Question: What is Math?

[Kenny]

Just to be clear, I hold the position that it is people using math who predicts things; and you guys are holding the position that it is actually math that is predicting these things, and people gained the knowledge by discovering math thus obtaining all the knowledge math provided. Please explain the difference.

Ken

Already answered.

Subject: Question: What is Math?

The link you provided did not explain the difference between people predicting things, and math predicting things.
Consider these examples;
*People using math to predict things would be a person using math as a tool to discover something.
*Math predicting things would be math as a conscious, intelligent being capable the action of predicting and figuring things out on its own discovering things.

Those are examples. Can you answer my question in a clear way as the examples I provided?

Ken

[Byblos]

Just to be clear, I hold the position that it is people using math who predicts things; and you guys are holding the position that it is actually math that is predicting these things, and people gained the knowledge by discovering math thus obtaining all the knowledge math provided. Please explain the difference.

Ken

Already answered.

Subject: Question: What is Math?

The link you provided did not explain the difference between people predicting things, and math predicting things.
Consider these examples;
*People using math to predict things would be a person using math as a tool to discover something.
*Math predicting things would be math as a conscious, intelligent being capable the action of predicting and figuring things out on its own discovering things.

Those are examples. Can you answer my question in a clear way as the examples I provided?

Ken

You want me to answer a question whether or not math is conscious? Are you kidding me?

[RickD]

Byblos or K,


Maybe you guys can explain to Kenny how math(s) predict things. As opposed to people using math to predict things.

[Byblos]

Byblos or K,

Maybe you guys can explain to Kenny how math(s) predict things. As opposed to people using math to predict things.

You cannot disconnect knowledge from intelligence, that's a given. If humans built a very sophisticated self-sustaining AI machine that uses math to predict things about reality and then humans went extinct, does that change reality in any way? Of course not, although kenny will keep claiming it is. Nature functions according to these rules irrespective of anyone or anything knowing anything about these rules or predicting anything about nature. Does that mean the rules don't exist? Again, of course not. These rules are discoverable, not invented, and that is the point.

[RickD]

Byblos or K,

Maybe you guys can explain to Kenny how math(s) predict things. As opposed to people using math to predict things.

You cannot disconnect knowledge from intelligence, that's a given. If humans built a very sophisticated self-sustaining AI machine that uses math to predict things about reality and then humans went extinct, does that change reality in any way? Of course not, although kenny will keep claiming it is. Nature functions according to these rules irrespective of anyone or anything knowing anything about these rules or predicting anything about nature. Does that mean the rules don't exist? Again, of course not. These rules are discoverable, not invented, and that is the point.

So,

Is it accurate to say that the distinction Kenny is making, has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this discussion?

And, Kenny's putting it off as "agreeing to disagree" is so meaningless in this instance, that all he's doing is avoiding the actual point?

[Kenny]

Byblos or K,

Maybe you guys can explain to Kenny how math(s) predict things. As opposed to people using math to predict things.

You cannot disconnect knowledge from intelligence, that's a given. If humans built a very sophisticated self-sustaining AI machine that uses math to predict things about reality and then humans went extinct, does that change reality in any way?

Of course not!

Of course not, although kenny will keep claiming it is.

I would never make such a ridicules claim; the fact that you think I would tell me either you are purposely trying to misrepresent my position, or you aren’t listening to what I am trying to tell you. I will give the benefit of doubt and assume the latter.

Nature functions according to these rules irrespective of anyone or anything knowing anything about these rules or predicting anything about nature.

True.

Does that mean the rules don't exist?

No! It means it is up to conscious, intelligent beings to find out what these rules are. The only conscious intelligent beings I know of who have discovered many of the rules nature functions according to are humans. Now if you believe Math is doing this discovering, you should explain how and answer my question.

Again, of course not. These rules are discoverable, not invented, and that is the point.

[/quote]
No the point is WHO discovered these rules; people or math.

Ken

[RickD]

No Kenny,

Kurieuo raised this question in the op:

"Is Math a Feature of the Universe, or a Feature of Human Creation?"

So, the point is NOT your meaningless(as far as this topic) assertion that people not math discovered the laws/rules.

The point of this whole thread is that since math laws were discovered, that means they were there before humans.

Think outside your little safe box. It won't hurt you. I promise.

[EssentialSacrifice]

by RickD » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:35 am
Maybe you guys can explain to Kenny how math(s) predict things.

as important the predictive capabilities, it's not that math predicts as much as it's that math reveals. our maths were learned, developed from nature, and that nature as it turns out is exquisitely fine tuned. As we are discovering the truths of the physical universe that were found by maths and sciences laid out by something of intellect.

If you don't like the inference of intellect as the reason for this creation we live in, remember this

Ken wrote:
As I said before; that's what separates us from the monkeys!

If we think we're intelligent, to be able to open some of the seals of the secrets of the universe, how much greater the intellect who sealed them for our later discovery. science and the maths, following an allegorical breadcrumb trail that requires at least our amount of intelligence to be able to follow. I'm sure there's more.

[Byblos]

Byblos or K,

Maybe you guys can explain to Kenny how math(s) predict things. As opposed to people using math to predict things.

You cannot disconnect knowledge from intelligence, that's a given. If humans built a very sophisticated self-sustaining AI machine that uses math to predict things about reality and then humans went extinct, does that change reality in any way?

Of course not!

Of course not, although kenny will keep claiming it is.

I would never make such a ridicules claim; the fact that you think I would tell me either you are purposely trying to misrepresent my position, or you aren’t listening to what I am trying to tell you. I will give the benefit of doubt and assume the latter.

I don't know what got you in huff but what I was referring to when I said that you keep making the claim is the fact that you keep claiming without humans there is no math. Are you not making this claim?

Nature functions according to these rules irrespective of anyone or anything knowing anything about these rules or predicting anything about nature.

True.

Does that mean the rules don't exist?

No! It means it is up to conscious, intelligent beings to find out what these rules are. The only conscious intelligent beings I know of who have discovered many of the rules nature functions according to are humans. Now if you believe Math is doing this discovering, you should explain how and answer my question.

I already gave you an example where no humans are required to do math and to keep doing math to discover things about reality. A self-sustaining artificial intelligence.

Again, of course not. These rules are discoverable, not invented, and that is the point.

No the point is WHO discovered these rules; people or math.

Well thank you for finally acknowledging that the rules are discoverable, which of course means they predate their discoverer.

[RickD]

Kenny,

If you're looking for evidence for God, it just hit you square in the head and knocked you down.

Now, you can choose to acknowledge the evidence for God, and move forward. Or, you can get up and brush yourself off, and go on your way pretending that nothing happened.

But you can't keep saying that people aren't showing you evidence for God.

[Kurieuo]

Just to be clear, I hold the position that it is people using math who predicts things; and you guys are holding the position that it is actually math that is predicting these things, and people gained the knowledge by discovering math thus obtaining all the knowledge math provided. Please explain the difference.

Why did you re-formulate the original question?
Such seems to me purposefully shifty.

As Rick pointed out, the original question posed by the video that I introduced was:

• "Is Math a Feature of the Universe, or a Feature of Human Creation?"

You seem to side with the latter. As for myself, I side with neither without qualification, because I feel the question is a false dichotomy that doesn't get to the heart of the confusion.

The ontological nature of math, what it is (i.e., something is moving at a certain speed whether or not there are humans to describe such), is exhibited as a property of our universe. Therefore, yes I believe maths is a feature of our universe which humans learn and discover and represent in different mathematical languages that they create (where such becomes human "maths knowledge").

There is an issue however, and that is with the universe (1) or without the universe (0), maths appears to be an eternal feature. This might pose a problem for Theists who see God as the only being who is eternal, and yet, maths might be eternal but I see it is contingent upon mind. Maths has a qualitative feel of a concept or idea. Therefore while maths exhibits itself as a feature of our universe, it nonetheless appears to me reducible to or derived from "mind".

Given maths appears to be an eternal property, then this mind likewise would be eternal upon which maths is dependant for its own existence. Therefore, I reach the conclusion that a being like God provides the best explanation for the existence of maths, although Pantheism or consciousness being a part of the natural fabric of the universe (panpsychism) can't be ruled out also.

[RickD]

K,

What do you mean when you say, "maths appears to be an eternal property"?

You're saying maths was a property of the universe, before the universe existed?

[Byblos]

K,

What do you mean when you say, "maths appears to be an eternal property"?

You're saying maths was a property of the universe, before the universe existed?

Math as a property of reality, no. But math as am abstract entity, yes. The number 7 as an abstract is not dependent on the universe. But it doesn't stand in causal relation to anything either.

[RickD]

K,

What do you mean when you say, "maths appears to be an eternal property"?

You're saying maths was a property of the universe, before the universe existed?

Math as a property of reality, no. But math as am abstract entity, yes. The number 7 as an abstract is not dependent on the universe. But it doesn't stand in causal relation to anything either.

But doesn't the number 7 represent a specific quantity of things that didn't exist prior to the universe? If all "things" came into existence with the universe, then how can something that represents something else, exist even in the abstract, if whatever it can possibly represent, has never existed?

[Byblos]

K,

What do you mean when you say, "maths appears to be an eternal property"?

You're saying maths was a property of the universe, before the universe existed?

Math as a property of reality, no. But math as am abstract entity, yes. The number 7 as an abstract is not dependent on the universe. But it doesn't stand in causal relation to anything either.

But doesn't the number 7 represent a specific quantity of things that didn't exist prior to the universe? If all "things" came into existence with the universe, then how can something that represents something else, exist even in the abstract, if whatever it can possibly represent, has never existed?

By universe I assume you mean reality, whether it be this universe or other or multi. As K suggested, abstract ideas exist in the mind, an intelligent mind. I can think of 7 unicorns, though they don't necessarily exist.