Mathematics, Discovered or Invented?

[Polymath257]

Ah .. it appears to be legitimate .. May 2023.
..but not quite there.

In theory, there is no reason why it couldn't happen.
After all, the brain is a physical interface to our minds.

Or is actually the hardware for our minds. Why add on an unnecessary assumption that there is more?

They might bring out a "wireless version" capable of operating at distances ~50 metres next.

I’m nervous about this technology, frankly.

 

[Polymath257]

An introductory lesson on consciousness from the smartest man in America:

Just because somone has a high IQ doesn't mean they are smart. And just because they are smart doesn't mean they are right.

What I saw here and in your other link (to the paper) was a lot of gobbledygook that *sounds* deep, but is more like Deepak Chopra garbage. A lot of mystical nonsense and no actual evidence. A lot of claims of deep insights without any actual insights.

Your claims of wisdom seem, to me, to be without merit. And Langan just seems like a well spoken crank.

Now, I have no idea why you keep saying 'Langan and I' proved things. I have seen no contribution from you at all and no proofs from Langan.

Please prove me wrong.

 

[Ostronomos]

Just because somone has a high IQ doesn't mean they are smart. And just because they are smart doesn't mean they are right.

What I saw here and in your other link (to the paper) was a lot of gobbledygook that *sounds* deep, but is more like Deepak Chopra garbage. A lot of mystical nonsense and no actual evidence. A lot of claims of deep insights without any actual insights.

Your claims of wisdom seem, to me, to be without merit. And Langan just seems like a well spoken crank.

Now, I have no idea why you keep saying 'Langan and I' proved things. I have seen no contribution from you at all and no proofs from Langan.

Please prove me wrong.

Here is an example of something I wrote when I was not only smart, but possessed the perfect mind for about a half hour:

Reality seems to be self-perceptive because it still operates when not being seen when absent from an observer. It is a dual operation that is so dynamic that it merges opposites into one to resolve its duality. This explains the 2-stage processes in nature and mathematics such as 0's and 1's. In an infinitely possible universe, an electron takes an infinite path across the universe before journeying to the surface of the slit experiment and releasing waves. This is the explanation Richard Feynman gave to explain the phenomenon called wave-particle duality that was proven in the slit-experiment.

Now, from what I have seen, this is far superior to anything you or anyone else on these forums has ever produced. If you can do better please be my guest. So far, you've proven you can't. And this is coming from someone who not only believes, but is well aware of the fact that a transcendent God is real. Despite the epistemological limitations of all atheists.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is an example of something I wrote when I was not only smart, but possessed the perfect mind for about a half hour:

Reality seems to be self-perceptive because it still operates when not being seen when absent from an observer.

Already a false conclusion. The fact that reality exists independent of an observer does NOT show that it is self perceptive. Don’t confuse perception with reality.

It is a dual operation that is so dynamic that it merges opposites into one to resolve its duality. This explains the 2-stage processes in nature and mathematics such as 0's and 1's. In an infinitely possible universe, an electron takes an infinite path across the universe before journeying to the surface of the slit experiment and releasing waves. This is the explanation Richard Feynman gave to explain the phenomenon called wave-particle duality that was proven in the slit-experiment.

A lot of babble showing a lack of understanding of basic concepts as well as not understanding Feynman.

So far, 0 for 2.

Now, from what I have seen, this is far superior to anything you or anyone else on these forums has ever produced. If you can do better please be my guest. So far, you've proven you can't. And this is coming from someone who not only believes, but is well aware of the fact that a transcendent God is real. Despite the epistemological limitations of all atheists.

No, it is far inferior to much that I have seen, but it is pretty standard pseudoscientific nonsense. To clearly don’t understand the basics, think of yourself as much smarter than you really are, and like to denigrate others that point this out.

Ok, you do you.

 

[Alien826]

I’m nervous about this technology, frankly.

Me too. Maybe it will finally make sense to wear a tinfoil hat!

 

[Polymath257]

Just another data point:
Controlling video games using only a brain scanner.

Universal brain-computer interface lets people play games with just their thoughts

Engineers have created a brain-computer interface that doesn't require calibration for each user, paving the way for widespread clinical applicability.

www.sciencedaily.com

Thoughts are real, physical processes. We can now measure them (to a limited degree). There is *no* evidence of anything non-physical going on.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know what you mean.
We know that "the mind" interacts with the physical, and can observe HOW it interacts..
..but we cannot "see thoughts" .. and a person who claims that we can observe activity in the brain
is all well and good, but I'm not aware of anybody who has made a device that can capture them.
..so theory only .. just like the non-physical that you object to .. theory only.

Not 'just like'. The difference is that *all* of the evidence we have points to the physical brain being the hardware for our thoughts, emotions, etc. In other words, our minds. There is *no* evidence otherwise.

We know how changes in the brain are correlated to changes in personality. We know how to use brain scans to control things like video games and we can 'read minds' to a limited extent (mainly limited by the resolution in the brain scans).

If you suggest an 'outside source' for the mind, it would have to interact with the physical brain in some way. That would mean that knowing what happens physically is not enough to predict what will happen *physically* in the future. Some neuron will have to fire because of that outside influence that would not have fired otherwise.

And the firing of that neuron would be an *apparent* violation of physical laws *because* something non-physical intervened. Finding such a violation would be an immense discovery. It would make history and ensure the discoverer a Nobel Prize at the very least.

But, as yet, there is no evidence of such a violation. This is in spite of many people who would dearly LOVE to find such violations, for personal reasons and for more general ones. So it is most reasonable conclusion is that no such violations exist (yes, provisional) and therefore that there is no non-physical component to our thoughts.

if you have evidence otherwise, please provide it. You will be famous.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not 'just like'. The difference is that *all* of the evidence we have points to the physical brain being the hardware for our thoughts, emotions, etc. In other words, our minds. There is *no* evidence otherwise..

Mmm .. as I've already said, I wouldn't expect to see physical evidence of something non-physical.

Your reply to this, was to suggest that any non-physical phenomena would be visible due to interaction with the physical .. but I disagree.
How would you differentiate between interaction of a non-physical phenomena and a physical phenomena?
You can't !

If you suggest an 'outside source' for the mind, it would have to interact with the physical brain in some way. That would mean that knowing what happens physically is not enough to predict what will happen *physically* in the future. Some neuron will have to fire because of that outside influence that would not have fired otherwise.

..so what?

And the firing of that neuron would be an *apparent* violation of physical laws *because* something non-physical intervened.

I think not .. it's merely PART of natural phenomena .. but as yet unknown.
..a bit like magnetism, before we understood how it operates.
In fact, the fist memory cells in computers were a criss-cross of wires with magnetic cores at their junctions.

..if you have evidence otherwise, please provide it. You will be famous.

I'm already famous .. I'm a member of Religious Forums.

 

[Polymath257]

Mmm .. as I've already said, I wouldn't expect to see physical evidence of something non-physical.

if there is a change of behavior, then that is a physical change. If there is a change of movement, that is a physical change.

And that means in both cases, that some neuron either fired or failed to fire.

Your reply to this, was to suggest that any non-physical phenomena would be visible due to interaction with the physical .. but I disagree.
How would you differentiate between interaction of a non-physical phenomena and a physical phenomena?
You can't !

If you cannot attribute the difference to a physical difference, then a non-physical difference becomes a possibility.

Of course, if you can then postulate a physical cause and test that cause, it becomes the default

Which *does* imply that any cause will *ultimately* be physical, doesn't it?

..so what?


I think not .. it's merely PART of natural phenomena .. but as yet unknown.
..a bit like magnetism, before we understood how it operates.

OK, so the non-physical cause is actually a non-physical cause that we didn't know about? Sure, that is a possibility.

Even when we didn't understand how it operates, we still saw magnetism as physical.

In fact, the fist memory cells in computers were a criss-cross of wires with magnetic cores at their junctions.

Yes, so? How does that affect the overall argument?

I'm already famous .. I'm a member of Religious Forums.

 

[Heyo]

@Polymath257, @muhammad_isa,
are you still debating mathematics?

It seems to me that you got off on a tangent.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

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.

What are atoms comprised of, and what physical properties do those component parts have, independently of each other? Because if only the arrangements of them exist, doesn't that throw into question, the concept of the physical as fundamental?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Even when we didn't understand how it operates, we still saw magnetism as physical..

..mmm .. what about the "wireless" then?

What I mean to say, is just because we can't see or understand how the brain could be influenced
by some "external media", doesn't necessarily mean that it is not.

 

[Polymath257]

..mmm .. what about the "wireless" then?

What about it? It is still *physical*.

Maybe the issue is what the word 'physical' means. Light, for example, is a physical phenomenon. So are neutrinos. The word 'physical' is not synonymous with the word 'material', which suggests taking up space and having mass.

What I mean to say, is just because we can't see or understand how the brain could be influenced
by some "external media", doesn't necessarily mean that it is not.

True, but without actual evidence that it is, it isn't reasonable to conclude that it is.

It is *possible* that planets are pushed around the sun by invisible pixies in just the same way that our equations of gravity would predict. Just because we don't understand how that could be possible doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[Polymath257]

What are atoms comprised of, and what physical properties do those component parts have, independently of each other? Because if only the arrangements of them exist, doesn't that throw into question, the concept of the physical as fundamental?

Well, electrons are, as far as we know, fundamental particles: they are not composed of anything else. They have a rather small mass, are electrically charged, have a spin of 1/2, etc. If you look at the particle Data Group, you can get a more complete list.

Mass, for example, relates both to how the particle responds to forces and how much gravity it produces. It also links the energy and momentum in any reference frame.

Protons and neutrons are made, primarily, of up and down quarks (with a small percentage each of strange quark), but most of their mass comes from interaction between those quarks through the strong force, which is mediated by gluons. The up and down quarks have different interactions via both the strong and the weak nuclear forces, are electrically charged by different amounts (and different than the electron). The gluons are also subject to the strong force in addition to carrying it. They are uncharged, so don't interact via the electromagnetic force, etc.

So, no, it is not only the arrangement, but HOW the different particles interact. Both aspects are crucial for the end results.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257, @muhammad_isa,
are you still debating mathematics?

It seems to me that you got off on a tangent.

A bit, yes. Although it was, to some extent, a natural progression.

The question of whether math is invented or discovered is linked to the nature of abstractions: do they exist outside of our minds or not? if so, then they provide an example of non-physical existence. But, even if they only exist inside of our minds, they would give such an example if our minds are, themselves, non-physical. Also, even if abstractions do exist outside of our minds, there is the issue of how are minds are able to 'perceive' them. For some, this also suggests the possibility of a non-physical mind.

In any case, the question of how abstractions 'exist' has a direct relation to whether math (which is usually seen as a collection of abstractions) is invented or discovered.

For myself, I come down on the side of abstractions only existing in our minds, as a kind of shorthand classification allowing us to formulate general laws which are then tested in specific cases. Math, like all forms of language, deals with abstractions. And, I believe, like language, only exists in the minds of those who use it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

True, but without actual evidence that it is, it isn't reasonable to conclude that it is..

That is just a vicious circle..
i.e. I will not believe in anything that can't be demonstrated by a known physical process

..and I will compare spirituality with fictional tales, even though fictional tales are known to be fiction,
and the Bible is not.
If it were known that it was fiction, I'm sure we would not see so many educated adults believe it.

 

[Polymath257]

That is just a vicious circle..

Not true. it is simply a reasonable condition for acceptance of a belief. You want to insist on the reasonability of a non-physical, but have given no good reason to believe in such a thing and have even said it is impossible to provide. That, to me, means it is *unreasonable* to believe in it.

i.e. I will not believe in anything that can't be demonstrated by a known physical process

Not quite true. I am willing to accept mathematical statements given proofs within the appropriate formal system.

let me put it this way. What *would* be sufficient reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence?

..and I will compare spirituality with fictional tales, even though fictional tales are known to be fiction,
and the Bible is not.
If it were known that it was fiction, I'm sure we would not see so many educated adults believe it.

Many otherwise intelligent adults believe in the fiction of Noah's ark. But the actual evidence shows it to not be reality. popularity of a belief, even among those who are educated, isn't a good test *unless* those educated people are specifically trained in a subject relevant for the demonstration of the belief.

In the case of a supernatural, there *cannot be* a demonstration (as you have argued), so there is no specialty that can be trained in.

 

[Polymath257]

What are atoms comprised of, and what physical properties do those component parts have, independently of each other? Because if only the arrangements of them exist, doesn't that throw into question, the concept of the physical as fundamental?

Another aspect that many people don't grasp is the concept of 'composed of' isn't as definite for composite quantum particles. So, for example, protons are usually said to be 'composed of' two up quarks and a down quark. But that isn't completely accurate.

The reason is that both the up and down quarks can 'change flavors' spontaneously through the weak force. This means that all protons have a 'presence' of strange quarks in their 'composition'. The same was recently found for charm quarks.

At the quantum level, composition, like most other 'properties' is a probabilistic thing. The classical idea of composition is simply not appropriate for quantum particles.

Finally, I am not sure why that would throw the 'concept of physical as fundamental' into question. Can you elaborate? In particular, how do you define the concept of 'physical' and 'fundamental'?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..popularity of a belief, even among those who are educated, isn't a good test *unless* those educated people are specifically trained in a subject relevant for the demonstration of the belief..

No .. you are just deflecting from the issue.
i.e. you compare known fiction with religious belief

..which is more or less the same thing as making a claim, that Christianity/Islam is actually fiction.

..and due to this attitude, you extend it to believing that real numbers only exist in "brains" and
have no significance in a "cosmic reality".

 

[Polymath257]

No .. you are just deflecting from the issue.
i.e. you compare known fiction with religious belief

..which is more or less the same thing as making a claim, that Christianity/Islam is actually fiction.

Well, I happen to believe it is a fiction for the very reasons I have been giving.

..and due to this attitude, you extend it to believing that real numbers only exist in "brains" and
have no significance in a "cosmic reality".

Nope, the order of the deduction is the other way around. I first started thinking about how to verify beliefs as valid. Then I applied that to religious beliefs.

You insist that it is reasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence (as you admit), but then fail to give good reasons to believe without evidence. The only thing you do is offer the *possibility* that there might be a supernatural. But, again, without evidence, there is no reason to believe that.

I have studied math for the last several decades. I have been interested in the philosophical aspects of it for nearly that long. I have read Plato and Aristotle, as well as more modern philosophers (Putnam, for example). I have *concluded* that math is a cultural phenomenon, like language.