Jump to content

Mathematical Existence


August1991

Recommended Posts

Here's the link to a mathematician's view of existence:

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html

====

Years ago, people thought that the Earth was the centre.

Then, people thought the Sun was the centre.

Still later, people thought that our Sun was part of a galaxy in a larger unique universe - after a so-called Big Bang.

But why only one universe?

====

1) IME, true, mathematics always has another door.

2) Probability, time, do not work in Godel worlds. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2020 at 1:40 AM, August1991 said:

Here's the link to a mathematician's view of existence:

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html

====

Years ago, people thought that the Earth was the centre.

Then, people thought the Sun was the centre.

Still later, people thought that our Sun was part of a galaxy in a larger unique universe - after a so-called Big Bang.

But why only one universe?

====

1) IME, true, mathematics always has another door.

2) Probability, time, do not work in Godel worlds. 

 

I'm guessing this thread was accidentally placed under "Moral & Ethical Issues"? 

Does "IME" mean, "in my experience"? I'm not a texter and can't presume meaning to one's words without your clarification. 

As to math with regards to science, it is just a formal means to relate patterns of logic to nature as it is. I happen to hold that you should begin a logical inspection of total reality by assuming 'nothing' while recognizing that this implies 'everything'. Science is about this particular Universe and we assume consistency postulates for anything we do in science. As such, there can be (and I am confident, is) any number of Universes that have pattern while an infinite more (continuously) without. Only the patterned ones are what math, as an extension of logic, are used to find a fitness to the realities we sense for this Universe. 

Many think that "science" is limited to this Universe and/or similar patterned ones. But it doesn't mean the others do not exist. The debate by many is to whether science should be limited to the observational logic and its induction or to allow philosophy and logic to play a role with regards to interpretaion and the theories proposed. So many will not like to think science should allow for such speculation. 

But there is, in my opinion (and something I believe can be proved) a totatlity that 'originates' without any logic from an absolute state of Nothingness. That is, IF, there is an original foundation, where Nothingness lacks even rules or laws, it has no power to obey nor disobey any laws or logic. But this also applies to breaking them. When you begin with this assumption, all universes exist, whether patterned, rational, or not. Then our particular Universe is of the class of logical universals that have pattern. 

There should be EXCLUSIVE barriers to universes in this way of thinking because if absolutely everything were 'true' somewhere in Totality, then this must include the "impossible". But the exclusivity of them in fact make them 'non-sensible' in the strict meaning of our ability to directly observe any. However, logically, you CAN argue why these can still exist. This will not likely be accepted in the domain of institutional science though because of practical reasons, the most significant is to the politics and religions of people that almost always attempt to utilize logic WITHOUT respect to our local universe and our limitations of our senses.

(Note the term "science" comes from an origin based on sensory terms, like "sense", "scents", and "to see")

Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem" actually helps express why we have certain limitations to certainty with respect to our physical limitations to 'finite' concepts. So I'm not sure what you meant by "Godel worlds". Can you explain?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2020 at 12:40 AM, August1991 said:

Here's the link to a mathematician's view of existence:

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html

====

Years ago, people thought that the Earth was the centre.

Then, people thought the Sun was the centre.

Still later, people thought that our Sun was part of a galaxy in a larger unique universe - after a so-called Big Bang.

But why only one universe?

====

Gambler's fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2020 at 5:36 AM, OftenWrong said:

Because mathematics does not exist, except for in the minds in man. Or else, where is mathematics? Where is One? Two?
 

My area is in logic, math, and science. This is NOT universally agreed on and is more of a philosophical issue of contention between differences of interpretation, just as many other related issues in these areas. 

Numbers represent the real collections and so while the language we use is relatively artificial, numbers are not. We live in a universe run by 'laws' which require accepting that these are real. If the tools we use, like logic and math, are pure fabrications, then you could not trust using logic nor math to prove anything. The first and most significant "science" all of us do as children is to INDUCE what patterns of reasoning are. Then we guess what this is by postulating a set of agreed to means to DEDUCE through this system of reasoning we call 'logic'. The WAY we formulate in the most universal sense, requires recognizing that there is an underlying 'logic' to reality (those 'laws'). They are abstract FORMS (or 'formulas') but nevertheless more real than anything else. In fact, if the meaning of numbers (not the arbitrary language we use to express it) is still properly real numbers. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

What if the Hulk picked up Thor while Thor picked up the hammer?

Then by the transitive property of picking things up, Hulk picked up the hammer.

"Hard to argue with those kinds of street smarts."

There's way too much more wrong than this. A logical argument can be 'valid' but not 'sound'. 

Humour uses logical dillemas or intentional fallacies to trick us into not distinguishing certain differences that exist or to unspoken but presumed true premises. This argument is related to the dillema: "If God is absolutely all powerful, then can he lift a rock too heavy for him to lift?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2020 at 6:42 PM, Scott Mayers said:

...

Does "IME" mean, "in my experience"? I'm not a texter and can't presume meaning to one's words without your clarification. 

....

 

Yes, IME means "in my experience".

And IME, mathematics has always opened another door.

But IME, mathematics has always had a problem with probability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, August1991 said:

IME, mathematics has always had a problem with probability.

Ha !  This is the oddest philosophical puzzle I have ever read.

1) Math doesn't care about your experience.
2) On the other hand, math is a human endeavour that doesn't address all problems so it does have "problems"
3) If a human (assuming Auguste is not a robot) isn't on the same page with a closed philosophical system, ie. mathematics, then it's amusing that the human would say it's the system that has the problem
4) But... maybe it does ...
5) But only because Math can't appreciate the human experience of probability.  I used to have a friend who would say "there's a 50-50 chance of rain every day... either it rains or it don't" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something could be wrong with both time and space.

If a thing can only be known according to when it is, it cannot be known where it is.

If a thing can only be known according to where it is, then never can it be known when it is.


So therefore cartesian coordinate systems are merely an illusion. There is no "simultaneity" of two or more coordinates in reality. Mathematics is just a simple approximation of the experiences encoded by our brain and senses, done by breaking things down into little bits under assumption that the whole is the sum of the parts! It's irrational...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2020 at 11:31 PM, Cannucklehead said:

Time is a construct of man based on our solar system.  Our concept of time is based on earths revolution around the sun, but an alien planet with intelligent life could calculate time entirely differently than us. 

Time in the cosmos is undefinable atm since no one knows how when or how the universe began.  

 


"Reality is even stranger than your screwed up ideas." - JB Haldane

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...