|
| Thread: The Real & the "mathematical world" are both DISCRETE |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted September 02, 2020 09:55 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
@ Zenofex
"Motion" is a pretty relative thing, actually, and in the sense you mean it, it needs space and time. So motion needs actually a certain reality already to take place at all.
Not really because it's the other way around - the world exists because there is motion, not there is motion because the world exists. Last time I checked, physicists were still unable to tell what space is (like, having its own properties outside of the regular AND dark matter, if you take the whole "dark energy" thing seriously for example... not that matter is well-explained either) and were describing time as a flexible dimension dependent on gravity but in all cases you have different objects, forces, entities which interact with each other and are relative to each other because of the motion. With no motion, there will literally be nothing and the only thing that "mathematics" would be able to describe (figuratively speaking), assuming it gained its own consciousness or something of the sort, is zero as its equivalent of nothing.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2020 10:15 PM |
|
|
Gandalf196 said:
How many fingers do I have here?
Quote:
That's you? A hand making a victory sign? Crazy.
No. I'm just showing two fingers and I assure you that everyone sees two fingers, not one, not three, not ten. Ergo, nothing subjective about that. the macroscopic world is purely objective.
There is so much wrong with this. Just read this again. Maybe you get it. If not, well...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2020 10:16 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
JollyJoker said:
@ Zenofex
"Motion" is a pretty relative thing, actually, and in the sense you mean it, it needs space and time. So motion needs actually a certain reality already to take place at all.
Not really because it's the other way around - the world exists because there is motion, not there is motion because the world exists. Last time I checked, physicists were still unable to tell what space is (like, having its own properties outside of the regular AND dark matter, if you take the whole "dark energy" thing seriously for example... not that matter is well-explained either) and were describing time as a flexible dimension dependent on gravity but in all cases you have different objects, forces, entities which interact with each other and are relative to each other because of the motion. With no motion, there will literally be nothing and the only thing that "mathematics" would be able to describe (figuratively speaking), assuming it gained its own consciousness or something of the sort, is zero as its equivalent of nothing.
Define motion. Please.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 02, 2020 11:41 PM |
|
|
I'm saying that without motion there will be nothing and you ask me to describe motion. Good one.  Anyway, the best thing I can think of is a non-zero state of a thing. All mathematical operations require motion (increase, decrease, compare, equate etc.) and in essence describe motion.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 03, 2020 01:39 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:40, 03 Sep 2020.
|
JJ said:
Define motion please.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2020 09:34 AM |
|
|
You cannot claim, that without X there is nothing and then you cannot define X. That makes X "God".
In truth, we have not a clue what's going on. Exactly 100 years ago, in 1920, there was this really big discussion between Shapley and Curtis whether all the stuff they saw with their big telescopes was within the milky way - which at the time was thought to be 1000 lightyears thick and 10.000 wide - or whether at least part of oll those nebulas and whatnot were "beyond". Telescopes are comparatively old - even in Kant's time (who died 1804) they were watching, and interestingly enough Kant had already opined that those elliptic nebulas would have to be other milky ways. No proof, though.
It took them another couple of years until they actually found a method to measure distances in space, and the actually involved distances were gigantic indeed.
Why would NOW be any different from 100 years ago? We seem to know so much more, and yet - we don't.
Anyway, subjective and objective reality.
Just take time dilation and the twin paradoxon. Time (and actually space as well) "changes" depending on speed, gravitational influence and acceleration effects, and so reality differs (or would differ) for observers in different "boats".
Again - has nothing to do with math.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 03, 2020 06:00 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 18:01, 03 Sep 2020.
|
Quote:
You cannot claim, that without X there is nothing and then you cannot define X. That makes X "God".
Hardly. God is very easily explained as the border of one's own ignorance, motion isn't as it's fundamental to everything, including why I can write this now and others can read it. To explain motion without putting it "somewhere" or in relation to "something", i.e. as its own thing would be pretty much an equivalent of explaining the why and the how the universe's existence. In the same way, you can't define math without physical references or abstract mind constructs, whereas the mind is also a physical thing until proven otherwise.
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2020 09:16 PM |
|
|
As I wrote. To much teories fantasy concepts and madness is near. I suggest back to realism. Nothing better noone discower like simply using mind to real work in real world.
God in Math is symbolised by +& plus infinity.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2020 10:47 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
Quote:
You cannot claim, that without X there is nothing and then you cannot define X. That makes X "God".
Hardly. God is very easily explained as the border of one's own ignorance, motion isn't as it's fundamental to everything, including why I can write this now and others can read it. To explain motion without putting it "somewhere" or in relation to "something", i.e. as its own thing would be pretty much an equivalent of explaining the why and the how the universe's existence.
"Motion" needs some"thing" (that has not to be physical/a mass) to "move". This movement has to take place "somewhere" (which isn't necessarily a location it could be a movement in time or a wave motion or whatever. So there is something else needed and cannot be fundamental.
If you want it to be something else you have to define it and call it something else.
Quote:
In the same way, you can't define math without physical references or abstract mind constructs, whereas the mind is also a physical thing until proven otherwise.
I actually don't know what you mean by that. Math is a human construct, sure. What do you mean with physical references and abstract mind constructs?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 04, 2020 08:23 AM |
|
|
It means you cannot define math without using notions which are of the physical world, i.e. you cannot detach it from the physical world as an entity having its own existence.
Quote:
"Motion" needs some"thing" (that has not to be physical/a mass) to "move". This movement has to take place "somewhere" (which isn't necessarily a location it could be a movement in time or a wave motion or whatever. So there is something else needed and cannot be fundamental.
That's not the case if motion is the reason why that "thing" exists. The very word "existence" implies motion.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2020 09:31 AM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
It means you cannot define math without using notions which are of the physical world, i.e. you cannot detach it from the physical world as an entity having its own existence.
Sure. It's COMPLETELY detached. That's the whole point. If you don't see that, you didn't grasp the concept.
Quote:
"Motion" needs some"thing" (that has not to be physical/a mass) to "move". This movement has to take place "somewhere" (which isn't necessarily a location it could be a movement in time or a wave motion or whatever. So there is something else needed and cannot be fundamental.
That's not the case if motion is the reason why that "thing" exists. The very word "existence" implies motion.
You can claim a lot, but that is nonsense, because you are at god again. "Motion is the reason why that thing exist". Simply replace motion with god and voila.
"Motion" already has a certain meaning. Motion describes a relative activity. It's not an abstract concept. Something must already be there, otherwise there can be no motion as opposed to stillness. If everything moves or is "in motion", then there is no dikfference to stillness since the motion cannot be detected.
I'm also not sure what makes you think that the very word existence implies motion.
And lastly, I won't have you using the word "motion" in a way as if we would all know what it exactly means, while you also say you can't define it. See above, existence implies motion, but you can't define motion. There isn't much to talk about here.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 08, 2020 04:35 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 16:38, 08 Sep 2020.
|
All right, do try to describe anything, including math, without using motion.  You are actually throwing God-like concepts in here with "math is math, the world doesn't matter" because you're detaching it from the physical world while motion is fundamental to that world's existence, including math. I'm not explaining motion inside the world as you're probably hoping to, giving it borders this way, because that's totally beside the fact that the world will simply not exists without motion - just like you wouldn't be able to put 2 and 2 together if you didn't exist.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2020 05:58 PM |
|
|
|
See my post above. Why would I discuss something you claim something for that you cannot define? That is irrational.
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2020 07:41 PM |
|
|
Yes in fact you give maths gods atributes. Its nonsense. God is God math its math. Math has no autonomy from God. Its Gods creation description.
And write correctly. If you tell about One God Creator of Universe write big letter God becauss its His Own Name like Ian Smith.
But if you tell about eg. His god is money - use small letter because ist nothing concretly but abstraction.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2020 11:02 PM |
|
|
I don't know a God. I just know "god" as a placeholder that stands for "I can't explain things, but there must certainly be some higher power". If you read it backwards it's "dog", by the way.
And math is a human invention, an abstract language in which syntax and vocabulary are well-defined as opposed to other languages which need things like semantics and are certainly not well-defined. The vocabulary of math is completely abstracted. You just don't get it. A number is something completely abstract. There is no such thing as "2". There are only "2 things" which is something completely different. And when you see something like "2x" in math it's not the same thing than "2 things", because "x" won't be € of the fruits, but possibly an € of R, which is a set of utterly abstract numbers.
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2020 01:55 AM |
|
|
"In the first stage, within about a century of its import in Europe, Newton’s way of using the calculus in his Principia had made it socially acceptable. Social acceptability comes from agreement with the prevailing social prejudices. The Yuktibhăsă treatment related the mathematics of series expansion to the physical belief in atoms, but it would have aroused horror in Europe for basing mathematics on physics—that too the physics of atoms championed by that political unworthy Democritus! Cavalieri was criticised by Guldin on exactly this ground that his indivisibles, like Kepler’s, were really atoms of some sort, and he was called a “land surveyor rather than a geometer”. On the other hand, Newton’s use of fluxions also related the mathematics of series expansions to physics, but it aroused widespread social approval for it sought to base physics on mathematics—a procedure which is, till today, regarded as entirely appropriate in the West. The presentation in Newton’s Principia Mathematica is modelled on the presentation in “Euclid”, and as the word “ fluxion” suggests, Newton did not deviate from the “Aristotelian orthodoxy” of the belief in the continuum."
Cultural Foundations of Mathematics. Raju C.K. p. 378
____________
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2021 04:00 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Math is not a discovery, it is an invention. That’s what the article refers to as Platonism, treating math as if it is a discovery of some ideal realm. Math is invented ard adjusted according to empirical data.
"As we saw above, mathematics today is many things, but one thing that it is not, is a science. It is amazing, that, nevertheless, mathematics was so effective in science, so convincingly told by Eugene Wigner. One reason it was so effective was that the kind of mathematics that scientists needed was either discovered or rediscovered by themselves (e.g. Heisenberg rediscovered matrix algebra, ab initio), and they develop their own brand of mathematics, without the mathematicians’ misplaced obsession with rigor (e.g. Quantum Field Theory and the Renormalization Group), and the great success of mathematics in science is in spite of the mathematicians’ superstitious dogmas. Imagine how more effective it would have been if they threw away their artificial shackles."
source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.05560.pdf
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2021 08:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This was allegedly‘solved’ by Cauchy and Weierstrass, but their ‘solution’ was unnecessarily complicated and pedantic, creating so-called ‘Real Analysis’, one of the most unattractive courses in the math-major curriculum, where one does scholastic mental gymnastics to ‘prove’ intuitively obvious facts ... We live in a finite and discrete world, and the infinite and the continuous are mere optical illusions
... Mathematics should become a science.
And this guy should be a physicist. Although I suppose he might meet the same problems of infinity there.
I mean, seriously. Since when is science something that takes "intuitively obvious facts" been taken for granted?
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2021 01:54 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Quote:
This was allegedly‘solved’ by Cauchy and Weierstrass, but their ‘solution’ was unnecessarily complicated and pedantic, creating so-called ‘Real Analysis’, one of the most unattractive courses in the math-major curriculum, where one does scholastic mental gymnastics to ‘prove’ intuitively obvious facts ... We live in a finite and discrete world, and the infinite and the continuous are mere optical illusions
... Mathematics should become a science.
And this guy should be a physicist. Although I suppose he might meet the same problems of infinity there.
I mean, seriously. Since when is science something that takes "intuitively obvious facts" been taken for granted?
But he's correct, once you get rid of the infinite divisibility of the "continuum", space is nothing but a big necklace of atoms (or quarks, whatever), so you do not run into Zeno's paradoxes and taking the derivative of a function is simply taking the differences and dividing by the smallest unit of time
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2021 03:18 PM |
|
|
No, that's not true. The infinite dimension is already in play with the natural numbers which are discrete (and (countably) infinite), and the rational numbers are discrete as well (and still countably infinite).
In fact, if you follow the (mistaken) assumptions of the paradoxon, then Achilles reaches the turtle in the infinite (not never), mathematically spoken.
|
| |
|
|
