# Thread: Simple math.. lol jk

1. Originally Posted by Munchies

Philosophicaly speaking, nobody really knows anyhting for sure, at all. Since there is not an absolute science towards what conciousness has to do with reality and also no absolute sciencec for anything quantum... so common conceptions of math is irrelevant when trying to seek the deepest answers to the deepest questions of life. Because deeper conceptions can always be realized.
Seeking the deepest answers to the deepest questions of life is something you should do for yourself, the contradictions that arise between different philosophical doctrines is one good reason for studying philosophy. It opens up your mind to possibilities you might have never taken into consideration and it helps you develop a system of your own (I don't think one can fully identify themselves with the thoughts expressed by somebody else through their writings). I think the philosophy of mathematics to be of great interest to you and you're probably learning about it already.

However, I would avoid making connections between, say...the result of some math operations and the trinity! It's way too much for me. While doing so can lead to something you may call "deeper conceptions ", I find it rather irrelevant, to be honest. Going deeper into a problem actually means finding different approaches to it, so it's relative. That doesn't mean that the most unusual theories are also the deepest ones, the notions of "deep" and "shallow", although often used, don't always have a fixed meaning. I'd probably say that the "deepest answers" are the ones which, in my opinion, are more logical, but this involves a certain degree of relativity and perspectivism (I'm a fan of Nietzsche!). Thus, I cannot call one answer or question deeper than the other, since I cannot be sure of what somebody else would think of it. As an example, logical explanation appeal more to a Thinker than to a Feeler.

Thus, what I'd call my deepest reasoning may seem shallow to others and, confronted with their different views, I may either agree with them or not. In this case, finding arguments for the existence of God by exploring mathematics, for instance, is something I simply find absurd, while others could see this as a search for deeper answers.

I'm from Europe, so I've been taught the metric system in the 2nd grade, I think. The government encouraging Christian teachings is a common situation in countries where this religion is prevalent. I'm fond of the secularization that especially countries in Northern Europe have implemented and I hope every state on Earth understands that, well, God shouldn't be dragged into all kind of stuff and subjects and sciences and bah!

2. Originally Posted by Daemon Corax
Seeking the deepest answers to the deepest questions of life is something you should do for yourself, the contradictions that arise between different philosophical doctrines is one good reason for studying philosophy. It opens up your mind to possibilities you might have never taken into consideration and it helps you develop a system of your own (I don't think one can fully identify themselves with the thoughts expressed by somebody else through their writings). I think the philosophy of mathematics to be of great interest to you and you're probably learning about it already.

However, I would avoid making connections between, say...the result of some math operations and the trinity! It's way too much for me. While doing so can lead to something you may call "deeper conceptions ", I find it rather irrelevant, to be honest. Going deeper into a problem actually means finding different approaches to it, so it's relative. That doesn't mean that the most unusual theories are also the deepest ones, the notions of "deep" and "shallow", although often used, don't always have a fixed meaning. I'd probably say that the "deepest answers" are the ones which, in my opinion, are more logical, but this involves a certain degree of relativity and perspectivism (I'm a fan of Nietzsche!). Thus, I cannot call one answer or question deeper than the other, since I cannot be sure of what somebody else would think of it. As an example, logical explanation appeal more to a Thinker than to a Feeler.

Thus, what I'd call my deepest reasoning may seem shallow to others and, confronted with their different views, I may either agree with them or not. In this case, finding arguments for the existence of God by exploring mathematics, for instance, is something I simply find absurd, while others could see this as a search for deeper answers.

I'm from Europe, so I've been taught the metric system in the 2nd grade, I think. The government encouraging Christian teachings is a common situation in countries where this religion is prevalent. I'm fond of the secularization that especially countries in Northern Europe have implemented and I hope every state on Earth understands that, well, God shouldn't be dragged into all kind of stuff and subjects and sciences and bah!
i agree with everythign yuo say so i won't argue it. Although i wan't directly assuming a connection to god. It was just speculation.I was trying to find another perspective on the subject

I plan on learning as i post because it seems to be the best way for me as it get's my creative juices running. I've been doing it for a while on this subject and made great progress after 2 years. I know i throw a lot of things out there that are very abstract and seemingly uncconected(or slightly connected) but it's hard to express my thoughts and am getting more clarity from practicing my thoughts in ways like this.

3. This might not really be on-topic, at least, with the current trend of posts, but here are my musings on mathematics for what it's worth:

First, numbers are bullshit. They don't exist. I am sitting here, in my room, looking at my ceiling fan. I notice it has five blades. But wait, my fan is one object, the blades are five, coming to form one. In a sense, 5 = 1. But what equals the five? Tiny bits of metal, plastic...chemical structures I can't see, et cetera. 1 = 5 = ? = millions. It's all about frame of reference, kind of like what's been mentioned before. .9 = 1, depending on the viewing angle, but even having a viewing angle is kind of bullshit, because there's nothing that can distinguish one thing from another beyond abstract barriers that we make as individuals.

One thing that's bothered me is the concept of fractions. Suppose I have one loaf of bread and I were to cut it in halves and I gave you one half. We might represent this as you having 1/2 of a loaf of bread, but isn't that incorrect on some macroeconomic scale? In actuality you possess x particles, which combined represents some bread. There can only really be whole numbers right? I think part of the problem we run into with mathematics, even in higher levels, is that there's no real lowest-common-denominator, so to speak.

While this is a bit scattered, I apologize, I have often thought about the problem of trying to exit a room by closing half the distance between yourself and the exit. I always thought it was a ludicrous problem--people don't move not-finitely whereas in this example, they do. But that's the problem with this thought experiment, it's just infinite division on a theoretical level, but in actuality, there must be some finite lowest common denominator or unit of measurement. I think the current way we look at numbers can be comparable to the difference in calculation between pints, quarts, and gallons. We dub the number 1 to be the smallest number, but it seems we tend to be talking about gallons, when there's actually 4 quarts or 8 pints. Without some bonafide smallest unit of measurement, it's kind of meaningless to talk about numbers, no?

Can the smallest unit of measurement ever be discovered? Something that cannot be divided or made any smaller? If so, how would it effect the mathematical world?

4. Originally Posted by Blank
While this is a bit scattered, I apologize, I have often thought about the problem of trying to exit a room by closing half the distance between yourself and the exit. I always thought it was a ludicrous problem--people don't move not-finitely whereas in this example, they do. But that's the problem with this thought experiment, it's just infinite division on a theoretical level, but in actuality, there must be some finite lowest common denominator or unit of measurement.
This is a classic paradox. The problem is that having a smallest unit of space-time doesn't actually make any more sense than traversing infinitely divisible dimensions. Infinite division should mean we can't go anywhere, but an LCD of space is pretty much incomprehensible. Exactly how would that work? The problem you describe here is deeper than math. It is not strictly an erroneous product of how math makes us define things.

Originally Posted by Blank
I think the current way we look at numbers can be comparable to the difference in calculation between pints, quarts, and gallons. We dub the number 1 to be the smallest number, but it seems we tend to be talking about gallons, when there's actually 4 quarts or 8 pints. Without some bonafide smallest unit of measurement, it's kind of meaningless to talk about numbers, no?
No one with a decent sense of math would simply call 1 the smallest number. Instead, try a phrase like "One is the first non-zero number in the natural numbers".

Anyhow, not being able to reduce to a smallest measurement does not make talking about numbers pointless, at all. Have you ever seen equations done with infinity? They're fun. The point is that you don't need this to be finite for math to have a purpose. In fact, how do you think a lack of smallest number would make talking about numbers pointless?

Originally Posted by Blank
Can the smallest unit of measurement ever be discovered? Something that cannot be divided or made any smaller? If so, how would it effect the mathematical world?
In math, no such number can be "discovered". You don't discover anything in math, every you can find must of automatically followed from the rules set out in the first place. In terms of math, we know that as long as you accept rational numbers, you can always divide a number. This is a concept that clearly plays itself out in your head. How could you find a number that's an exception?

5. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
In math, no such number can be "discovered". You don't discover anything in math, every you can find must of automatically followed from the rules set out in the first place. In terms of math, we know that as long as you accept rational numbers, you can always divide a number. This is a concept that clearly plays itself out in your head. How could you find a number that's an exception?
I'm not saying that the methodology of math is bullshit. I'm saying the foundation on which it stands is bullshit. There really isn't any such thing as multiplication or division, is there? It's an abstract tool. One I argue isn't entirely compatible with the physical universe.

Is infinity nonrational? Can you divide infinity?

Math would imply that there's an infinite number of infinite smallnesses of space between one point and another...however if we can even manage to travel at all, then either being infinitely small is finite and could be measured, or there might be no such thing as movement...or separation.

At what point does infinite become finite? That would likely be the lcd of physical mathematics.

6. Originally Posted by Blank
I'm not saying that the methodology of math is bullshit. I'm saying the foundation on which it stands is bullshit. There really isn't any such thing as multiplication or division, is there? It's an abstract tool. One I argue isn't entirely compatible with the physical universe.

Is infinity nonrational? Can you divide infinity?

Math would imply that there's an infinite number of infinite smallnesses of space between one point and another...however if we can even manage to travel at all, then either being infinitely small is finite and could be measured, or there might be no such thing as movement...or separation.

At what point does infinite become finite? That would likely be the lcd of physical mathematics.
You can't blame math for the inherent subjectivity of the human perspective. It's an internally consistent system, and that's the best we can hope for.

Also, think of numbers as ratios, not indivisible units -- it solves your problem of the fan being 5 or the fan being 1. The 5=1 in your first post is just a framing error, not a problem with math.

7. Originally Posted by Blank
I'm not saying that the methodology of math is bullshit. I'm saying the foundation on which it stands is bullshit. There really isn't any such thing as multiplication or division, is there? It's an abstract tool. One I argue isn't entirely compatible with the physical universe.

Is infinity nonrational? Can you divide infinity?
Back to Wikipedia.

Look at the fun things you can do with infinity! The golden phrase in there is "countably infinite".

But really, there are perfectly valuable equations that work with things far more ridiculous than infinity. Like, say, numbers with a negative square. Again, the problem emerges if you try approaching math too intuitively.

Originally Posted by Blank
Math would imply that there's an infinite number of infinite smallnesses of space between one point and another...however if we can even manage to travel at all, then either being infinitely small is finite and could be measured, or there might be no such thing as movement...or separation.

At what point does infinite become finite? That would likely be the lcd of physical mathematics.
Infinite doesn't become finite. There's nothing we could discover in physics that would make that happen because it is simply an inherent definition of an abstract concept.

If something is comes to an minimum size, it simply isn't infinite, it does not make infinite smallness finite, because it is not infinite smallness by definition.

8. Infinity proves there is a God.

9. Originally Posted by Lark
Infinity proves there is a God.
Simple, yet brilliant. I like.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•