Yes, but the ideas in the mind don’t necessarily code for reality.
So, a computer can do a simulation of a fake world. The electronics is still real, but the world symbolized is not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mathematics, Discovered or Invented?
- Thread starter Heyo
- Start date
So, a computer can do a simulation of a fake world. The electronics is still real, but the world symbolized is not.
And yet, you have given no coherent argument against it. Merely claims that are not supported.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Mmm, and the server that is serving pages of this website, is more than likely a "virtual server",
as it runs on a virtual machine. This is common, as it can appear as if each website has a dedicated machine, when in fact its one out of many running on the same machine.
..but that does not mean that the underlying boolean algebra is not "real", and just an abstraction.
Not from what I can see .. it's VERY real .. more "real" than the atoms that surround us.
The atoms are what make the simulation possible. No atoms, no computer, no simulation. As I see it, the ultimate reality is the physical and everything supervenes on that.Mmm, and the server that is serving pages of this website, is more than likely a "virtual server",
as it runs on a virtual machine. This is common, as it can appear as if each website has a dedicated machine, when in fact its one out of many running on the same machine.
..but that does not mean that the underlying boolean algebra is not "real", and just an abstraction.
Not from what I can see .. it's VERY real .. more "real" than the atoms that surround us.
That virtual machine still needs to run on a real machine and that real machine is physical. The Boolean logic is ultimately how the atoms and electrons interact. Outside of specifications, those circuits won’t mimic Boolean logic.
Last edited:
Comradio251
Member
I actually wrote a paper on this argument recently. I believe math is not objectively true and is a product of the human imagination. But I will cut it short here. I had to show that any number could equal a value other than itself with some real world physical concept.
Assume we have a stick represented as one foot in length and we have a ruler representing a foot in inches also. Prove 13=12 and 2=1 given the length of the stick.
I let X and Y points represent the start and end point of a continued numerical sequence based on what we already know about a foot counting up 12 integers in inches on a ruler max. The incremental fractions do not change. The stick is measured to the exact length with a standard ruler.
X...Y
0...12 =12 integers
a continued sequence from 1...13 =12 integers
If my ruler in inches was represented as 1...13 = 12 integers then how is it any different from a standard ruler from 0...12? If both were theoretically measured together against the stick which is one foot in length, they are literally measuring the stick to its exact length.
So, the object's length never changes when using both rulers representing a foot but the integers did. So I can make my conclusion. However, I'm not going to convince people to use my own theoretical ruler over one we normally use. But this is how I confirmed math is not objective.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
It's real alright .. well, just as real as multiple servers appearing to have their own machine, but in reality running on one.
..but what happens to our perceived reality at death?
The true answer is that we don't know .. we can only theorize based on different beliefs.
What happens to the virtual machines when you unplug the main computer?
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
There are 2 aspect of math - the underlying concepts involved, and the way they're communicated.
The underlying concepts involved in math are discovered, not invented.
The way these concepts involved are communicated are inventions. I suppose you could also speak of methods of communicating being "discovered", but what I'm referring to is the "alphabet" of numbers (0 through 9 for base 10, including the shape of how each number is written & spoken), the use of a number base, such as ten/decimal as opposed to base two (binary numeral ) or hexadecimal, and defining 1 revolution to be 360 degrees, as a few examples. Those things are an art, just like other things that are invented. There's no right or wrong "alphabet" of numbers, number base, or number of divisions in a single revolution.
How arithmetic operations are expressed is also an invention (e.g. +, -, x, /), and note that with Roman numeral system, subtraction is like an implicit operation in such a way that isn't present in other number systems (e.g. decimal 38 doesn't mean decimal 5). There's nothing "right" or "wrong" about the Roman numeral system; it's just different and more difficult than what we use today.
As you can see, just like anything else that's invented, it involves an improvement of something.
You can tell what aspect of math is discovered by noting whether it can be right or wrong. If it's right or wrong, then it's discovered. For example, pi is an irrational number; a claim that pi is a rational number would be wrong.
I'm not referring to situations where 2 + 2 = 5 is considered wrong; when 2 + 2 = 5 is encountered, and it's because the individual terms and sum were rounded to the nearest whole numbers (2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8), that's a communication issue, not an issue with an underlying concept.
The underlying concepts involved in math are discovered, not invented.
The way these concepts involved are communicated are inventions. I suppose you could also speak of methods of communicating being "discovered", but what I'm referring to is the "alphabet" of numbers (0 through 9 for base 10, including the shape of how each number is written & spoken), the use of a number base, such as ten/decimal as opposed to base two (binary numeral ) or hexadecimal, and defining 1 revolution to be 360 degrees, as a few examples. Those things are an art, just like other things that are invented. There's no right or wrong "alphabet" of numbers, number base, or number of divisions in a single revolution.
How arithmetic operations are expressed is also an invention (e.g. +, -, x, /), and note that with Roman numeral system, subtraction is like an implicit operation in such a way that isn't present in other number systems (e.g. decimal 38 doesn't mean decimal 5). There's nothing "right" or "wrong" about the Roman numeral system; it's just different and more difficult than what we use today.
As you can see, just like anything else that's invented, it involves an improvement of something.
You can tell what aspect of math is discovered by noting whether it can be right or wrong. If it's right or wrong, then it's discovered. For example, pi is an irrational number; a claim that pi is a rational number would be wrong.
I'm not referring to situations where 2 + 2 = 5 is considered wrong; when 2 + 2 = 5 is encountered, and it's because the individual terms and sum were rounded to the nearest whole numbers (2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8), that's a communication issue, not an issue with an underlying concept.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The most taught and widely used coordinate system in math is the Cartesian Coordinates. This system is based on three distance axis; (X, Y, Z).
The same position, in space, can also be represented with another math coordinate system called the Spherical Coordinate System. Spherical coordinates are also specify by three numbers, radial distance, polar angle and azimuthal angle; (r, θ, Φ).
Cartesian uses three distances, while Spherical uses one distance and two angles, yet both will get the very same results. These tools are like two manufacturers of cell phones, that may have different procedures for making calls, but both can make phone calls to the same people. Each is a little easier, based on the situation, and they can be translated from one to the other, like two languages.
Hypothetically, say we were discussing Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which is about how gravity curves or bends space-time. Say we decided to use Spherical Coordinates, instead of Cartesian Coordinates. Instead of the bending of space-time, where space is based on three distances; (x,y,z), we now would be bending one distance, two angles, plus time; (r, θ, Φ,t). What would be the universal or natural significance of those two angles?
If you treat math as natural, and therefore the transposed math theory should also as natural, by virtue of the math, it could lead to some interesting speculation in terms of the nature of the two angles of Spherical space-time and the impact on reality. This type of speculation is why you need to keep in mind that math is a faithful horse, who can be led anywhere, by the driver. In this case, I created speculation about the two universal angles of reality, by placing the math horse, first in priority. It can lead the driver home after having one too many at the neighborhood pub.
This drunken driver confusion has occurred in reality, with what I like to call casino math. This is where we assume reality is like the dice and card games in a casino, due to putting the usefulness of the statistical math horse tool, before the human driver, via a detached black box; no strings our reins attached.
This alternate math reality only sees the world as deviations, risk and odds, which are its versions of the speculative odd angles. Most of life is ordered and routine except in the casinos, where its own type of reality appears based on gaming laws. It is OK as a diversion but not as the main path of life. This brain twist is responsible for many problems in culture, since reason is placed secondary, behind the lead of the much smaller subset of the whims of the gods; math centaur oracle will lead. It almost looks human.
The same position, in space, can also be represented with another math coordinate system called the Spherical Coordinate System. Spherical coordinates are also specify by three numbers, radial distance, polar angle and azimuthal angle; (r, θ, Φ).
Cartesian uses three distances, while Spherical uses one distance and two angles, yet both will get the very same results. These tools are like two manufacturers of cell phones, that may have different procedures for making calls, but both can make phone calls to the same people. Each is a little easier, based on the situation, and they can be translated from one to the other, like two languages.
Hypothetically, say we were discussing Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which is about how gravity curves or bends space-time. Say we decided to use Spherical Coordinates, instead of Cartesian Coordinates. Instead of the bending of space-time, where space is based on three distances; (x,y,z), we now would be bending one distance, two angles, plus time; (r, θ, Φ,t). What would be the universal or natural significance of those two angles?
If you treat math as natural, and therefore the transposed math theory should also as natural, by virtue of the math, it could lead to some interesting speculation in terms of the nature of the two angles of Spherical space-time and the impact on reality. This type of speculation is why you need to keep in mind that math is a faithful horse, who can be led anywhere, by the driver. In this case, I created speculation about the two universal angles of reality, by placing the math horse, first in priority. It can lead the driver home after having one too many at the neighborhood pub.
This drunken driver confusion has occurred in reality, with what I like to call casino math. This is where we assume reality is like the dice and card games in a casino, due to putting the usefulness of the statistical math horse tool, before the human driver, via a detached black box; no strings our reins attached.
This alternate math reality only sees the world as deviations, risk and odds, which are its versions of the speculative odd angles. Most of life is ordered and routine except in the casinos, where its own type of reality appears based on gaming laws. It is OK as a diversion but not as the main path of life. This brain twist is responsible for many problems in culture, since reason is placed secondary, behind the lead of the much smaller subset of the whims of the gods; math centaur oracle will lead. It almost looks human.
Of it hasn’t been chemically of physically altered, it can start again. I assume you see this as analogous to death, but in death the chemistry changes so much recovery isn’t possible.They cease to exist..
..but what happens when you plug it in again?
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
But I have. It is your materialist agenda that prevents you from accepting it.
This is intellectual vanity on your part. The same thing that materialists fall victim to.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
If materialism were correct, then it would lead to the Cartesian split between mind and matter. As it says that mind is an illusion, yet it paradoxically perceives reality. I.e. reality is divorced from mind according to you. And THAT is an all-encompassing illusion.
The mind is a product of brain activity. It isn't an 'illusion', but a process. The senses pick up information about the world around us and that information is processed by the brain/mind. That allows the construction of a predictive model of the world around us, but that model is imperfect, both because the senses are imperfect and because the processing is faulty in many ways. nonetheless, some useful information is available (especially for situations we evolved to survive in).
So, ultimately, you are attacking a straw-man version of materialism, not what s actually claimed by those believing in it.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Well, what happens if the machine "gives up the ghost" ?
If I am wise, I will have my virtual machines backed up, so they can still exist on a new machine.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
It doesn't really matter what it is .. what matters, is the fact that it exists.
..just like the virtual servers (guests) on my computer (host).
Well, what happens if the machine "gives up the ghost" ?
If I am wise, I will have my virtual machines backed up, so they can still exist on a new machine.
And only on one host. Furthermore, no hard drives: only RAM. So when the machine goes down, all is gone. There is no backup available.
Unless, that is, you actually have evidence for such?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Why would you want to make it about physical evidence?
Is the mind a physical concept? No.
Of course, you believe that the mind is purely a product of chemical-electric processes in the brain.
..but as I have already pointed out, we don't need to know that or even believe it to acknowledge its existence.
You can of course believe what you like, as can I.
You might think that you have proof that the mind is merely "a bunch of atoms flying around",
but it is not POSSIBLE to prove that .. one can only assume.
Is software a 'physical concept'? Not sure.
But, for software to work, does it need to be physically expressed? yes.
Yes, minds exist. In fact, all humans (and probably many other species) have them.
Well, saying it as 'a bunch of atoms flying around' makes it sound much more random than it is.
We also cannot prove that there are no pixies pushing planets around the sun, but that doesn't make it a reasonable assumption given the data we have.
We *know* that changes to the brain produce changes to personality, often in very predictable ways. We *know* that the brain does precisely the type of processing required for mental activities. We can even 'read minds' (to a limited degree currently) using brain scans.
Why assume pixies if gravity is sufficient?
In any case, this seems to be getting off topic: is math discovered or invented? If you want to take the discussion elsewhere, feel free.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
If you wish to discuss pixies, I suggest you create a separate thread for it.
We do, of course.
..and vice-versa .. i.e. changes in personality produce changes to the brain.
This all started with you saying "the ideas in the mind don’t necessarily code for reality."
..but math is not an invention of mankind .. it is discovered .. it existed in the same way 1000 years ago as it does today.