What is math? Math is the study of light...

[firewolfsm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It is true that we model the real world using math. However, it's incorrect to say that objects exist because of light. If I hold a ball in my hand and there are absolutely zero photons in the room, the ball still exists, has mass, diameter, and other observable properties. Thus, light does not create the ball - the ball exists independently of the light.

But those properties aren't observable without using light (or energy of some kind.) Even if it's on your hand, your neurons transmit an electric signal so it can be observed.

I'm not siding with this kid or anything...just saying, you could argue philosophically that it doesn't exist without light.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
But those properties aren't observable without using light (or energy of some kind.) Even if it's on your hand, your neurons transmit an electric signal so it can be observed.

I'm not siding with this kid or anything...just saying, you could argue philosophically that it doesn't exist without light.

Observable or not, the property exists independent of any observer. This is the principle of frame invariance, which is one of the necessary conditions for the validity of any constitutive material relationship. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it still fall? Yup. The property of having fallen==1 whether or not anyone was around to observe it.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
But those properties aren't observable without using light (or energy of some kind.) Even if it's on your hand, your neurons transmit an electric signal so it can be observed.

I'm not siding with this kid or anything...just saying, you could argue philosophically that it doesn't exist without light.

Observable or not, the property exists independent of any observer. This is the principle of frame invariance, which is one of the necessary conditions for the validity of any constitutive material relationship. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it still fall? Yup. The property of having fallen==1 whether or not anyone was around to observe it.

Yes, but did it make a sound?

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
But those properties aren't observable without using light (or energy of some kind.) Even if it's on your hand, your neurons transmit an electric signal so it can be observed.

I'm not siding with this kid or anything...just saying, you could argue philosophically that it doesn't exist without light.

Observable or not, the property exists independent of any observer. This is the principle of frame invariance, which is one of the necessary conditions for the validity of any constitutive material relationship. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it still fall? Yup. The property of having fallen==1 whether or not anyone was around to observe it.

Yes, but did it make a sound?

Actually what you really mean is:

Did the atoms bump into each other?

And we all know the answer to that one

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
But those properties aren't observable without using light (or energy of some kind.) Even if it's on your hand, your neurons transmit an electric signal so it can be observed.

I'm not siding with this kid or anything...just saying, you could argue philosophically that it doesn't exist without light.

Observable or not, the property exists independent of any observer. This is the principle of frame invariance, which is one of the necessary conditions for the validity of any constitutive material relationship. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it still fall? Yup. The property of having fallen==1 whether or not anyone was around to observe it.

Correct. But you're missing the point of my original thread, that mathematics is impossible without our ability to sense energy in it's various forms, and the only thing that transmits data is energy. The fact that the ball exists even if we are all dead is immaterial to the fact that YOU CAN'T KNOW if the ball is there or what properties it has without energy transmitting the data TO YOU so that you know that it (the ball) exists.

In geometry, you can only know if an object is there by casting a RAY at it, the universe casts those rays for us in the various forms of energy.

All of what we know in science that is very close to actuality, always existed before we knew it... for instance, light existed before we could measure it's nature and know what it was, water and gas molecules existed before we knew what they were. Same with gravity, it's independent existence has nothing really to do with my main point. But an excellent point none-the-less.

 

[Markbnj]

Actually what you really mean is:

Did the atoms bump into each other?

And we all know the answer to that one

If sound is merely atoms bumping into one and other, then we all know the answer . However if that were true we wouldn't have needed a new word. We would say something like "I hear vibrations! Who's there?"

Sound is a mental concept, I think. If that's accepted, then there is no sound without a sensory organ and a brain to interpret.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
Correct. But you're missing the point of my original thread, that mathematics is impossible without our ability to sense energy in it's various forms, and the only thing that transmits data is energy. The fact that the ball exists even if we are all dead is immaterial to the fact that YOU CAN'T KNOW if the ball is there or what properties it has without energy transmitting the data TO YOU so that you know that it (the ball) exists.

In geometry, you can only know if an object is there by casting a RAY at it, the universe casts those rays for us in the various forms of energy.

All of what we know in science that is very close to actuality, always existed before we knew it... for instance, light existed before we could measure it's nature and know what it was, water and gas molecules existed before we knew what they were. Same with gravity, it's independent existence has nothing really to do with my main point. But an excellent point none-the-less.

Now you're just begging the question. You said that I'm wrong because your assumption is correct, whereas I was challenging the assumption itself. Mathematics is pure logic and, therefore, does not require any "data" in and of itself. It may not be of much use without data, but its existence is not contingent on the existence of data. You acknowledge as much in your last paragraph, but I'm not sure you believe yourself.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Now you're just begging the question. You said that I'm wrong because your assumption is correct, whereas I was challenging the assumption itself. Mathematics is pure logic and, therefore, does not require any "data" in and of itself. It may not be of much use without data, but its existence is not contingent on the existence of data. You acknowledge as much in your last paragraph, but I'm not sure you believe yourself.

Actually I said you were wrong because of the chain of cause and effect of naturalistic thinking, naturalism requires my assertion is correct, because if you follow the logic, the whole of scientific thinking necessitates that it is.

Postulate 1: Before you existed, matter and energy existed
Postulate 2: According to what I have been told, light and other various forms of matter/energy are the only things that transmit and store data. (no one has disagreed with this point)

Postulate 3: You must have a nervous system that is capable of converting this energy into a usable and intelligible forms that are distinct from one another (data)
Postulate 4: Now that your nervous system has converted to a usable form, now you can do something with it (i.e. mathematics).

The "Doesn't require any data" is BS, if you are a naturalist. Logic is information. You can't know about the concept of logic unless you have data to represent it and a way to store it, therefore data is fundamental. Else you and I couldn't be speaking right now with the logic of language syntax controlling and binding the meaning of our words

Before you existed, energy existed, and like I said there is partial equality between data and energy, since all data is transmitted via energy.

Take a look at the following:

Energy Equivalent of Information
Journal Cybernetics and Systems Analysis
Publisher Springer New York
ISSN 1060-0396 (Print) 1573-8337 (Online)
Issue Volume 36, Number 5 / September, 2000
DOI 10.1023/A:1009453512074
Pages 791-792
Subject Collection Mathematics and Statistics
SpringerLink Date Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Energy Equivalent of Information

A. I. Landar'1 and V. A. Ablamskii2
(1) Center of Computer Technologies, Poltava Cooperative Institute, Poltava, Ukraine
(2) Poltava Technical University, Poltava, Ukraine

Abstract An interpretation of the primary unit of information in terms of energy is given. On the basis of experimental investigations, some relationships between information units and physical quantities are proposed.

units of information - units of physical quantities - relationships between information units and physical quantitie

 

[firewolfsm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
But those properties aren't observable without using light (or energy of some kind.) Even if it's on your hand, your neurons transmit an electric signal so it can be observed.

I'm not siding with this kid or anything...just saying, you could argue philosophically that it doesn't exist without light.

Observable or not, the property exists independent of any observer. This is the principle of frame invariance, which is one of the necessary conditions for the validity of any constitutive material relationship. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it still fall? Yup. The property of having fallen==1 whether or not anyone was around to observe it.

Shows how much you know, the question is, does it make a sound when it falls.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
Actually I said you were wrong because of the chain of cause and effect of naturalistic thinking, naturalism requires my assertion is correct, because if you follow the logic, the whole of scientific thinking necessitates that it is.

Postulate 1: Before you existed, matter and energy existed
Postulate 2: According to what I have been told, light and other various forms of matter/energy are the only things that transmit and store data. (no one has disagreed with this point)

Fair enough so far, I never had any problem with this either.

Postulate 3: You must have a nervous system that is capable of converting this energy into a usable and intelligible forms that are distinct from one another (data)
Postulate 4: Now that your nervous system has converted to a usable form, now you can do something with it (i.e. mathematics).

Why are these relevant? Light and energy exist whether or not I have a nervous system to perceive them. I will demonstrate why presently (see below).

The "Doesn't require any data" is BS, if you are a naturalist. Logic is information. You can't know about the concept of logic unless you have data to represent it and a way to store it, therefore data is fundamental. Else you and I couldn't be speaking right now with the logic of language syntax controlling and binding the meaning of our words

This is where I disagree. Logic is simply a system for processing information, not information itself. I don't believe that data can represent logic or vice versa as they are dissimilar concepts. I cannot store logic. In any case, I believe that your point reinforces my own view that logic is a process with which data is treated rather than data itself. If we say that language is based on logic and we use language to convey data, then logic is the process by which the data is communicated. This does not imply that logic itself is comprised of data. As a corollary, if I am correct and logic is a process rather than data, mathematics is also a process by which data may be manipulated, communicated, or altered but is not data itself.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Shows how much you know, the question is, does it make a sound when it falls.

You might feel a little more at home in Off Topic where your sort of jackassery is commonplace. :thumbsup:

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why are these relevant? Light and energy exist whether or not I have a nervous system to perceive them. I will demonstrate why presently (see below).

The are relevant to my point that: Math is impossible (for us) without our ability to detect energy and convert it to data.

This is where I disagree. Logic is simply a system for processing information, not information itself. I don't believe that data can represent logic or vice versa as they are dissimilar concepts. I cannot store logic. In any case, I believe that your point reinforces my own view that logic is a process with which data is treated rather than data itself. If we say that language is based on logic and we use language to convey data, then logic is the process by which the data is communicated. This does not imply that logic itself is comprised of data. As a corollary, if I am correct and logic is a process rather than data, mathematics is also a process by which data may be manipulated, communicated, or altered but is not data itself.

You're very confused because you don't understand the self-cicularity of logic objects and axioms. The system itself you are talking about is an object (or object-function as is the case in self-recursive objects), and objects have boundaries, properties and contain data. Therefore logic contains data.

Logic is an axiom, the axiom itself cannot be understood unless, itself can be represented by data. For instance, I can make a new axiom right now...

Define New word (axiom) : Blah :

1. The state of a sentence when a statement being made contains no meaning

To understand the logic of blah, you'd have to have the data for the axiom logic for the new word and also know the concept of word, plus the statement.

The word "blah" by itself has no meaning, it is an empty concept, and empty concepts, are still concepts, they just contain only self-referencing logic, think of it like an empty box: The box's sides and empty area the logic and the data at the same time. So you can put stuff in it.

 

[wwswimming]

All of mathematics is nothing more then a conversion of light data to symbolic script (i.e. you see a sphere x the real world and need some kind of ABSTRACT REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEM) to describe it... (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc) therefore math is an abstract descriptive language we need to categorize and describe the world itself, light and math are intimately linked in big ways, I feel that mathematics is a subset of light, and the geometric patterns of shapes and colors it creates (both visible, and invisible/undetectable to oursenses)

...

Real mathematics is shapes, colors and geometry.... thats how I feel.. what about you?

it would be nice to get paid for this.

i once tutored a blind grad student at a junior university near Palo Alto. i was an engineering undergrad and had taken calculus in high school, analytic geometry my frosh year ... but didn't discover proper vector calculus for a few more years.

we would sit in his living room and do calculations. for example, a line at y=2, a line y=x, a line x=0, the included shape is a triangle. now rotate it about the y/vertical axis at x=0 - and calculate the volume.

to make sure he was getting it i would ask questions like, what is the shape, what is the area of the circular surface of the top of the cone.

there was no light in his real world world, but there was plenty of math. there was light in his mind - he could visualize the layout of his apartment, a necessity for finding things. he lost his vision at about age 11 ... i wonder how people who were born without vision visualize 3D space ?

anyway, he was certainly an inspiration to me. i never expected to be learning voice recognition etc. because of a vision problem which onset at the time of LASIK eye surgery - but that's the way it is. working with that grad student was helpful preparation.

in vector calculus, the most fun part was deriving Snell's law of refraction from Maxwell's equations. that one consumed a lot of paper. interestingly, studying the behavior of light.

but math goes beyond light; i don't want to sound falsely profound; it's a way of modelling reality, a form of communication. it's also a way of modelling what's in our imagination; my guess is, there are math clans in Second Life and other virtual worlds.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

All of mathematics is nothing more then a conversion of light data to symbolic script (i.e. you see a sphere x the real world and need some kind of ABSTRACT REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEM) to describe it... (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc) therefore math is an abstract descriptive language we need to categorize and describe the world itself, light and math are intimately linked in big ways, I feel that mathematics is a subset of light, and the geometric patterns of shapes and colors it creates (both visible, and invisible/undetectable to oursenses)

...

Real mathematics is shapes, colors and geometry.... thats how I feel.. what about you?

....
but math goes beyond light; i don't want to sound falsely profound; it's a way of modelling reality, a form of communication. it's also a way of modelling what's in our imagination; my guess is, there are math clans in Second Life and other virtual worlds.

If you read my posts toward the end, you'll note I include "energy" as well. I know math can be used for other things, but MATH, or rather, numbers... can be represented as anything.

Our numbers 1, 2 ,3 ,4, don't have to be represented as them at all they can be represented as shapes, as they are in Mayan numerals (google: Mayan numerals)

I think our notation system is in fact a hindrance in some ways because it obscures features of numbers you would not otherwise see, i.e. take 3

In a geometric notation it would be (BOX+box+box) or simply BOX(3)

In our notation the boundary is hidden.

I believe there is Number --> shape equivalence, any number can be represented as a shape, and any shape a number.

(BOX) = (1)
(BOX(+)box) = 2 (1 + 1)

And on, etc. I'm really intrigued by numeral systems and their notation, there is something there that is pretty profound that I haven't quite put together yet clearly.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
The are relevant to my point that: Math is impossible (for us) without our ability to detect energy and convert it to data.

I would beg to differ. In theory, Helen Keller could do math, even if only in her head. Why would she, when she had no data to operate on? Who knows. But in principle, it is possible.

You're very confused because you don't understand the self-cicularity of logic objects and axioms. The system itself you are talking about is an object (or object-function as is the case in self-recursive objects), and objects have boundaries, properties and contain data. Therefore logic contains data.

Logic is an axiom, the axiom itself cannot be understood unless, itself can be represented by data. For instance, I can make a new axiom right now...

This is only true when I comply with your assumptions. You have made countless recent posts and at least three threads postulating that this is true without ever proving anything of substance in support of your postulate. The system of logic is readily represented as a system of operators. They operate on data, but this does not imply that they are, themselves, data. You could think of it as a Lie operator, a del operator, or any other mathematical operator. The way in which it interacts with data is fixed regardless of the type of data you give it. You're just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and, in this case, there's no reason to do so. Instead, you're now trying to disparage me because I pointed out a fairly obvious flaw in your reasoning.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I would beg to differ. In theory, Helen Keller could do math, even if only in her head. Why would she, when she had no data to operate on? Who knows. But in principle, it is possible.

Actually, she would still be detecting energy (being able to think means having a nervous system). The brain is the nervous system as well... Again you're not thinking it all the way through. Being able to think means having nerves to detect patterns that are distinct from one another (Data).

You're very confused because you don't understand the self-cicularity of logic objects and axioms. The system itself you are talking about is an object (or object-function as is the case in self-recursive objects), and objects have boundaries, properties and contain data. Therefore logic contains data.

This is only true when I comply with your assumptions. You have made countless recent posts and at least three threads postulating that this is true without ever proving anything of substance in support of your postulate. The system of logic is readily represented as a system of operators. They operate on data, but this does not imply that they are, themselves, data. You could think of it as a Lie operator, a del operator, or any other mathematical operator. The way in which it interacts with data is fixed regardless of the type of data you give it. You're just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and, in this case, there's no reason to do so. Instead, you're now trying to disparage me because I pointed out a fairly obvious flaw in your reasoning.

Actually you have not pointed out ANY FLAWS at all, because you're forgetting that all numbers and thought, and data exists within nature. Therefore it is subject to the law of existence - if it exists and is distinct from something else, it is a distinct object.

So yes operators have data (even if it is hidden and not expressed) ... because logically operators are distinct objects. A (+) operator is DISTINCT from (-). For instance we could make an operator that makes shapes in the real world, it's called a cookie cutter, that would be the 'operator' (i.e. function), it stamps out patterns according to the boundary logic of the shape.

When you write a + down on a piece of paper, that + is made of many merged points on a line, on a sheet, that make it distinct from the paper. Hence the + becomes an object with it's own hidden boundaries that make it distinct from "all whiteness" of the paper. Can you tell if a + is on a blank sheet of paper if it is not distinct from the paper itself? No.

I've demonstrated my chain of reasoning, that you are incapable of grasping it is because you are not thinking like a scientist... if nature is all connected, all of the time, and everything in it is all connected and subject to it's laws, then so must mathematics and logic, since they are a part of it.

An operator has DISTINCTION from anything else, therefore it is an object. A + is distinct from a - as an operator, therefore it is an object, therefore it has boundaries, therefore it has data.

Does an operator have a distinct unified boundary making it distinct from other operators? Yes. Just imagine an invisible circle around the +, that is the object you are not seeing, because our minds omit boundary and the area when we write a +.

+ <-- operator, is this operator being represented by data right now? Is it an object that is distinct from the background color?

If you answer yes, it has existence, of it has existence, it is a distinct object, and all distinct objects have boundaries and data. Case closed.

 

[lousydood]

Space is not an empirical concept abstracted from external experiences. For in order that certain sensations may be referred to something outside me [i.e., to something in a different position in space from that in which I find myself], and further in order that I may be able to perceive them as outside and beside each other, and thus as not merely different, but in different places, the presentation of space must already give the foundation [zum Grunde liegen].

Space is not a discursive, or, as is said, general concept of the relations of things in general, but a pure intuition. For, in the first place, we can only imagine [sich vorstellen] one single space, and if we speak of 'spaces' we mean only parts of one and the same unique space. And these parts cannot precede the whole as its parts . . . but can only be thought of as in it. Space is essentially unique, the manifold in it rests solely on limitations.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: lousydood
Space is not an empirical concept abstracted from external experiences. For in order that certain sensations may be referred to something outside me [i.e., to something in a different position in space from that in which I find myself], and further in order that I may be able to perceive them as outside and beside each other, and thus as not merely different, but in different places, the presentation of space must already give the foundation [zum Grunde liegen].

Space is not a discursive, or, as is said, general concept of the relations of things in general, but a pure intuition. For, in the first place, we can only imagine [sich vorstellen] one single space, and if we speak of 'spaces' we mean only parts of one and the same unique space. And these parts cannot precede the whole as its parts . . . but can only be thought of as in it. Space is essentially unique, the manifold in it rests solely on limitations.

I'm going to de-jargonify what you wrote, and tell me if I'm reading you right (I want to know I'm not misinterpreting your words)

Re-written version:

Space is not an observable/measurable conceptual object apart from experience. In order that certain measurements may be referred to something outside of myself. To another object located in space, from the space in which I find myself. And further, in order that I may be able to measure them as outside and apart from each other, and they are not merely different, but in different places. The concept of space must already give the foundation.

Space is not countable (discrete), the general concept of relations of objects in general, but only is understood by pure intuition, and not by reason. We can only imagine one single space(concept), and if we speak of 'time-spaces' we mean only parts of the one unique space-time (object). The parts of space-time can only be said to be existing in and connected to the ONE space-time. Space is essentially unique, the manifold (Any set that possesses a topology and whose elements satisfy some set of postulates) in it rests solely on (our) limitations.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Gannon
Eyes = see electromagnetic radiaton
Touch = heat/surfaces/motion
Ears = soundwaves

If we took you and cut off ALL of your senses, do you think you could do math?

Yep, without a doubt. As a matter of fact, I just went into the next room (so I couldn't hear my computer's fans), closed my eyes, and calculated the cube root of 1,728, then squared that answer, then multiplied that answer by 1,000. It took ~¼-½ of a second, and the answer was 144,000.

No touch
no sight,
no hearing.
and no other way to gather information about the environment.

None of the above things have the slightest thing to do with math. They never have, and they never will. Science, yes. Math, no.

/thread

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: myocardia

None of the above things have the slightest thing to do with math. They never have, and they never will. Science, yes. Math, no.

/thread

You're obviously not working with an idea of what math is, because it's obvious you don't even know what math is and how it is defined.

Mathematics (colloquially, maths or math) is the body of knowledge centered on such concepts as quantity, structure, space, and change, and also the academic discipline that studies them. Benjamin Peirce called it "the science that draws necessary conclusions".[2] Other practitioners of mathematics maintain that mathematics is the science of pattern, and that mathematicians seek out patterns whether found in numbers, space, science, computers, imaginary abstractions, or elsewhere.[3][4]

As to your previous comment, I meant doing math without any nervous system period that is able to detect and process energy.

(taken from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math)

Main article: History of mathematics

The evolution of mathematics might be seen as an ever-increasing series of abstractions, or alternatively an expansion of subject matter. The first abstraction was probably that of numbers. The realization that two apples and two oranges have something in common was a breakthrough in human thought. In addition to recognizing how to count physical objects, prehistoric peoples also recognized how to count abstract quantities, like time ? days, seasons, years. Arithmetic (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), naturally followed. Monolithic monuments testify to knowledge of geometry.

Further steps need writing or some other system for recording numbers such as tallies or the knotted strings called quipu used by the Inca empire to store numerical data. Numeral systems have been many and diverse, with the first known written numerals created by Egyptians in Middle Kingdom texts such as the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus.

From the beginnings of recorded history, the major disciplines within mathematics arose out of the need to do calculations relating to taxation and commerce, to understand the relationships among numbers, to measure land, and to predict astronomical events. These needs can be roughly related to the broad subdivision of mathematics into the studies of quantity, structure, space, and change.

Mathematics has since been greatly extended, and there has been a fruitful interaction between mathematics and science, to the benefit of both. Mathematical discoveries have been made throughout history and continue to be made today. According to Mikhail B. Sevryuk, in the January 2006 issue of the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, "The number of papers and books included in the Mathematical Reviews database since 1940 (the first year of operation of MR) is now more than 1.9 million, and more than 75 thousand items are added to the database each year. The overwhelming majority of works in this ocean contain new mathematical theorems and their proofs."[9]

 

[piasabird]

Math is used for everything. Weather Modeling. Electronic Circuitry (Uses Unreal Numbers). Statistical analysis. Most of these uses are actually ways to describe abstract concepts. Most of them also use Unreal Numbers to solve problems in the real world. Intersting concepts.

Einstine was using math in his theories to describe concepts in stellar physics.

At around 200 BC a Muslim Mathematician used math to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Europeans were probably developing their flat earth theory around that time. Now muslims just want to chop our heads off. Seems like evolution in reverse. Often knowledge is revealed in spurts and it takes ours brains to start understanding the concepts and find a way to apply that knowledge.

Very strange how things come to pass.

Our brains probably do work in methematical ways. We probably just dont realize we are doing it. However, then someone comes along that can look at things who is a sevant and figure things in his head faster than a computer. The only solution is that nature is full of mathematical patterns.

 

[aj654987]

Im not really interested in math. It may seem sort of strange because Im an engineer, but I never really liked pure math where we were just solving for X's and Y's. I always liked the applied math much better. In fact I originally failed Differential Equations, mostly because it was too boring for me and too confusing. I am currently taking an applied differential equations class through the engineering department at my college and I understand it so much better now, because its presented by an engineering professor whose interests are more aligned with my own. Its strange the way the same concepts are so much easier for me to understand when theyre presented in a different way.

 

[aj654987]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Math is used for everything. Weather Modeling. Electronic Circuitry (Uses Unreal Numbers). Statistical analysis. Most of these uses are actually ways to describe abstract concepts. Most of them also use Unreal Numbers to solve problems in the real world. Intersting concepts.

Einstine was using math in his theories to describe concepts in stellar physics.

At around 200 BC a Muslim Mathematician used math to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Europeans were probably developing their flat earth theory around that time. Now muslims just want to chop our heads off. Seems like evolution in reverse. Often knowledge is revealed in spurts and it takes ours brains to start understanding the concepts and find a way to apply that knowledge.

Very strange how things come to pass.

Our brains probably do work in methematical ways. We probably just dont realize we are doing it. However, then someone comes along that can look at things who is a sevant and figure things in his head faster than a computer. The only solution is that nature is full of mathematical patterns.

Im pretty sure one of the greek or roman mathmaticians calculated out the circumference of the earth as well. I dont know much about the history of it but I think the idea of a round earth was lost in europe after the fall of rome.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Our brains probably do work in methematical ways.

They do or language would be impossible, we are able to calculate and turn continous signals into discrete ones where there is differentiation. Where there is distinction, there is math.

I'm trying to grasp it myself but I think "Math" is an expansion and a subset of simply arbitrary abstract counting functions to keep track of distinct patterns.

When looking at the history of mathematics, math arose because of the need to measure and keep track of distinct objects. I'm still trying to formulate where exactly math sits.

It seems to be that math is intimately connected to our ability to communicate in languages.

Spoken/written Language --> MATH <-- Our senses

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: piasabird
Our brains probably do work in methematical ways.

They do or language would be impossible, we are able to calculate and turn continous signals into discrete ones where there is differentiation. Where there is distinction, there is math.

I'm trying to grasp it myself but I think "Math" is an expansion and a subset of simply arbitrary abstract counting functions to keep track of distinct patterns.

When looking at the history of mathematics, math arose because of the need to measure and keep track of distinct objects. I'm still trying to formulate where exactly math sits.

It seems to be that math is intimately connected to our ability to communicate in languages.

Spoken/written Language --> MATH <-- Our senses

Gannon, you still have not answered my question back from one of your previous threads -- what is your level of education? Other members have asked you similar questions trying to judge your level of qualification in these matters. Will you please provide a concise answer as to what amount of education you have received (on these matters, or otherwise)?