Question: What is Math?

[1over137]

Byb,
please teach me, b/c right now my view is closer to Ken's.
2+2 = 1 e.g. in math where base is 3 and not 10

So, chimps would have their 'chimp math'.
What I view as existing independent of humans is not math but the rules behind the nature.
Math and Physics help to describe them.

P.S. warning: am philosophically not much educated.

[Kenny]

Hi Ken,

is not it great that the world is describable by math and physics?

Yes.

how that can be?

Through science.

why are there rules?

the best way to get things done is by getting everyone on one accord. Rules gets everybody on one accord

Ken

[Kenny]

Math consistently makes predictions about the real world that are consistently extremely accurate. How can that be?

I say it is the people who are using math who are consistently making those predictions about the real world that are consistently accurate. After all if people didn't exist, those predictions would not be made; right?

Ken

You keep harping on the idea that if people didn't exist that somehow math would not exist.

Yes!

Would physics, chemistry, biology stop existing too?

Science is defined as
A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
Physics, chemistry, biology and all the other sciences would no longer exist if there were nobody around to study them

How about this thought experiment, if humans went extinct and in a billion years or so chimps evolved into rational beings, what do you think they would discover about the sum of 2 + 2?

If Chimps were forced to rediscover the wheel, math would be the same only if they chose to base it on the number 10. If they chose a different number to base math on it would be different. I've explained this already.

I will do some harping of my own because it begs repeating over and over until you get. You are yet again confusing epistemology and ontology.

I’ve explained epistemology and ontology a million times already. It seems whenever someone runs out of wrong answers to give, they claim I am confusing epistemology and ontology.

Ken

[1over137]

Ken,

I have not asked through what we can describe the world (you replied science).
My questions pointed to the origin of rules.

Do you see the difference?

And I do not understand what you mean about rules getting people on one accord. Is that the reason for rules/physics laws/laws of nature?
Please, explain more.

Thank you.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
the best way to get things done is by getting everyone on one accord. Rules gets everybody on one accord

First, that assumes rules are objective. And second, that assumes we all can agree on those rules.

Which means that again, you are talking about epistemology and ontology.

[Kenny]

Ken,

I have not asked through what we can describe the world (you replied science).
My questions pointed to the origin of rules.

Do you see the difference?

There are a million things that describe the world; through science is only one of the many ways the world can be described. I believe people are the origin of the rules people choose to follow.

And I do not understand what you mean about rules getting people on one accord.

People (usually the leaders of a society) create rules in order to get the entire society on one accord.

Ken

[Byblos]

You keep harping on the idea that if people didn't exist that somehow math would not exist.

Yes!

Would physics, chemistry, biology stop existing too?

Science is defined as
A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
Physics, chemistry, biology and all the other sciences would no longer exist if there were nobody around to study them

That, right there, is the level of irrationality you must descend to in order to justify your position.

How about this thought experiment, if humans went extinct and in a billion years or so chimps evolved into rational beings, what do you think they would discover about the sum of 2 + 2?

If Chimps were forced to rediscover the wheel, math would be the same only if they chose to base it on the number 10. If they chose a different number to base math on it would be different. I've explained this already.

You are so far off with the base 10 thing it is rather sad. How could math be different if the base is changed Kenny? Wouldn't that mean if we use a different base that the results will necessarily be different? Is that what you contend? How is it then that computer systems that are based on a binary base yield the same result as base 10 or any other base? You're not making sense at all.

I will do some harping of my own because it begs repeating over and over until you get. You are yet again confusing epistemology and ontology.

I’ve explained epistemology and ontology a million times already. It seems whenever someone runs out of wrong answers to give, they claim I am confusing epistemology and ontology.

You claim you've explained it in an effort to advance the above smoke-screen. We understand.

[1over137]

Ken,

I have not asked through what we can describe the world (you replied science).
My questions pointed to the origin of rules.

Do you see the difference?

There are a million things that describe the world; through science is only one of the many ways the world can be described. I believe people are the origin of the rules people choose to follow.

And I do not understand what you mean about rules getting people on one accord.

People (usually the leaders of a society) create rules in order to get the entire society on one accord.

Ken

Kenny,
I speak about rules/laws like gravity, speed of light etc. Physics laws.
Can we stick to talking about them?

So please, go back to my questions and think only of such laws.

Thank you.

[Jac3510]

Question for whomever,

Take a look at this figure

This is, of course, a circle.

So here is the question: do we say, "The figure in the picture is a circle" because it, in fact, is a circle; or is the figure in the picture a circle because we say, "The figure in the picture is a circle"? Put slightly differently, does the linguistic construction "The figure in the picture is a circle" obtain (that is, it it true) because it correctly represents and answers to something in reality; or does reality conform to our linguistic construction? Put one last way, does grammar determine reality, or does grammar attempt to reflect reality?

[RickD]

Question for whomever,

Take a look at this figure

This is, of course, a circle.

So here is the question: do we say, "The figure in the picture is a circle" because it, in fact, is a circle; or is the figure in the picture a circle because we say, "The figure in the picture is a circle"? Put slightly differently, does the linguistic construction "The figure in the picture is a circle" obtain (that is, it it true) because it correctly represents and answers to something in reality; or does reality conform to our linguistic construction? Put one last way, does grammar determine reality, or does grammar attempt to reflect reality?

It's a circle because a human put the image on the computer. No human, no circle.

[Storyteller]

Grammar, and language, attempts to explain reality. We look for ways to understand, wr question.
A circle is a circle, always was, aleays will be. But.. if no one sses that circle?
Still a circle, just not seen.

Math is language.

Physics are facts backed by language.

Math is the symbols of physics


It may all be perception, but whose?

[Jac3510]

Grammar, and language, attempts to explain reality. . . Math is language.

Ergo, math attempts to explain reality. "Two" may not exist any more than "circle" does, but circles exist in reality, and so, "twoness" exists in reality. Our word "two" answers to, or refers to, reality, just as our word "circle" refers to reality. Now, just like the word "circulo" and "kreis," and "サークル" all refer to the thing in reality that the English word "circle" refers to, so the sign "2" on a base 10 refers to the same thing that the sign "10" refers to in a base 2. But in both cases, the underlying reality exists objectively. Math, then, regardless of the particular language, is a real part of reality that humans discover and describe in whatever language they happen to prefer (which is usually what is most convenient). We can't confuse the contingency of the language with the objectivity of the reality itself.

[Storyteller]

Read a book a while ago, Anna and mister God. A 6 year old girl who discovers God along with "God numbers".

She conducts scientific tests to prove math, and God, to an atheist scientific professer.

She died before her seventh birthaday yet she git more about God in His simplicity than many of us do.

[Kenny]

You keep harping on the idea that if people didn't exist that somehow math would not exist.

Yes!

Would physics, chemistry, biology stop existing too?

Science is defined as
A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
Physics, chemistry, biology and all the other sciences would no longer exist if there were nobody around to study them

That, right there, is the level of irrationality you must descend to in order to justify your position.

Explain why you disagree with me.

How about this thought experiment, if humans went extinct and in a billion years or so chimps evolved into rational beings, what do you think they would discover about the sum of 2 + 2?

If Chimps were forced to rediscover the wheel, math would be the same only if they chose to base it on the number 10. If they chose a different number to base math on it would be different. I've explained this already.

You are so far off with the base 10 thing it is rather sad. How could math be different if the base is changed Kenny? Wouldn't that mean if we use a different base that the results will necessarily be different? Is that what you contend? How is it then that computer systems that are based on a binary base yield the same result as base 10 or any other base? You're not making sense at all.

On Thursday 4/21/16 at 6:23pm I explained why math would be different if numbers were based upon a number larger than 10. Go back and read what I said and tell me if there is anything you disagree with. Basically I contend a larger base number would mean more single digit numbers, more double digit numbers, more triple digit numbers, etc. than we have now. To me that is different.

Ken

[Kenny]

Ken,

I have not asked through what we can describe the world (you replied science).
My questions pointed to the origin of rules.

Do you see the difference?

There are a million things that describe the world; through science is only one of the many ways the world can be described. I believe people are the origin of the rules people choose to follow.

And I do not understand what you mean about rules getting people on one accord.

People (usually the leaders of a society) create rules in order to get the entire society on one accord.

Ken

Kenny,
I speak about rules/laws like gravity, speed of light etc. Physics laws.
Can we stick to talking about them?

So please, go back to my questions and think only of such laws.

Thank you.

You aren’t offended are you? That was not my intention. First of all, you were not very clear with your question. You asked about “rules” not scientific laws. Do you know the difference? A Scientific law is a statement based upon observation that describes something about the universe that will apply 100% of the time.
Gravity is a law, Speed of light? Not a law. Physics laws? There are some scientific laws that applies to physics like Gravity, Laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, etc. these are known as laws of physics.
Rules (on the other hand) are boundaries people set with each other, in order to coexist peacefully. Big difference.

Because you said rules instead of scientific laws, I responded to what you said; apparently not what you meant.
So I guess your question is; “Why are there scientific laws?” As a Christian I’m sure “God did it” will suffice for you, but I’m sure you know me better than that; the best I can give you is to admit I don’t know.

Ken