Do you believe in god or math?

[thesummerqueen]

Wait...Math like numbers? or Math like the dude from the Mabinogion?

[Modular Moog V]

Wait...Math like numbers? or Math like the dude from the Mabinogion?

Math like numbers. I am not saying math is not useful, just that it is a projection from our minds. Do you have evidence that our mathematical projections are in the world?

A small example: rock A we have measured to be 5 miles from rock B. Is there something in the real world that says this, or is it our arbitrary convention of miles that makes this true?

[Erinome]

Wait...Math like numbers? or Math like the dude from the Mabinogion?

Math like numbers. I am not saying math is not useful, just that it is a projection from our minds. Do you have evidence that our mathematical projections are in the world?

A small example: rock A we have measured to be 5 miles from rock B. Is there something in the real world that says this, or is it our arbitrary convention of miles that makes this true?

It's all human distinctions. A beaver may measure things with his tail, and a horse, by paces. Numbers, however, are a universal language.

[Modular Moog V]

Wait...Math like numbers? or Math like the dude from the Mabinogion?

Math like numbers. I am not saying math is not useful, just that it is a projection from our minds. Do you have evidence that our mathematical projections are in the world?

A small example: rock A we have measured to be 5 miles from rock B. Is there something in the real world that says this, or is it our arbitrary convention of miles that makes this true?

It's all human distinctions. A beaver may measure things with his tail, and a horse, by paces. Numbers, however, are a universal language.

Yes, and language is subjective.

[thesummerqueen]

That question was mostly for Rhythm's benefit. I knew what was meant.

[Modular Moog V]

That question was mostly for Rhythm's benefit. I knew what was meant.

Was there a guy named Math in the Mabinogion? There certainly was Mab, a most powerful, and insatiable type of queen. It is a confusing translation from Gaelic, and one I never completed.

edit*No need to answer, yes he was a mighty enchanter in the story.

[The Grand Nudger]

Had a conversation eerily similar to this a bit ago. Long story short. The symbols we use, the words themselves are (as far as we know) uniquely human. As has been said, a beaver may measure distance with its tail. But if a beavers tail is 12 inches long, and we measure out a distance of two feet, the beaver will measure out two beavers tails. We will use a different "language" to describe the same observation. Numbers, shapes, angles, distance etc are all observations of the world around us placed within a standard frame of reference to make it easy to communicate with one another with regards to the observation. As such, they do not require "belief". They are something that we observe, and something for which almost any of us is prepared to demonstrate with nothing more than a pocketful of change.

To use a particularly illustrative example. Does a circle have 360 degrees? Yes, if one uses our system as a standard it does. But why? Well, you can thank the babylonians who used a sexigecimal system, which is great if you don't have access to a calculator. Laying that aside, a circle could have 4 degrees, but it would be hard to land a shell on target at great distance with only 4 degrees to measure by. Similarly, over great distances, you'll rarely see a whole number employed for a degree. 66.7, or 33.33432 would be more common. This allows for more accuracy. One could say that a circle has more than 360 degrees, but that's not how our system is set up. Point is, that these abstractions that we call numbers (in this case degrees) cannot be shown to exist in and of themselves, it is the things that they describe that most certainly do.

(one of the great things about numbers, is that as a language, they are not subjective in the way that others are)

[Modular Moog V]

Had a conversation eerily similar to this a bit ago. Long story short. The symbols we use, the words themselves are (as far as we know) uniquely human. As has been said, a beaver may measure distance with its tail. But if a beavers tail is 12 inches long, and we measure out a distance of two feet, the beaver will measure out two beavers tails. We will use a different "language" to describe the same observation. Numbers, shapes, angles, distance etc are all observations of the world around us placed within a standard frame of reference to make it easy to communicate with one another with regards to the observation. As such, they do not require "belief". They are something that we observe, and something for which almost any of us is prepared to demonstrate with nothing more than a pocketful of change.

To use a particularly illustrative example. Does a circle have 360 degrees? Yes, if one uses our system as a standard it does. But why? Well, you can thank the babylonians who used a sexigecimal system, which is great if you don't have access to a calculator. Laying that aside, a circle could have 4 degrees, but it would be hard to land a shell on target at great distance with only 4 degrees to measure by. Similarly, over great distances, you'll rarely see a whole number employed for a degree. 66.7, or 33.33432 would be more common. This allows for more accuracy. One could say that a circle has more than 360 degrees, but that's not how our system is set up. Point is, that these abstractions that we call numbers (in this case degrees) cannot be shown to exist in and of themselves, it is the things that they describe that most certainly do.

(one of the great things about numbers, is that as a language, they are not subjective in the way that others are)

I agree with everything untill you say math is not subjective like other language. All language is subjective, and math is no exception.

This IS an appeal to authority, but perhaps you can argue it out with Einstein

Here is his take:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

[The Grand Nudger]

One coin, in any language, can be represented by holding up a single coin. When you put any two "one coins" together, you have 2 coins, in any language. This is why numbers are not subjective in the same way that spoken languages are subjective. The word for 1 could translate into parrot in one language and ardvark in another, but by using 1, this barrier of subjectivity is eliminated. The conceptual abstraction of numbers is an appeal to authority. The thing that they represent is not.

Hold two fingers in front of your face. Now go hold those fingers up in front of anyone you like and ask them what they see (find someone who speaks a different language than you and do the same). What conclusion can you make from this?

[Modular Moog V]

........Sigh. 1 coin, in any language, can be represented by holding up a single coin. When you put any two "one coins" together, you have 2 coins, in any language. This is why numbers are not subjective in the same way that spoken languages are subjective. The word for 1 could translate into parrot in one language and ardvark in another, but by using 1, this barrier of subjectivity is eliminated. I tried to explain exactly this to you. The conceptual abstraction of numbers is an appeal to authority. The thing that they represent is not.

Yes, but when we take thoughts from our mind, and bring them to the real world, it will get messy. You cannot assemble 4 rocks, without bits of them dissolving into rock dust. Try counting 4 rocks of sandstone sometime.

Even 4 diamonds will break into what becomes more than 4. Not at all times of course, but regularly enough. I know, having set diamonds how they shatter.

Physics is where they try to put the inner perfection of numbers in a theory to match the real world. Progress has been made, but no perfect match.

As a side note, do you believe in infinity, a concept, not a number?