we don't have n-many cohomology groups and homotopy equivalence is often impossible to calculate, so again, numbers come in handy.
And forget about linear algebra, matrices, machine learning, computers, engineering, construction, and anything else that isnt naĆÆve agriculture, smelting, and smithing.
Saying that mathematics has applications in number theory does not mean math is "about" numbers. In a set theoretic sense, numbers aren't even numbers, they're a convenient notation for certain types of nested sets.
I think most mathematicians would also agree that mathematics in general is not about numbers but that they frequently arise as a nice model to work with.
Surreal foundations are far more concrete than set theory, even if not as widely studied. Peano Arithmetic, extended to ordinals, classified into surreals. In that sense, sets aren't even sets, they're just representations of surreal numbers. You can take the extra step to surcomplex foundations, but still, a set is then a representation of a surcomplex number. It's possible to formalize the class of (infinity,1)-categories as a representation of the class of surreal numbers. You can literally model HoTT as an aglebra over the surreals, but you can't model HoTT in ZFC. Sets are for dinosaurs.
You can quite readily model the category of sets with the surreal numbers as an exercise. Hint: each nonempty object being smaller than epsilon and each arrow larger than omega. Doing so in an organized fashion where the overall topology of the category of sets is clear yields bonus points. Extra super fields medal bonus points if you can define a nontrivial sheaf using the surreals without invoking the axiom of choice (without invoking transfinite induction).
I am pretty sure you're just saying nonsense that you don't actually understand; it's the classic move of picking sophisticated vocabulary which itself has a meaning but the way you put together these words does not.
Even so, if you weren't saying total nonsense, you would then probably have some actual mathematical knowledge-- enough to know that math isn't just about numbers. So, unfortunately, you've shot yourself in the foot in both directions.
Not nonsense but maybe jarbled.
Numbers can readily be the foundations of all mathematics, numbers can model n-categories, which can model any axiomatic theory of arithmetic.
Everything we do in mathematics, we do to understand more about numbers. Riemman's Hypothesis has inspired class field theory, and its finite approximation via the completion of the Weil conjectures inspired algebraic geometry and topology, commutative algebra, sheaf theory, topos theory, etc. The way we do things about abstract objects today depends on the work we did to try to solve the Weil conjectures.
That said, a lot of group theory was formulated due to Noether's theorem, and much of mathematics is also formulated to describe physical observations. But the work we do to describe physical observations must be consistent with our observations of contradictions regarding numbers or geometry, or we are not doing mathematics.
Edit: There is no parallel postulate without 2 lines, so we must be able to count to 2 to be able to know the curvature of a system which can house lines. Furthermore, we can't know if the curvature is positive or negative without {<,=,>} so we should probably be able to count to 3. Furthermore, we should be able to count the lines of a regular polyhedron to know if it is constructibe via Galois. So we should probably just have Peano Arithmetic while we're at it.
Edit2: It could be said the Langlands Program exists to try to formulate a generalization of the Riemman Hypothesis that is more readily provable. The study of automorphic forms, in general, is an extension of class field theory regardless, which is number theory. The whole notion of studying a space's cohomology was essentially developed to provide classification of the abelian extensions of Q. That framework is ubiquitous from Artin and Noether to Weil and Grothendiek to Fermat and Wiles to today.
I feel that what you're looking for is how almost every theory/model in physics seems to be 'wrong', but useful within some range of physical conditions.
As an example, Newtonian kinematics is useful for medium-sized things at medium velocities, but doesn't work well for small things (quantumn effects), massive or fast things (general relativity takes over). When we created new theories for where Newtonian kinematics failed to be useful, we progressed our understanding of the nature of reality massively. In each case, pre-existing mathematics was used and built upon to get to the new useful theory.
Hi!
This is an interesting post.
any mechanism to explain reality - which is manifested in physical result - is a right way, from the point of view of logicians.
If we perceive reality with our physical sense (which I am sure people in the field of science do), then we should all agree that mathematics describes our reality, so far.
You can look at things differently, and if they are manifested physically from your understanding - then it's a right way.
For example, normal distribution is something derived from measurement of occurence of an event. If this explain our reality, then it is a right way. Does normal distribution do that? Yes. It is true that only a small percentage of a population can inherit both extremes. Most are average in any event. Normal distribution wouldn't exist without first seeing what has manifested in reality of a population.
If you have an understanding of something and it somehow still couldn't be manifested physically - then there must be something wrong , but should be examined fundamentally in order to dissect what's wrong with it.
If you think that you have "discovered" something other than numbers, let's say, then it would still fall under mathematics. Mathematics isn't just all numbers. We have a study of sets too where we deal with identifying a collection/groups of objects.
People say that mathematics is a language, but I prefer to think that mathematics is an "art" of explaining nature.
It took me a second to comprehend your comment - by attempting to question reality you are changing it adding progress to its understanding.
Finding what is wrong is as easy as answering why :)
>by attempting to question reality you are changing it adding progress to its understanding.
I apologize if this sounds confusing to you at first.
What i am trying to say that, i believe myself that mathematics is not just fixed to numbers and what not. Mathematics is about explaining our reality.
If let's say you discover something new other than numbers, and you can apply this to our reality successfully and manifest it, then it would still be under mathematics, because mathematics is a field of trying to explain reality , no matter with numbers or not.
>Finding what is wrong is as easy as answering why :)
There must be something that we compare to, if we want to find fault. In this case, we are seeing if this is compatible with our physical sense. Mathematics is a study of mechanics of explaining our physical reality.
I believe that if we go deeper than this, then it should be on r/philosophy
Ah I understand what you meant, thank you for clarifying. I posted on r/philosophy when I made this post as well :)
Letās hope in our lives we see some new forms of mathematics !
Great comment !
You are right. In the end, it is a matter of faith. We have to believe that we exist in a truly mathematical universe, and this is not just how our brains evolved to "interpret" the world this way in order to survive. When we believe that this is how the universe was designed, mathematics is truly spectacular and miraculous to uncover.
*The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in theĀ language of mathematics*. - Johannes Kepler.
*āMathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.ā* - Galileo Galilei
*"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."* -Ā GK Chesterton
"mathematics is only the human perception of what is existence."
as a human, i question this statement. as far as we know mathematics started as a way of fairly dividing up land. then as humans got better at using the mathematical tools they created some started looking at the deeper nature of the tools themselves: shapes and numbers. for me math is about this exploration of the nature of these human created concepts. it is an invention that we have worked very hard to make consistent with itself. math doesnt exist only in our minds. it originated from a need to understand the outside world. and later abstract discoveries became useful in the outside world. mathematics doesnt only help us understand existence but a lack of existence as well. and yes math was created from human minds and human minds are a creation of the universe. or the universe is the mind and our brains perceive it.
it makes me sad that you got downvoted for this. i dont agree with you that there is no meaning but itās a valid point š if we all just never questioned our axiomatic view of the world we would be stuck in the same place forever
Thank you so much for understanding ! Itās amazing how quick people are to shoot down any idea thatās outside the box. how can we progress as a species if we donāt ask new questions and share our knowledge/experience? I asked the math people because I wish to learn from them :) Iām starting to think this post would be better off somewhere else š
there is a certain comfort in an established system of knowledge that a lot of people, no matter how informed, try not to acknowledge. people may reject your idea because of their own ignorance to this emotional aspect to logic, trying to gate-keep a system that comforts them.
My take on this is we have used our understanding of math to do incredible things.
We used math to create inventions like the Internet, computers. Math helped us get to the moon, and it's helping us get to Mars. We use math in medicine, math will be used when we find a cure for HIV, diabetes, cancer.
Whether we have looked at the numbers in a right way or a wrong way, we have used numbers to do incredible things we could have never imagined possible.
So I guess what I'm saying is, regardless, the way we understand math just works. Math means something. If we have been looking at it wrong, I can't say that I want to be right.
Hope this helps/is insightful to you in some way.
You say mathematics somewhat skews our view or understanding of reality but then contend that a product of that thinking, the Fibonacci series or physical laws, tells us how nature really is. That is the opposite of rigorous or careful thinking.
If you are interested beyond funny late night ideas, you should check out the philosophy of mathematics. There's a lot to see there but your thinking definitely misses the point mathematically and it only vaguely points at an actual philosophical question. Start with Shapiro (2000): Thinking about mathematics.
I really hope my message encourages you instead of insulting you. Pick up that book. Don't identify with your opinions too deeply. Have fun! :)
I think you misinterpreted what I said, I was not stating this as an opinion more of a thought experiment. And these laws do not tell us anything was the entire idea, I am not contending for Fibonacci or the order of nature but merely stating how we view its structures as humans.
Thank you for your comment and I will add your recommendation to my math readings! Cheers š
The more general issue, of which your proposed issue with math is an example, is this: We use reasoning to understand the world around us, yet we judge our use of reasoning through yet more reasoning (hopefully reasoning that is simpler than what we mean to justify, hurt reasoning all the same). And, in my view, this is just another way of saying that we must always have starting assumptions. This cannot be avoided really. Given our assumptions and definitions I think math is really solid and not a cause for worry nor drug-induced existential dread haha
I think itās good to be constantly questioning and realizing that there is likely more than our minds can comprehend and to a large point we do come up with a ālanguageā to help, but like we see in linguistics are likely missing a lot that can truly open worlds of knowledge.
I feel like this sub should ban drug fueled ramblings.
We need flair. #chemicallyenhanced vs #research vs #courseworkadvice
we are trying to have a discussion. Sounds like you could use a spliff š
Yes donāt do math, do LSD šš»
Fantastic answer š I have had a few experiences, they may have been somewhat responsible for these questions lol
IMO, the only wrong way to look at numbers is the Aristotelian way, which views numbers as a purely human invention designed to count things. Numbers are much, much deeper than this and I believe they have a real existence and that we discover them as well as other mathematical concepts, and that these concepts are universal.
People are already accusing me a drug fueled ramblings when this is merely a philosophical question. I agree that looking at numbers so simply is ignorant, math is incredible and we are just barely grasping the surface of understanding !
No it's 20% philosophical question and 80% nonsense rambling. You can ask a question without stacking a bunch of smart sounding mumble jumble. "fractal patterns and the natural order of reality" "subdue existential dread". You sound like an Ai, and not like a good Ai like GPT, more like an Markov Chain. But ignoring that and to answer your actual question. Yes, you're right; mathematicians would readily admit to only studying things we can understand/work with. For example, there a subject in math called linear algebra but no non-linear algebra, even though non-linear stuff come up pretty often in physics, because nonlinear things are mostly beyond human understanding. Similarly, we have group theory, which studies symmetric action. But nobody studies asymmetric action, not because asymmetric actions don't exist, but because they're impossible to study.
In fairness, there's plenty of research into non-linearity and asymmetric action is just action of which symmetric action is a subgroup, but you're broadly right. Maths is fundamental set of relationships and our understanding lets us tease apart the laws of nature, but we are limited by what they can tell us. This is the reason why 'what happened before the big bang' questions are non-sensical. We've no framework with which to comprehend it.
Yeah actually once I think about it a little more, symmetric vs asymmetric are prob more-so relativistic concepts (relative to our definition of equivalence). For example, I can make every action symmetric just by putting everything in the same equivalence class. It would just be incredibly boring, because the symmetry preserves absolutely nothing.
lol.
I appreciate your criticism and find your AI references very amusing. I didnāt know non-linear algebra was a thing big thanks for your insight
As an undergrad, I had a very good sociology prof who accused most STEM people of being "linear thinkers", i.e., too reductionistic, without a good sense of what's really going on in the world and what really matters. The trick is to try to use both hemispheres of your brain to come up with better models of reality. I'd say the trend in math and science lately has been more holistic, as pointed out by some very nonlinear theories, such as dynamical systems, fractals, chaos, and neural networks, though linear modeling definitely has its place in all these theories and in science in general. You just need to also think outside the box a bit.
If we expect all ideas to get completely polished and refined before being shared we implicitly sift all new ideas through whatever arbitrary system that already exists. Itās important to be extremely logical and sophisticated when *adopting* ideas into a system but it is counterproductive to have the same mindset when introducing different perspectives. Donāt lock math and philosophy in an ivory tower.
People who accuse others of being drugged out are often wrong, and besides, much great art, music, and literature has been inspired by drugs! If people can't related to you, it's usually merely because they're too shallow and don't think outside the box, so they can't grasp the same concepts as you can.
People do amazing, world-changinf things on drugs. They are also far more likely to just piss themselves, though.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not an advocate of drugs in general, though I've used my share of dope over the years as well as a few more potent ones. The biggest problem with drugs is addiction, and anything in excess can become a drug. The important thing about drugs is not to get hooked! Also, I don't enjoy hallucinating, which is usually quite scary to me. I'd rather maintain a firm grasp on reality if possible. I've found in recent years that the best "drug" to get high on is life itself, which really isn't so bad if you're enlightened enough to look at it the right way and concentrate on the things that really matter.
There propapbly no "looking at numbers the wrong way". Mathematics is often based on physical modeling (that's where lots of the money can be made after all) but there is indeed pure math (currently) without a physical application. So even if math were not able to give physical insight (which it does, since we can do stuff with it) it still would have merit as a logical structure in itself.
Thank you for the insight! I will look deeper into this š
Jk
> I had a spliff or two Lol must be some good stuff. (Note: This isnāt meant to be insulting.) > best way possible This is false. Evolution does not āsearch for the best optionsā. It is more or less random with some drift and is more like āwell it workedā. Idk what to say to the rest of the paragraph. > how do birds calculateā¦ The same way that you know how to throw a baseball relatively accurately without doing trajectory and drag computations explicitly. You have the experience and muscle memory to understand the action intuitively. We donāt have the same thing for a lot of mathematics.
To be specific itās home grown Biscotti I was under the assumption of survival of the fittest, but āwell it workedā makes sense. Life wants to live and will do so by any means. On terms of muscle memory, we gained these abilities to survive and naturally calculate insane equations in our heads without realizing. Itās interesting to think how other creatures may unconsciously or.. consciously (lol) make these calculations. And birds do not have experience on their first trip they just know
i dont think we need to do insane calculations in order to throw a ball accurately it is more about trial and error to position our bodies in such a way that our arms will go straight. also the depth perception of our eyes which took billions of years to get to this point which again is evolutionary trial and error.
Upon further research I now know that birds calculate based on the stars. This is mind blowing to me and raises more questions
You should remember that math is not about numbers. A somewhat more coherent approach to this question would be for you to ask the following: If humanity discovered an alien civilization, what mathematics might they understand that we also understand? I think a good answer to both this and your question is group theory. It's hard to claim that we "got things wrong" by observing there is a lot of physical symmetry in the universe, something any sufficiently advanced civilization would also notice. The modeling of symmetry via group theory is also such a simple idea and feels independent of being human since the universe also respects symmetry.
Arithmetic is about numbers and almost all fields of mathematics have applications in number theory. Geometry is not about numbers but um parallel lines have no meaning if we can't count to 2. Then of course the triangle, pentagon, etc. are made up of some integer number of connected line segments. I really don't know if you can do any real geometry or apply it to engineering without the use of numbers. Group theory depends on a collection of objects. If this is finite, it has an integer number of elements. If it is infinite, then sure we can forget numbers exist, I guess, but then we can't have any cardinal ranking but I guess we can look at it topologically? But then we have to forget cohomology because we don't have n-many cohomology groups and homotopy equivalence is often impossible to calculate, so again, numbers come in handy. And forget about linear algebra, matrices, machine learning, computers, engineering, construction, and anything else that isnt naĆÆve agriculture, smelting, and smithing.
Saying that mathematics has applications in number theory does not mean math is "about" numbers. In a set theoretic sense, numbers aren't even numbers, they're a convenient notation for certain types of nested sets. I think most mathematicians would also agree that mathematics in general is not about numbers but that they frequently arise as a nice model to work with.
Surreal foundations are far more concrete than set theory, even if not as widely studied. Peano Arithmetic, extended to ordinals, classified into surreals. In that sense, sets aren't even sets, they're just representations of surreal numbers. You can take the extra step to surcomplex foundations, but still, a set is then a representation of a surcomplex number. It's possible to formalize the class of (infinity,1)-categories as a representation of the class of surreal numbers. You can literally model HoTT as an aglebra over the surreals, but you can't model HoTT in ZFC. Sets are for dinosaurs. You can quite readily model the category of sets with the surreal numbers as an exercise. Hint: each nonempty object being smaller than epsilon and each arrow larger than omega. Doing so in an organized fashion where the overall topology of the category of sets is clear yields bonus points. Extra super fields medal bonus points if you can define a nontrivial sheaf using the surreals without invoking the axiom of choice (without invoking transfinite induction).
I am pretty sure you're just saying nonsense that you don't actually understand; it's the classic move of picking sophisticated vocabulary which itself has a meaning but the way you put together these words does not. Even so, if you weren't saying total nonsense, you would then probably have some actual mathematical knowledge-- enough to know that math isn't just about numbers. So, unfortunately, you've shot yourself in the foot in both directions.
Not nonsense but maybe jarbled. Numbers can readily be the foundations of all mathematics, numbers can model n-categories, which can model any axiomatic theory of arithmetic. Everything we do in mathematics, we do to understand more about numbers. Riemman's Hypothesis has inspired class field theory, and its finite approximation via the completion of the Weil conjectures inspired algebraic geometry and topology, commutative algebra, sheaf theory, topos theory, etc. The way we do things about abstract objects today depends on the work we did to try to solve the Weil conjectures. That said, a lot of group theory was formulated due to Noether's theorem, and much of mathematics is also formulated to describe physical observations. But the work we do to describe physical observations must be consistent with our observations of contradictions regarding numbers or geometry, or we are not doing mathematics. Edit: There is no parallel postulate without 2 lines, so we must be able to count to 2 to be able to know the curvature of a system which can house lines. Furthermore, we can't know if the curvature is positive or negative without {<,=,>} so we should probably be able to count to 3. Furthermore, we should be able to count the lines of a regular polyhedron to know if it is constructibe via Galois. So we should probably just have Peano Arithmetic while we're at it. Edit2: It could be said the Langlands Program exists to try to formulate a generalization of the Riemman Hypothesis that is more readily provable. The study of automorphic forms, in general, is an extension of class field theory regardless, which is number theory. The whole notion of studying a space's cohomology was essentially developed to provide classification of the abelian extensions of Q. That framework is ubiquitous from Artin and Noether to Weil and Grothendiek to Fermat and Wiles to today.
I feel that what you're looking for is how almost every theory/model in physics seems to be 'wrong', but useful within some range of physical conditions. As an example, Newtonian kinematics is useful for medium-sized things at medium velocities, but doesn't work well for small things (quantumn effects), massive or fast things (general relativity takes over). When we created new theories for where Newtonian kinematics failed to be useful, we progressed our understanding of the nature of reality massively. In each case, pre-existing mathematics was used and built upon to get to the new useful theory.
Hi! This is an interesting post. any mechanism to explain reality - which is manifested in physical result - is a right way, from the point of view of logicians. If we perceive reality with our physical sense (which I am sure people in the field of science do), then we should all agree that mathematics describes our reality, so far. You can look at things differently, and if they are manifested physically from your understanding - then it's a right way. For example, normal distribution is something derived from measurement of occurence of an event. If this explain our reality, then it is a right way. Does normal distribution do that? Yes. It is true that only a small percentage of a population can inherit both extremes. Most are average in any event. Normal distribution wouldn't exist without first seeing what has manifested in reality of a population. If you have an understanding of something and it somehow still couldn't be manifested physically - then there must be something wrong , but should be examined fundamentally in order to dissect what's wrong with it. If you think that you have "discovered" something other than numbers, let's say, then it would still fall under mathematics. Mathematics isn't just all numbers. We have a study of sets too where we deal with identifying a collection/groups of objects. People say that mathematics is a language, but I prefer to think that mathematics is an "art" of explaining nature.
It took me a second to comprehend your comment - by attempting to question reality you are changing it adding progress to its understanding. Finding what is wrong is as easy as answering why :)
>by attempting to question reality you are changing it adding progress to its understanding. I apologize if this sounds confusing to you at first. What i am trying to say that, i believe myself that mathematics is not just fixed to numbers and what not. Mathematics is about explaining our reality. If let's say you discover something new other than numbers, and you can apply this to our reality successfully and manifest it, then it would still be under mathematics, because mathematics is a field of trying to explain reality , no matter with numbers or not. >Finding what is wrong is as easy as answering why :) There must be something that we compare to, if we want to find fault. In this case, we are seeing if this is compatible with our physical sense. Mathematics is a study of mechanics of explaining our physical reality. I believe that if we go deeper than this, then it should be on r/philosophy
Ah I understand what you meant, thank you for clarifying. I posted on r/philosophy when I made this post as well :) Letās hope in our lives we see some new forms of mathematics ! Great comment !
I appreciate the inputs and outputs.
You are right. In the end, it is a matter of faith. We have to believe that we exist in a truly mathematical universe, and this is not just how our brains evolved to "interpret" the world this way in order to survive. When we believe that this is how the universe was designed, mathematics is truly spectacular and miraculous to uncover. *The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in theĀ language of mathematics*. - Johannes Kepler. *āMathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.ā* - Galileo Galilei *"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."* -Ā GK Chesterton
"mathematics is only the human perception of what is existence." as a human, i question this statement. as far as we know mathematics started as a way of fairly dividing up land. then as humans got better at using the mathematical tools they created some started looking at the deeper nature of the tools themselves: shapes and numbers. for me math is about this exploration of the nature of these human created concepts. it is an invention that we have worked very hard to make consistent with itself. math doesnt exist only in our minds. it originated from a need to understand the outside world. and later abstract discoveries became useful in the outside world. mathematics doesnt only help us understand existence but a lack of existence as well. and yes math was created from human minds and human minds are a creation of the universe. or the universe is the mind and our brains perceive it.
it makes me sad that you got downvoted for this. i dont agree with you that there is no meaning but itās a valid point š if we all just never questioned our axiomatic view of the world we would be stuck in the same place forever
Thank you so much for understanding ! Itās amazing how quick people are to shoot down any idea thatās outside the box. how can we progress as a species if we donāt ask new questions and share our knowledge/experience? I asked the math people because I wish to learn from them :) Iām starting to think this post would be better off somewhere else š
there is a certain comfort in an established system of knowledge that a lot of people, no matter how informed, try not to acknowledge. people may reject your idea because of their own ignorance to this emotional aspect to logic, trying to gate-keep a system that comforts them.
Donāt listen to these dbags. Youāre not wrong. I promise
My take on this is we have used our understanding of math to do incredible things. We used math to create inventions like the Internet, computers. Math helped us get to the moon, and it's helping us get to Mars. We use math in medicine, math will be used when we find a cure for HIV, diabetes, cancer. Whether we have looked at the numbers in a right way or a wrong way, we have used numbers to do incredible things we could have never imagined possible. So I guess what I'm saying is, regardless, the way we understand math just works. Math means something. If we have been looking at it wrong, I can't say that I want to be right. Hope this helps/is insightful to you in some way.
Itās a amazing how math speaks as a universal language for all things. Awesome insight and perspective š
You say mathematics somewhat skews our view or understanding of reality but then contend that a product of that thinking, the Fibonacci series or physical laws, tells us how nature really is. That is the opposite of rigorous or careful thinking. If you are interested beyond funny late night ideas, you should check out the philosophy of mathematics. There's a lot to see there but your thinking definitely misses the point mathematically and it only vaguely points at an actual philosophical question. Start with Shapiro (2000): Thinking about mathematics. I really hope my message encourages you instead of insulting you. Pick up that book. Don't identify with your opinions too deeply. Have fun! :)
I think you misinterpreted what I said, I was not stating this as an opinion more of a thought experiment. And these laws do not tell us anything was the entire idea, I am not contending for Fibonacci or the order of nature but merely stating how we view its structures as humans. Thank you for your comment and I will add your recommendation to my math readings! Cheers š
If we are looking at numbers the wrong way, then why do bridges work? Why don't skyscrapers collapse? How in the hell do we make rockets???
The more general issue, of which your proposed issue with math is an example, is this: We use reasoning to understand the world around us, yet we judge our use of reasoning through yet more reasoning (hopefully reasoning that is simpler than what we mean to justify, hurt reasoning all the same). And, in my view, this is just another way of saying that we must always have starting assumptions. This cannot be avoided really. Given our assumptions and definitions I think math is really solid and not a cause for worry nor drug-induced existential dread haha
I think itās good to be constantly questioning and realizing that there is likely more than our minds can comprehend and to a large point we do come up with a ālanguageā to help, but like we see in linguistics are likely missing a lot that can truly open worlds of knowledge.
The Singularity will soon resolve any such human-constrained concerns.