Learn, learn, and learn!

Name | |
---|---|

Email | |

Subject | |

Comment | |

Captcha Tor Only | |

Flag | |

File | |

Embed | |

Password |

File: 1608528174046.png ( 268.29 KB , 1178x732 , 854a2e112976b7e92a52a193e6….png )

Is mathematics invented, discovered or both?

>>

>>

>>

File: 1608528174680.png ( 275.37 KB , 900x900 , stop doing maths.png )

>>2323

People independently (re)invent things all the time. I doubt this is because there's some spooky Absolute Knowledge that exists independently of humankind and can be "discovered". A much more likely explanation is that humans simply think alike.

People independently (re)invent things all the time. I doubt this is because there's some spooky Absolute Knowledge that exists independently of humankind and can be "discovered". A much more likely explanation is that humans simply think alike.

>>

>>

>>2320

Cockshott has a video lecture on the origin of math.

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=JWaukcx-upg

TLDR: Math is a tool for solving problems, it is no different from a plow or tractor.

Cockshott has a video lecture on the origin of math.

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=JWaukcx-upg

TLDR: Math is a tool for solving problems, it is no different from a plow or tractor.

>>

As a math-fag I used to believe that it was discovered largely. And I suppose you can take this stance, since the variables that determine the nature of the universe dictate that plants could exist, and then that plant would have the property that it could be grown in masses and be soft enough to cut, therefore farming was 'discovered' but I feel this is a bit sneaky. Like >>2348 said I don't really think we should view it any different to tools and therefore would be invented, like the sickle is invented, even though metal and plants always existed with the possibility of combining the two to cause a reaction in our world.

>>

>>

If you are a materialist, then math is absolutely discovered. It is insane to think that aliens would have a math system where 2+2 is not 4.

Mathematical rules are objectal. They are real, objective, but not material. The same way the meaning of the word remains the same no matter who reads it or the number of rocks is independent of the viewer.

This is the reason why universe can be described in the mathematical languge, because math is discovered from the nature.

Mathematical rules are objectal. They are real, objective, but not material. The same way the meaning of the word remains the same no matter who reads it or the number of rocks is independent of the viewer.

This is the reason why universe can be described in the mathematical languge, because math is discovered from the nature.

>>

>>2325

There is no Absolute Knowledge in a objective idealistic way, but there are concepts, that are independent of one's mind. How come we all know what a dog is? Why can we understand this word at all if everyone creates their own "dogness"?

If there are no universal concepts hidden in the words form then there is no reason why exchange of ideas is possible.

There is no Absolute Knowledge in a objective idealistic way, but there are concepts, that are independent of one's mind. How come we all know what a dog is? Why can we understand this word at all if everyone creates their own "dogness"?

If there are no universal concepts hidden in the words form then there is no reason why exchange of ideas is possible.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>2376

"Social consensus" defines the form of the concept, not its content.

A clearer example would be "mass". You cannot feel mass itself, cannot describe it, yet everyone who can understand what mass is.

We do not just find similarities in objects and name them accordingly. We find the universalities that are hidden inside particulars and name these universalities.

"Social consensus" defines the form of the concept, not its content.

A clearer example would be "mass". You cannot feel mass itself, cannot describe it, yet everyone who can understand what mass is.

We do not just find similarities in objects and name them accordingly. We find the universalities that are hidden inside particulars and name these universalities.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>2382

Everything in math is derived from the axioms which stem from reality. The same goes for infinitesimals.

I gave simple examples precisely because it is simple to see how they are connected to objective world. I do not understand how can you say that mathematics is absolutely created by humans. Do you think that before the rules of mathematics were "created" it was untrue that prime numbers are infinite or that there are only three linear independent vectors in a euclidian space?

Everything in math is derived from the axioms which stem from reality. The same goes for infinitesimals.

I gave simple examples precisely because it is simple to see how they are connected to objective world. I do not understand how can you say that mathematics is absolutely created by humans. Do you think that before the rules of mathematics were "created" it was untrue that prime numbers are infinite or that there are only three linear independent vectors in a euclidian space?

>>

>>

File: 1608528179526.png ( 20.87 KB , 750x108 , Screenshot 2020-08-03 at 1….png )

>>2374

Why would they necessarily even compose 2+2=4? This seems very intuitive and obvious to you, does pic related seem obvious to you? It is insane to think that aliens would have a math system where the line integral over a positively oriented, piecewise smooth, simple closed curve in a plane of functions L and M equal the double integral over the plane region bounded by the curve!

Why would aliens not use different axioms that also have some approximation to reality that we may not see? 2+2 may equal 4 in this alien mathematic but it may be a complex theorem as opposed to a basic result.

A plant always held the characteristics of being able to grown in groups, and soft flesh easy to cut, and yummy to humans, so was farming discovered, or invented? Spacetime always held the property of masses attracting each other, but is our 'finding' this discovery, or is our (not necessarily true) analysis of this phenomenon an invention? The same way two 'separate' objects always could be grouped to find 2 of them to get the sum 1+1=2.

Why would they necessarily even compose 2+2=4? This seems very intuitive and obvious to you, does pic related seem obvious to you? It is insane to think that aliens would have a math system where the line integral over a positively oriented, piecewise smooth, simple closed curve in a plane of functions L and M equal the double integral over the plane region bounded by the curve!

Why would aliens not use different axioms that also have some approximation to reality that we may not see? 2+2 may equal 4 in this alien mathematic but it may be a complex theorem as opposed to a basic result.

A plant always held the characteristics of being able to grown in groups, and soft flesh easy to cut, and yummy to humans, so was farming discovered, or invented? Spacetime always held the property of masses attracting each other, but is our 'finding' this discovery, or is our (not necessarily true) analysis of this phenomenon an invention? The same way two 'separate' objects always could be grouped to find 2 of them to get the sum 1+1=2.

>>

>>2386

That's a really nice idealist view of mathematics. The reality is that there are multiple sets of conflicting axioms and what you can prove depends on which ones you start with. There's a good reason most of mathematics was never formalized. Even today, the validity of proofs is based on consensus.

That's a really nice idealist view of mathematics. The reality is that there are multiple sets of conflicting axioms and what you can prove depends on which ones you start with. There's a good reason most of mathematics was never formalized. Even today, the validity of proofs is based on consensus.

>>

>>

>>2322

/thread

Math is riddled with platonists and science is riddled with scientism and brainlets. Pop scientists are somehow many times worse.

Here's a hot take though. Math is a set of games with different axioms and rules. Philosophy is the same, a game of words, except with informal logic and words.

/thread

Math is riddled with platonists and science is riddled with scientism and brainlets. Pop scientists are somehow many times worse.

Here's a hot take though. Math is a set of games with different axioms and rules. Philosophy is the same, a game of words, except with informal logic and words.

>>

>>

File: 1608528180295.gif ( 2.65 MB , 420x420 , 1572613661184.gif )

invented. it has no objective basis in reality. it's simply an abstract mental construct used to describe reality.

>>

>>

>>2326

>why does this board attract the biggest /x/fags

>foundation crisis of mathematics is /x/ tier

lmao

>>2400

The issue here is that it ignore what math has been historically, which is a "reflection" of reality.

We originally intuited mathematics, based on abstractions of the real world. Math got more and more complicated as technology did the same. Eventually it became entirely it's own thing, for itself. It also became increasingly formalized and axiomatized. This eventually made it into a sort of "game" of axiomatic principles, and things are discovered in the system.

So math was developed intuitively, then became a thing for itself and became foramlist and axiomatic. A game of axioms. Things were invented and discovered then and still are. Math doesn't exist "in reality".

>why does this board attract the biggest /x/fags

>foundation crisis of mathematics is /x/ tier

lmao

>>2400

The issue here is that it ignore what math has been historically, which is a "reflection" of reality.

We originally intuited mathematics, based on abstractions of the real world. Math got more and more complicated as technology did the same. Eventually it became entirely it's own thing, for itself. It also became increasingly formalized and axiomatized. This eventually made it into a sort of "game" of axiomatic principles, and things are discovered in the system.

So math was developed intuitively, then became a thing for itself and became foramlist and axiomatic. A game of axioms. Things were invented and discovered then and still are. Math doesn't exist "in reality".

>>

Cockshott uploaded a recent video regarding this. Let me find it…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1pjbePIYHZA

Food for thought comrades.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1pjbePIYHZA

Food for thought comrades.

>>

>>2374

there are no numbers of anything "independent of the viewer". breaking objects up into quantities that can even be added in the first place is relies on Understanding. you can break things up infinitesimally, there is no universal objective guarantee of where to draw the line.

there are no numbers of anything "independent of the viewer". breaking objects up into quantities that can even be added in the first place is relies on Understanding. you can break things up infinitesimally, there is no universal objective guarantee of where to draw the line.

>>

>>

>>

File: 1622694781784.png ( 107.85 KB , 1706x728 , principia.png )

>362 pages to prove 1+1=2

>>

>>

Mathematical Platonism was refuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benacerraf%27s_identification_problem

Post rem structuralism is probably correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benacerraf%27s_identification_problem

Post rem structuralism is probably correct.

>>

Unique IPs: 12

[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

- Tinyboard + vichan + lainchan 5.2.0 -

Tinyboard Copyright © 2010-2014 Tinyboard Development Group

vichan Copyright © 2012-2016 vichan-devel

lainchan Copyright © 2014-2017 lainchan Administration

All trademarks, copyrights, comments, and images on this page are owned by and are the responsibility of their respective parties.