Math: Absolute or Relative

[Heyo]

Then why don't they return my calls,
or invite me to their shindigs!

Have you tried seances, preferably conducted by a professional medium?

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you tried seances, preferably conducted by a professional medium?

What?
You think I'm not lazy?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Then why don't they return my calls,
or invite me to their shindigs!

You ARE invited...

It's just that--just like Hotel California--once you get there, you can never leave...

 

[Revoltingest]

You ARE invited...

It's just that--just like Hotel California--once you get there, you can never leave...

I don't want to go.
Just to be invited.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The fact that mathematical concepts are independently
discovered points to existence independent of discovery.
But the language of math is invented.

Yup. We have accurately predicted far too much (including the existence of a planet and making modern society happen) with math for it not be absolute.
2+2 can never accurately equal 5.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And if you teach them English, they will know to use the word "apple" instead of "apfel". We defined the terms, the terms don't define us.

Apple, apfel, malum, 林檎, it's all the same thing and if Sally has two pomme and Saito has ni μήλο it is an objective fact there are vier manzana among them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We shape our models to fit reality, not the other way around. It's why irrational numbers exist, we needed the math to fit otherwise it didn't make sense.

No, because even before he had a figure of pi even the ancients knew it's an approximation of three. The ancient Egyptians knew it, the Greeks knew it, the Babylonians knew and is probably where the OT got its value of three, which to us doesn't work but that lacks the context they knew it was ~3.

 

[The Hammer]

No, because even before he had a figure of pi even the ancients knew it's an approximation of three. The ancient Egyptians knew it, the Greeks knew it, the Babylonians knew and is probably where the OT got its value of three, which to us doesn't work but that lacks the context they knew it was ~3.

Exactly, ~3.

Not 1, not 2 or 4. But
"Sort of 3."

I ma very hesitant to say numbers exist outside of our own mind.

The external world exists and we can describe it with math sort of. Outside of that it's not representative of all we experience, which to me is more akin to "reality".

 

[PureX]

Math is both absolute AND relative.

It is absolute as a set of ideal principals. 2 + 2 = 4 perfectly an absolutely, every time, as an ideal.

But when we try to apply these ideals to actuality, it cannot be done, absolutely. Because in actuality no thing is absolutely equal to any other thing. If they were truly equal, they would logically hve to be the SAME thing. So to make these absolute principals and ideals function when applied to actuality, we have to ignore the ways in which they are untrue so they can render us a 'true' result. Two sheep plus two more sheep will equal four sheep so long as we ignore all the ways in which each of the sheep are different, and thereby unequal. We must pretend that they are not sheep, but are just abstract numbers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Math is both absolute AND relative.

It is absolute as a set of ideal principals. 2 + 2 = 4 perfectly an absolutely, every time, as an ideal.

But when we try to apply these ideals to actuality, it cannot be done, absolutely. Because in actuality no thing is absolutely equal to any other thing. If they were truly equal, they would logically hve to be the SAME thing. So to make these absolute principals and ideals function when applied to actuality, we have to ignore the ways in which they are untrue so they can render us a 'true' result. Two sheep plus two more sheep will equal four sheep so long as we ignore all the ways in which each of the sheep are different, and thereby unequal. We must pretend that they are not sheep, but are just abstract numbers.

That's not an issue for Newtonian or Quantum physics. Gravity is gravity, but it governs everything in the Cosmos.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup. We have accurately predicted far too much (including the existence of a planet and making modern society happen) with math for it not be absolute.
2+2 can never accurately equal 5.

I say that it's math itself that is a structure
existing independent of sentient users.
Its application to modeling the real world
is a fortunate thing, but not so absolute.
Different people can model it differently.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I say that it's math itself that is a structure
existing independent of sentient users.
Its application to modeling the real world
is a fortunate thing, but not so absolute.
Different people can model it differently.

Doesn't matter how you label or model it, there are mathematic truths that will and necessarily must conform to mean the same thing. You can do something like Faraday and draw your findings, but it's maths that allowed us to fine tune those findings and propel the field of magnetics to what it is today.
God is a mathematician, as Michio Kaku (theoretical physicist) often says. This is because math is a universal language that describes the natural world very well and in ways we really can't do very well with words (not many of us, anyways).

 

[Agent Smith]

Is math absolute or relative?

Is it a fact of the universe, or is it man made?

Facebook

www.facebook.com

Short video, may not work for most (requires an FB acct).

I've always considered math a language, something used to describe the universe, but imperfectly. Just like any language is imperfect at describing reality.

This is a critical statement. Most definitely, math as a language must be similarly flawed as any other language - the well is poisoned, every pail drawn from it necessarily is poisoned (?).

However, I speak of nothing that isn't visibly apparent, mathematics has drastically reduced, even if not in type, at least in degree (guesstimating), known linguistic samasyas (problems), like ambiguity and vagueness. In fact this almost unnatural ability is what draws us to the queen of the sciences. It has also, how very generous, adapted itself to work with, instead of against, these linguistic ... difficulties; in short, treating these problemas, not as bugs, but as features.

Do nfr things

 

[osgart]

This is about the best that can be done on short notice to describe math and it's power to relate to and discover reality. Unexpected relationships from totally different contexts are discovered in equations by following the precise logic of math. Math is a precision instrument that discovers things. The math itself leads to discovery in physics. Also physics uncovers new math.

 

[Ostronomos]

This is about the best that can be done on short notice to describe math and it's power to relate to and discover reality. Unexpected relationships from totally different contexts are discovered in equations by following the precise logic of math. Math is a precision instrument that discovers things. The math itself leads to discovery in physics. Also physics uncovers new math.

Without tirelessly promoting this subject, I have suggested that all of existence can be placed on paper, in mathematical form.

This fact is indisputable and demonstrates the illusionistic nature of existence, a Quantum construct. Consider for example the self-inclusion paradox. From this paradox it naturally follows that reality is entirely all-inclusive and therefore self-inclusive. This relates to the set of all sets paradox.

Illy.

 

[vijeno]

Is it a fact of the universe, or is it man made?

First off, I find it interesting that people tend to quote mathematics in that regard.
Formal logic would be more succinct and more to the point. But, I guess, maths being the great famous poster-child for the sciences, it enjoys more publicity.

Let me take the opportunity and make a sales pitch for formal logic! Everybody should learn it. It will help you weed out the crap far more quickly, and it is fun to study!

As to the question itself, we can never be sure. Outlandish speculations aside (aliens created maths etc) - it may be that our brains adapted to the universe in such a way that maths appears as a good representation of reality, but our brains lie to us. (That's a fact, by the way, brains change the raw sense data a lot below our awareness.)

But if that is the case, then we have no chance to find it out. We have nothing but our brains to guide us. You can't see the whole system from within.

And of course, the pesky Gödel incompleteness principles are a thing. Make of those what you will, they are certainly a bit of a pickle if you want to describe the entirety of everything with absolute certainty.

However, as long as you cannot find something better, the fact remains that maths is the best description of physical reality that we have.

 

[PureX]

Is math absolute or relative?

Neither. Math is a language. A way we use to try and understand and describe our experience of existence.

Is it a fact of the universe, or is it man made?

All man made things are also facts of the universe. We are not set apart from the rest of existence.

Facebook

www.facebook.com

Short video, may not work for most (requires an FB acct).

I've always considered math a language, something used to describe the universe, but imperfectly. Just like any language is imperfect at describing reality.

And you are correct.

 

[Heyo]

First off, I find it interesting that people tend to quote mathematics in that regard.
Formal logic would be more succinct and more to the point. But, I guess, maths being the great famous poster-child for the sciences, it enjoys more publicity.

Let me take the opportunity and make a sales pitch for formal logic! Everybody should learn it. It will help you weed out the crap far more quickly, and it is fun to study!

Formal logic is just a subfield under mathematics. Boolean algebra is just a different notation of formal logic.

 

[an anarchist]

2+2=4 is an objective fact. Is that what this OP is asking?

 

[The Hammer]

2+2=4 is an objective fact. Is that what this OP is asking?

No (and yes)