____twoism

Davism wrote:No, we did not devise, create or invent math. If that's the case, could we create a new mathematical language? Could we all agree that 2+2=5 now? We discovered math, just like how we discovered repeating mathematical patterns in nature (fibonacci sequence). Mathematical truths exist outside of us and are revealed in nature.

What you are saying here is not true, we clearly invented mathematics, and we jave based it on observations of the world around us as perceived by our senses. We can totally have new mathematic frameworks, and in fact, there are lots of them out there. We have frameworks where 2+2=5, we have frameworks where parallel lines will cross. Mathematics is a language, and like any language, it is not universal but a construct of humans.[/quote]

Davism wrote:If we can only perceive 5% of our universe, what reason do you have to claim that God can't exist. Wouldn't you have to be all knowing to know God isn't real? Metaphysics is exactly why people hypothesize that God is the best explanation, otherwise you fall into the "time of the gaps" fallacy.

Well a quote that I especially enjoy is: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." and I see no reason to believe in any supernatural presence as absolutely no proof has been provided of it since the dawn of time.

But I don't want to pollute this thread further with this tho, so I will not further elaborate, you have your beliefs and that's ok,

Have a good day.

** + ** will always equal ****

Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.

You too.

magrathea_ultima wrote:What you are saying here is not true, we clearly invented mathematics, and we jave based it on observations of the world around us as perceived by our senses. We can totally have new mathematic frameworks, and in fact, there are lots of them out there. We have frameworks where 2+2=5, we have frameworks where parallel lines will cross. Mathematics is a language, and like any language, it is not universal but a construct of humans.

We did in fact invent base 10 yes, but base 10 is just one of the few ways we have to perceive the universe. The language of mathematics doesn't break down when we move from using base 10 numbers to base 16 numbers because the logic which powers all of mathematics extends far beyond anything human.

Mathematics is simply a language for detailing a logical operation with a set of inputs and outputs. It doesn't change if the input is beans, numbers or cats. The logical operation that 2+2=5 does not exist. Its like saying the observations of planets must be false only because we "perceived them" with our "human logic".

Put down the bong and pick up a text book.

If you want some concrete proof that mathematics models the real world, you only have to look at the rise of AI

Gross! Please get yourselves a pet so you'll know what it's like to have a friend.

llydia wrote:

magrathea_ultima wrote:What you are saying here is not true, we clearly invented mathematics, and we jave based it on observations of the world around us as perceived by our senses. We can totally have new mathematic frameworks, and in fact, there are lots of them out there. We have frameworks where 2+2=5, we have frameworks where parallel lines will cross. Mathematics is a language, and like any language, it is not universal but a construct of humans.

We did in fact invent base 10 yes, but base 10 is just one of the few ways we have to perceive the universe. The language of mathematics doesn't break down when we move from using base 10 numbers to base 16 numbers because the logic which powers all of mathematics extends far beyond anything human.

Mathematics is simply a language for detailing a logical operation with a set of inputs and outputs. It doesn't change if the input is beans, numbers or cats. The logical operation that 2+2=5 does not exist. Its like saying the observations of planets must be false only because we "perceived them" with our "human logic".

llydia wrote:Put down the bong and pick up a text book.

Err, that seems very uncalled-for.

llydia wrote:Mathematics is simply a language for detailing a logical operation with a set of inputs and outputs. It doesn't change if the input is beans, numbers or cats. The logical operation that 2+2=5 does not exist. Its like saying the observations of planets must be false only because we "perceived them" with our "human logic"..

oh I'll give you 2+2=5 is impossible, agreed. I am also saying we invented mathematics, it is not woven into the fabric of the universe. Even the constants are only defined as their values based on what we chose to use as the measurement system.

It is also shaped by our cultures. Some cultures do not have numbers beyond three... in this case, 2 + 2 = more than three.

Then it becomes a slippery slope.

magrathea_ultima wrote:I see no reason to believe in any supernatural presence as absolutely no proof has been provided of it since the dawn of time.

I propose that the people with the proof simply don't want to share

luminousdusk wrote:

magrathea_ultima wrote:I see no reason to believe in any supernatural presence as absolutely no proof has been provided of it since the dawn of time.

I propose that the people with the proof simply don't want to share

That is a very long-lasting over reaching conspiracy, when it is well documented that as soon as a secret has more than one person in the know it will leak.

So nah, I will simply follow what the scientific method taught me. Or perhaps all the people not buying into religion|other beliefs|etc do our own Boston Tea Party. No taxation without representation!

magrathea_ultima wrote:

llydia wrote:

magrathea_ultima wrote:What you are saying here is not true, we clearly invented mathematics, and we jave based it on observations of the world around us as perceived by our senses. We can totally have new mathematic frameworks, and in fact, there are lots of them out there. We have frameworks where 2+2=5, we have frameworks where parallel lines will cross. Mathematics is a language, and like any language, it is not universal but a construct of humans.

We did in fact invent base 10 yes, but base 10 is just one of the few ways we have to perceive the universe. The language of mathematics doesn't break down when we move from using base 10 numbers to base 16 numbers because the logic which powers all of mathematics extends far beyond anything human.

Mathematics is simply a language for detailing a logical operation with a set of inputs and outputs. It doesn't change if the input is beans, numbers or cats. The logical operation that 2+2=5 does not exist. Its like saying the observations of planets must be false only because we "perceived them" with our "human logic".

llydia wrote:Put down the bong and pick up a text book.

Err, that seems very uncalled-for.

llydia wrote:Mathematics is simply a language for detailing a logical operation with a set of inputs and outputs. It doesn't change if the input is beans, numbers or cats. The logical operation that 2+2=5 does not exist. Its like saying the observations of planets must be false only because we "perceived them" with our "human logic"..

oh I'll give you 2+2=5 is impossible, agreed. I am also saying we invented mathematics, it is not woven into the fabric of the universe. Even the constants are only defined as their values based on what we chose to use as the measurement system.

It is also shaped by our cultures. Some cultures do not have numbers beyond three... in this case, 2 + 2 = more than three.

Then it becomes a slippery slope.

Right, but they probably have 5 fingers on each hand. Just because they won’t count higher than 2 doesn’t mean they only have 2 fingers on each hand.

We would not have music without math.

Davism wrote:
Right, but they probably have 5 fingers on each hand. Just because they won’t count higher than 2 doesn’t mean they only have 2 fingers on each hand.

I fail to see the connection you try to make, you suggest everything is in base 10 in part because we have ten fingers?

Davism wrote:We would not have music without math.

So to the oubliette all the atonal serialism, improvisation as well as experimental and avant-garde music then?

That sounds a bit rigid.

magrathea_ultima wrote:I fail to see the connection you try to make, you suggest everything is in base 10 in part because we have ten fingers?

Its just the most easy to understand, easiest to teach and most logical to use. For a long time we didn't actually have a zero. Also, it kind of actually is all based off of our fingers! Before we had numbers, pointing was all we had! It wasn't long before humanity realized they could use their fingers to determine quantity, cave man times actually. Its just a coincidence we also have 10 fingers, but remember we also have 10 toes too! So shouldn't we be counting in base 20?

Boards of Canada essentialy us black hole project. What enters there, never leave

mathematical symbols, notation, and selection of axioms could be considered a product of human invention

however the procedures, theorems, and structures discovered with mathematics appear to be aspects we've been able to learn about nature herself

We can't see far away objects in space without telescopes - that doesn't mean we invented stars

Music is Math

Can you guys please get back on topic, surely there must be some recent instagram likes to pointlessly obsess over?

Cyclosa wrote:Can you guys please get back on topic, surely there must be some recent instagram likes to pointlessly obsess over?

I think this is very important and on topic because in order to establish a framework of speculation we first need to determine the correct language to use for mathematics.

llydia wrote:

Cyclosa wrote:Can you guys please get back on topic, surely there must be some recent instagram likes to pointlessly obsess over?

I think this is very important and on topic because in order to establish a framework of speculation we first need to determine the correct language to use for mathematics.

Yes, 12 years down the line is a good time to start setting up a framework for speculation. We wouldn't wanna be speculating before that. It would be a disaster and a waste of time ..

We're not talking about maths as in 5+5=10, we're talking about maths as in the kind that is actually more akin to computer programs.

dana wrote:We're not talking about maths as in 5+5=10, we're talking about maths as in the kind that is actually more akin to computer programs.

The Matrix. That's where LP5 is! We just haven't figured out the math yet to render it...