Math is only a language

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Random thought-

Math is only a language, and has no inherent value, except an easier system for our brain to make sense of the system around us.



Your take.

 

[Fukyo]

So you are saying no language has any inherent value?

A system for interpreting "the system" around is is not an inherent value?


Nigga, this is a pretty half baked thought.

 

[Interdimensionist]

I think he means that the symbols used in mathematics only have meaning because humans have attributed meaning to them however I would argue that if maths can be used to accurately describe the natural world around us, then 2+2=4 would remain true regardless of the symbols used to form the expression.

You would be right in saying that the symbols themselves have no inherent value much in the same way we could say that no language has any advantage or more value over any other, only that they are systems put in place to enhance communication and understanding between other humans who share the same system. If the language fulfills this function then it can be said to have value even if its symbols are essentially arbitrary and interchangeable.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

No, as in people think of math as tryin to figure out a truth, which somehow is hidden inside "math".
Like people think of math to be at a higher plane than other stuff.

As in, the rules of math or whatnot is only a subjective construct, although seemingly objective.

And by inherent value, im speaking objectively not practically, ofc math has practical value. But, does math have any value in finding any "truth"s, i dont think so.



And yeah, im bored

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

@Interdimensionist

What im saying is 2+2=4 is not an objective "truth".

It is just our mental interpretation of why combining 2 pairs of apples weighs the same as 4 individual apples.
Sounds gibberish, but what we think of as objective truths are just ways to interpret occurances around us in the system.



Also, math only works on correlations, not causations so there's that. Math is just a system of crrelations, which means it is just a means of interpretations- and as such cannot give any causations to any phenomena and thus incapable of finding any truths or accurately predicting anything objectively...
Although whether causation is even something which exists or not is something cannot be tested, by our brains imo... So, yea math is just a language to understand statistics. But it isnt superior to any other language, and is only equally effective & useless in finding any causation whatsoever.


But, yea this was just meant to be a general discussion topic

 

[Interdimensionist]

You are right in saying maths has no objective value, it is better thought of as a tool or as a means to an end rather than as the end in and of itself.

The fallacy in your thinking is assuming that mathematicians are attempting to solve problems hidden within maths itself when in actuality they are attempting to solve problems which have a firm basis in reality and also to find new ways to describe the physical universe in which we live, maths just so happens to be a convenient way for us to express those abstract concepts which may be intangible and difficult to explain via other means.

Edit: I understand what you're saying and think we are pretty much thinking along the same lines here: just because we can describe something a certain way doesn't mean that our description fits reality.

Consider this however: I am tasked with dividing something like 100 food stamps to 50 men, in a world without maths or any way to specify quantities, how do I approach the problem? Would I say many food stamps for much men and then just guess as to how many each man should receive? How do I know they will be distributed fairly and evenly?
In a world with maths I can do the simple sum of 100/2 = 50 therefore each man should receive 2 food stamps in order for the stamps to be distributed evenly and for no man to have more or less than another. This proves that maths can be used to reach conclusions and discover truths that would otherwise prove impossible although you could argue that those truths are still man made and only exist from our own viewpoint or understanding of the language.

 

[Silent Sage]

I arrived at this conclusion a while ago. Only I went a bit further....nothing has inherent value; meaning is established by an observer; in the absence of an observer there is no meaning/value; an objective reality only has meaning in that it provides a base for our subjectivity as an observer, which is a distortion. To sum it up briefly.

 

[polterkat]

So what about values which are not defined by our classic mathematical language?
Consider the paradox:
"Does a set of all sets contain itself?"
At first glance the answer is an obvious "yes" ...until you set up a mathematical equation for it, which would look something like this:
" N = N + X "
Unless X = 0, there is no rational solution using the language which currently exists. This notion is simply TOO abstract for the symbols we have developed to assist us in our calculations, "real-world" and "non-real-world" alike.

If mathematics was thought of in more general terms than those defined by numbers and symbols.. then perhaps we might be capable of performing calculations which take advantage of these phenomenon. As I said, at first glance.. the answer to the above paradox is an obvious "yes". It is only when we begin to consider it using the predefined architecture of mathematical vocabulary that we begin to have trouble.
So why dont we have language to reconcile these things? Why does our organically logical brain have no trouble answering a question which it then lacks the ability to mathematically explain?

What are the thoughts on that?

 

[Hadoblado]

Good grief ppl lighten up.



@YOLO
You say that it has uses but can't be used to find the truth. How is arriving at truths like 2+2=4 through mathematics not finding truth? You say it's not an objective truth, just a correlation. But it's a perfect correlation, synonymous with reality. How is a model of reality that predicts it one to one not useful in finding objective truths?

I know that it's only a representation of the truth. But so is thought, and everything we could ever possibly perceive.

I guess what I'm asking is, why are you pointing the bone at math when sensation, perception, and thought are also mere representations of reality? Sensation is just how your body communicates with your brain. Perception is just how your brain deciphers sensation. Thought is just how the brain converses with itself.

 

[Interdimensionist]

There is only one truth, we're all fetuses still in the womb dreaming about what life will be like once we grow up, we just have shitty imaginations mwhahahah.

 

[Tannhauser]

Math is a formal system, not a language. Languages change, including their rules, organically. A formal system does not.

I agree that it exists only by virtue of being a tool for thinking though. It is not some universal truth engraved in the matter of the universe.

 

[polterkat]

A fair distinction...
I guess what I am asking is..Cant we tweak the definition a little bit? Add a little INformality to our formal system?
Not because we HAVE TO... but because we WANT TO. For the sake of thought and conceptual innovation.
It might not have any bearing on the reality which we are able to perceive or the mathematics which we have come to know and understand... it might be something ENTIRELY NEW.

equations based on variables which exist in a state of constant flux rather than having a definitive answer.... and likewise non-definitive solutions...

I have no justification for this idea other than "CUZ IT MIGHT BE COOL. Thats why" lol
Math is a huge subject and one could (and many do) spend their entire lifetime exploring all the little potentials and powers of it...
However, I intend no such future. I do not reap a particularly satisfactory sense of accomplishment from the completion of any mathematics problems. The logic feels too hollow and straight-forward. All business no play. Where is the sense of adventure? Where is the thrill of the unknown? ....finding another number at the end? We are soaked in numbers. Up to our eyeballs in them and all I want is a bit of SATISFACTION... the way any good puzzle gives you. As I said, I expect no such future in the depths of mathematics, so I will likely never come to know the feeling of being the person who SOLVES THE UNSOLVABLE.
Anything less is just fodder because someone else either HAS or COULD solve that same equation you've just done at some point in time more often than not, so its not as though you CREATED or INVENTED the answer (the way the single person who cracks those long-struggled-with equations may feel), you merely stumbled on something which someone else at some point discovered and left behind for you.

I realize I am smack-talking math to a bunch of people who obviously enjoy the subject, but bear with me a moment longer... lol

If for a moment I imagine the sort of math I actually MIGHT find fascinating and worth pursuing, then I find myself wishing there was something MEATY in there for me... something to really mentally masticate over...
something like grappeling with a simple equation which must be balanced with respect to two or more variables in this aforementioned "state of flux". The equation could be simple, but the fact that it would have to navigate this sortof "Schrodinger-variable" that simultaneously exists as several values at once........... THAT might be the sorta thing I dip my toes in waters of mathematics for.
....Equations which have INTERPRETATIONS rather that SOLUTIONS

The concept is enough to get my gears goin...

I feel sorta like the guy offering up spicy food when everyone is busy discussing nutrition facts... But this seemed like the most relevant thread. Take my fanciful speculations as you wish :P

 

[Tannhauser]

A fair distinction...
I guess what I am asking is..Cant we tweak the definition a little bit? Add a little INformality to our formal system?
Not because we HAVE TO... but because we WANT TO. For the sake of thought and conceptual innovation.
It might not have any bearing on the reality which we are able to perceive or the mathematics which we have come to know and understand... it might be something ENTIRELY NEW.

equations based on variables which exist in a state of constant flux rather than having a definitive answer.... and likewise non-definitive solutions...

I have no justification for this idea other than "CUZ IT MIGHT BE COOL. Thats why" lol
Math is a huge subject and one could (and many do) spend their entire lifetime exploring all the little potentials and powers of it...
However, I intend no such future. I do not reap a particularly satisfactory sense of accomplishment from the completion of any mathematics problems. The logic feels too hollow and straight-forward. All business no play. Where is the sense of adventure? Where is the thrill of the unknown? ....finding another number at the end? We are soaked in numbers. Up to our eyeballs in them and all I want is a bit of SATISFACTION... the way any good puzzle gives you. As I said, I expect no such future in the depths of mathematics, so I will likely never come to know the feeling of being the person who SOLVES THE UNSOLVABLE.
Anything less is just fodder because someone else either HAS or COULD solve that same equation you've just done at some point in time more often than not, so its not as though you CREATED or INVENTED the answer (the way the single person who cracks those long-struggled-with equations may feel), you merely stumbled on something which someone else at some point discovered and left behind for you.

I realize I am smack-talking math to a bunch of people who obviously enjoy the subject, but bear with me a moment longer... lol

If for a moment I imagine the sort of math I actually MIGHT find fascinating and worth pursuing, then I find myself wishing there was something MEATY in there for me... something to really mentally masticate over...
something like grappeling with a simple equation which must be balanced with respect to two or more variables in this aforementioned "state of flux". The equation could be simple, but the fact that it would have to navigate this sortof "Schrodinger-variable" that simultaneously exists as several values at once........... THAT might be the sorta thing I dip my toes in waters of mathematics for.
....Equations which have INTERPRETATIONS rather that SOLUTIONS

The concept is enough to get my gears goin...

I feel sorta like the guy offering up spicy food when everyone is busy discussing nutrition facts... But this seemed like the most relevant thread. Take my fanciful speculations as you wish :P

There is nothing that prevents you from constructing a formal system based on the rules you are describing. But it has to be formal to be of any use, otherwise one person can arrive at one conclusion and another person at a completely different conclusion -- using the same reasoning. The beauty of mathematics is that there is never any doubt as to whether someone is right or wrong. Coupled with the ability to apply the system on various empirical phenomena, it becomes quite a neat thing.

 

[PaulMaster]

2+2=4 is objectively true.

Well, what 2+2=4 represents is objectively true.

 

[Terran]

Well, what 2+2=4 represents is objectively true.

Exactly this, while the 'language' of it may well be insignificant and perceivably impure, it is a worked observation of the pure nature of things around us. Another form of intelligence may comprehend it in a completely other way, but none the less, any representation would be valid. Sentience would always come with some impure/varied interpretations of reality, but there is no true interpretation of it anyway, since any structure or science of it outside sentience is non-existent, stuff just is, and maths is our way of representing how that stuff is.

 

[Terran]

Also, it's 'Maths'!

 

[Tannhauser]

2+2=4 is objectively true.

Well, what 2+2=4 represents is objectively true.

Depends on what you mean by "objectively true". When you apply it on natural phenomena, it becomes an empirical claim, which is true only in certain cases and with certain assumptions.

The actual mathematical statement is of course objectively true, because it is can be proven to be true using the constructed rules of arithmetic. That is to say , it is objectively true within the formal system, but it is not universally true.

 

[scorpiomover]

Random thought-

Math is only a language, and has no inherent value, except an easier system for our brain to make sense of the system around us.

Isn't physics, chemistry, biology and the rest of science just an an easier system for our brain to make sense of the system around us?

 

[scorpiomover]

What im saying is 2+2=4 is not an objective "truth".

It is just our mental interpretation of why combining 2 pairs of apples weighs the same as 4 individual apples.
Sounds gibberish, but what we think of as objective truths are just ways to interpret occurances around us in the system.

That might be. 2+2=4, is not about anything in particular.

What would the world be, if there was no arithmetic, no algebra, no geometry, and no calculus? Almost all of our modern science proves results using maths. Without it, modern science would have no conclusions, nothing useful to say. Almost all of our modern technology is based on arithmetic, algebra, geometry and calculus, including all of Turing's work on computers and the design of computers. What would our world be like, if there were no computers, no internet, no mobile phones, no TVs, no cars, no trucks, no buses, no trains, no airplanes, and no supermarkets with food stocked from those trucks? We'd still be in an agricultural society without the benefits of quantitative science.

Also, math only works on correlations, not causations so there's that. Math is just a system of crrelations, which means it is just a means of interpretations- and as such cannot give any causations to any phenomena and thus incapable of finding any truths or accurately predicting anything objectively...

The difference between a correlation and a causation is PROOF. Causations have proofs, that prove the cause causes the effect. Correlations do not. All of maths requires solid proof. Anything that doesn't have solid proof in maths, is considered only a conjecture, even if empirically, the evidence shows that it is clearly true. Correlations in maths are irrelevant. Only things that can be proved to be causations are valid in maths. New theorems in maths, take correlations and show which of them are causations.

So, yea math is just a language to understand statistics. But it isnt superior to any other language, and is only equally effective & useless in finding any causation whatsoever.

The symbols of maths are just a form of notation. One can teach maths in English, without most symbolic language. A few of my university courses were taught this way. The symbolic notation is more efficient, as what can take 3 sentences to say in English, can be said in 3 symbols in mathematical notation.

 

[Interdimensionist]

Maths may not be inherently engraved in the fabric of the universe Tannhauser, at least not in the way humans have devised it but patterns do exist within it and maths just happens to be the most convenient form of notation we currently have at our disposal to describe those patterns with some degree of accuracy.

 

[Tannhauser]

Maths may not be inherently engraved in the fabric of the universe Tannhauser, at least not in the way humans have devised it but patterns do exist within it and maths just happens to be the most convenient form of notation we currently have at our disposal to describe those patterns with some degree of accuracy.

I agree with that. It is a way of coherently translate out own perceptions of the world onto paper.

 

[Interdimensionist]

Imagine if it actually turned out to be a load of old bollocks and we've just been stumbling around in the dark for centuries making technological discoveries and coming up with all these amazing feats of engineering through sheer dumb luck and intuition.

For example:
[BIMG]http://cfd2012.com/uploads/3/1/6/2/3162191/5688942.jpg?855[/BIMG]
These equations supposedly describe the motion of viscous fluids, not being a mathematician and only possessing what IMO is rather basic mathematical knowledge, how can I know for definite that the above equation actually describes what they profess it to describe and that the whole practical implementation process (use in designing shuttles, planes, sails etc.) doesn't just really boil to tinkering with shit until something works and praying it continues to do so without actually understanding why it works?

I suppose I'm asking if I could ever know (short of getting a job there) that the folks at NASA aren't just sitting around attributing all this to maths and purposely designing ridiculously complicated equations they know most in the general population will never even comprehend let alone learn in order to cover the fact they have no idea wtf they're doing.

Purposely trolling with this I just find it interesting to question what we so readily accept as fact and scientific truth.

How do I know science, maths and physics aren't just inventions of the more desirable members of society intended to keep the awkward dweebs, uggos and rejects distracted by giving them a series of seemingly unsolvable conundrums such as the origin of the universe?

Man that ended up being way longer than what I originally had in mind.

 

[Tannhauser]

Imagine if it actually turned out to be a load of old bollocks and we've just been stumbling around in the dark for centuries making technological discoveries and coming up with all these amazing feats of engineering through sheer dumb luck and intuition.

For example:
[BIMG]http://cfd2012.com/uploads/3/1/6/2/3162191/5688942.jpg?855[/BIMG]
These equations supposedly describe the motion of viscous fluids, not being a mathematician and only possessing what IMO is rather basic mathematical knowledge, how can I know for definite that the above equation actually describes what they profess it to describe and that the whole practical implementation process (use in designing shuttles, planes, sails etc.) doesn't just really boil to tinkering with shit until something works and praying it continues to do so without actually understanding why it works?

I suppose I'm asking if I could ever know (short of getting a job there) that the folks at NASA aren't just sitting around attributing all this to maths and purposely designing ridiculously complicated equations they know most in the general population will never even comprehend let alone learn in order to cover the fact they have no idea wtf they're doing.

Purposely trolling with this I just find it interesting to question what we so readily accept as fact and scientific truth.

How do I know science, maths and physics aren't just inventions of the more desirable members of society intended to keep the awkward dweebs, uggos and rejects distracted by giving them a series of seemingly unsolvable conundrums such as the origin of the universe?

Man that ended up being way longer than what I originally had in mind.

Peer review, I guess. If it were all bullshit, someone would eventually point it out. But I think there is some truth in what you are saying. Sometimes, people figure something out via tinkering, and then introduce fancy math to explain what they found. And sometimes bullshit theories are ornamented with fancy mathematics just to make them look more credible. This is usually the case in econometrics for example.