Question: What is Math?

[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?

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.

By universe, I simply mean all space, time, and matter. If things had yet to exist, you're saying that numbers still existed in the mind, even though there was nothing that numbers represented?

Is this getting into the immutability of God?

[Kurieuo]

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.

We could reduce "maths" to simply numbers (i.e., 0, 1 or 7).

If nothingness is represented by zero,
then even without the universe we have an abstract of nothingness (0).
Therefore, maths (at a minimum in abstract form) seems to always exist.

• Abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

It seems to me that maths is fundamentally "idea" in flavour.
These ideas are then actualised and embodied by physical representations in our universe.
When us humans uncover new mathematic formulas, of which many are uncovered based upon observing physical realities of our universe, we're simply uncovering these pre-existent "ideas".

The problem I see in discussions like this, is that mathematics seem so dependent upon a mind (this seems largely how Kenny sees maths). Yet then, we know irrespective of human minds that maths or numbers would still exist -- even if nobody knows or can describe such. But for many, only finite human minds exist and that there causes an issue.

So then, my argument might go something like:

• 1. Maths (numbers) have the qualitative feel of an idea.
  2. Ideas themselves are dependent upon a mind for their existence.
  3. So then, maths in dependent upon a mind.

then additional argument:

• 4. It is inconceivable to think that numbers haven't always existed (i.e., even when nothing there is 0).
  5. If it is inconceivable to think numbers haven't always existed, then maths is eternal.
  6. Therefore, there exists an eternal mind upon which maths depends (from #3 and #5).

This is, for me, one powerful argument for the existence of God.

[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.

By universe, I simply mean all space, time, and matter. If things had yet to exist, you're saying that numbers still existed in the mind, even though there was nothing that numbers represented?

Is this getting into the immutability of God?

I'm not sure about Immutability but certainly his aseity. Nothing exists independent of Him. Unless one wants to argue mathematical platonism (and platonism in general) but forthat we'll need K or Jac. I know my limits.

[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.

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

I wasn’t reformulating the original question, I was more so responding to specific people rather than the original question. Byblos holds the position that math predicts things in the Universe, that if people didn’t exist, these things would be predicted anyway, and I hold the position that people use math to predict these things, that if people didn’t exist, these things would not be predicted.
This is starting to sound about as pointless as debating the existence of God; Doesn't make sense to me, but makes perfect sense to them.

Ken

[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.

I wasn’t reformulating the original question, I was more so responding to specific people rather than the original question. Byblos holds the position that math predicts things in the Universe, that if people didn’t exist, these things would be predicted anyway, and I hold the position that people use math to predict these things, that if people didn’t exist, these things would not be predicted.
This is starting to sound about as pointless as debating the existence of God; Doesn't make sense to me, but makes perfect sense to them.

Kenny, anyone carefully reading Byblos' words should be able to understand what he meant.
Only you then threw a red herring into the discussion, you shifted the discussion from the original question.

Byblos originally said that math is descriptive and also "using mathematics we can predict the existence of the Higgs boson."

You then chimed in with your reddish-like herring: "Math didn't predict anything; people using math did."
(that's where you changed the nature of the discussion from the original question, and threw a rebuff to Byblos which actually had no relevance dealing with what he said at all -- if anything just supported what he said)

Byblos responded you added nothing, but then Ice got confused by your red herring, and so Byblos sadly had to clarify himself further. Still now you make your confused statements bolded above.

Kenny, if you're not confused yourself you're definitely a master at causing confusion.
You must get many headaches in that head of yours right?

[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.

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

I wasn’t reformulating the original question, I was more so responding to specific people rather than the original question. Byblos holds the position that math predicts things in the Universe, that if people didn’t exist, these things would be predicted anyway, and I hold the position that people use math to predict these things, that if people didn’t exist, these things would not be predicted.
This is starting to sound about as pointless as debating the existence of God; Doesn't make sense to me, but makes perfect sense to them.

Kenny, anyone carefully reading Byblos' words should be able to understand what he meant.
Only you then threw a red herring into the discussion, you shifted the discussion from the original question.

Byblos originally said that math is descriptive and also "using mathematics we can predict the existence of the Higgs boson."

You then chimed in with your reddish-like herring: "Math didn't predict anything; people using math did."
(that's where you changed the nature of the discussion from the original question, and threw a rebuff to Byblos which actually had no relevance dealing with what he said at all -- if anything just supported what he said)

Byblos responded you added nothing, but then Ice got confused by your red herring, and so Byblos sadly had to clarify himself further. Still now you make your confused statements bolded above.

Kenny, if you're not confused yourself you're definitely a master at causing confusion.
You must get many headaches in that head of yours right?

You’re right! He said “using math we can predict” then I objected and said people using math can predict; basically repeating what he said.
Obviously I misunderstood what he said; that mistake was not intentional

Byblos; that was my mistake bro, I thought you were saying something different than what you were. And Kurieuo; thanks for pointing that out to me

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.

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

I wasn’t reformulating the original question, I was more so responding to specific people rather than the original question. Byblos holds the position that math predicts things in the Universe, that if people didn’t exist, these things would be predicted anyway, and I hold the position that people use math to predict these things, that if people didn’t exist, these things would not be predicted.
This is starting to sound about as pointless as debating the existence of God; Doesn't make sense to me, but makes perfect sense to them.

Kenny, anyone carefully reading Byblos' words should be able to understand what he meant.
Only you then threw a red herring into the discussion, you shifted the discussion from the original question.

Byblos originally said that math is descriptive and also "using mathematics we can predict the existence of the Higgs boson."

You then chimed in with your reddish-like herring: "Math didn't predict anything; people using math did."
(that's where you changed the nature of the discussion from the original question, and threw a rebuff to Byblos which actually had no relevance dealing with what he said at all -- if anything just supported what he said)

Byblos responded you added nothing, but then Ice got confused by your red herring, and so Byblos sadly had to clarify himself further. Still now you make your confused statements bolded above.

Kenny, if you're not confused yourself you're definitely a master at causing confusion.
You must get many headaches in that head of yours right?

You’re right! He said “using math we can predict” then I objected and said people using math can predict; basically repeating what he said.
Obviously I misunderstood what he said; that mistake was not intentional

Byblos; that was my mistake bro, I thought you were saying something different than what you were. And Kurieuo; thanks for pointing that out to me

Ken

No worries, glad we're on the same page.

[1over137]

[RickD]

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

I wasn’t reformulating the original question, I was more so responding to specific people rather than the original question. Byblos holds the position that math predicts things in the Universe, that if people didn’t exist, these things would be predicted anyway, and I hold the position that people use math to predict these things, that if people didn’t exist, these things would not be predicted.
This is starting to sound about as pointless as debating the existence of God; Doesn't make sense to me, but makes perfect sense to them.

Kenny, anyone carefully reading Byblos' words should be able to understand what he meant.
Only you then threw a red herring into the discussion, you shifted the discussion from the original question.

Byblos originally said that math is descriptive and also "using mathematics we can predict the existence of the Higgs boson."

You then chimed in with your reddish-like herring: "Math didn't predict anything; people using math did."
(that's where you changed the nature of the discussion from the original question, and threw a rebuff to Byblos which actually had no relevance dealing with what he said at all -- if anything just supported what he said)

Byblos responded you added nothing, but then Ice got confused by your red herring, and so Byblos sadly had to clarify himself further. Still now you make your confused statements bolded above.

Kenny, if you're not confused yourself you're definitely a master at causing confusion.
You must get many headaches in that head of yours right?

You’re right! He said “using math we can predict” then I objected and said people using math can predict; basically repeating what he said.
Obviously I misunderstood what he said; that mistake was not intentional

Byblos; that was my mistake bro, I thought you were saying something different than what you were. And Kurieuo; thanks for pointing that out to me

Ken

No worries, glad we're on the same page.

Byblos,

Does that mean you're obtuse too?

[Byblos]

Does that mean you're obtuse too?

Hey, hey, who're you callin' fat?

[RickD]

Does that mean you're obtuse too?

Hey, hey, who're you callin' fat?

Fat? Nooooo. When referring to weight, Obtuse means more than 90lbs and less than 180.

[Byblos]

Does that mean you're obtuse too?

Hey, hey, who're you callin' fat?

Fat? Nooooo. When referring to weight, Obtuse means more than 90lbs and less than 180.

Then I'm grateful you didn't use kilograms.

[Storyteller]

I only understand stones

[RickD]

I only understand stones

You mean Mick, Keith and the others?

[RickD]

Does that mean you're obtuse too?

Hey, hey, who're you callin' fat?

Fat? Nooooo. When referring to weight, Obtuse means more than 90lbs and less than 180.

Then I'm grateful you didn't use kilograms.

Byblos please. You are not overweight. You're just undertall.