Order is Independent of Thought

[Xander]

Equally interesting is the concept of "no one is around", which could lead to long definitions on space and dimensions

Well there are those ones with the "supermodel" gene. They're not a round. More kinda flat but with bumps

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Who created the scientific theory of mathematics?
Nobody.

We chose the version of the number theory?
The number theory is not an election.

We choose our pattern of geometry yes.
Our geometry?

Science is not a creative faculty.
Science is about understanding the creative faculty.

Not an art. Science is about understanding of what is.

Art is about creation.
Science is discovery.

Pure mathematics is much more like art than science. Applied mathematics is more like science than art. The foundation of applied mathematics comes from pure mathematics. Pure mathematics is created. It doesn't have to be that way. One can choose the postulates as well as the method of proof. It's not a science.

 

[ygolo]

Who created the scientific theory of mathematics?
Nobody.

We chose the version of the number theory?
The number theory is not an election.

We choose our pattern of geometry yes.
Our geometry?

Science is not a creative faculty.
Science is about understanding the creative faculty.

Not an art. Science is about understanding of what is.

Art is about creation.
Science is discovery.

Whether we talk about science or art or trade or craft, we are always talking about human activity.

There is science in art, and art in science. The distinctions aren't that clear cut.

Was Michaelangelo solely an artist? Is so why do the sculptures withstand their own weight? Why did he spend so much time studying human anatomy?

Godel was an artist, his media was was a logical construct.

When people creates artwork on the computer, they are manipulating logical constructs (the bits on the hard-disk), nothing more. Does that mean they are not artists, but scientists?

When a programmer writes something that (s)he considers beautiful or poetic, (s)he is doing the same thing using a different set of modalities.

It is the same when a mathematician creates a theory. I can create a "calculus" of bloops and bleeps if I feel like it. Whether anyone else will care is an entirely different question.

The 15 puzzle and Rubik's cube were a little excursions in mathematics. People cared because it was fun. Other mathematicians cared little. But that does not mean there was no creation.

 

[aeon]

The ideas of order and disorder speak to our ability, or lack thereof, to recognize patterns in our awareness. Anything more we cannot be certain.

As for the tree in the forest, given that the definition of sound depends on the ability of a listener to hear, if they are not present no sound is produced, even if vibratory excitation of molecules occurs.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Xander]

Whether we talk about science or art or trade or craft, we are always talking about human activity.

There is science in art, and art in science. The distinctions aren't that clear cut.

Was Michaelangelo solely an artist? Is so why do the sculptures withstand their own weight? Why did he spend so much time studying human anatomy?

Godel was an artist, his media was was a logical construct.

When people creates artwork on the computer, they are manipulating logical constructs (the bits on the hard-disk), nothing more. Does that mean they are not artists, but scientists?

When a programmer writes something that (s)he considers beautiful or poetic, (s)he is doing the same thing using a different set of modalities.

It is the same when a mathematician creates a theory. I can create a "calculus" of bloops and bleeps if I feel like it. Whether anyone else will care is an entirely different question.

The 15 puzzle and Rubik's cube were a little excursions in mathematics. People cared because it was fun. Other mathematicians cared little. But that does not mean there was no creation.

You can blur the line between science and art in such fashion but only really when you look too close.

Though all things practical involve some understanding of the materials used and the constructions made it is not usually the focus of art to reach this understanding where as it is with science, that is why science is discovery.

With art you are creating something to convey a certain meaning and you have carte blanch to alter what would normally be depicted to suit that message you wish to contain in it. Hence art is not as much about the discovery of a pattern but more about the interweaving of a pattern (the message or whatever) into the object created.

As such it can be seen that in terms of focus at least the artist creates and the scientist discovers.

 

[wildcat]

Pure mathematics is much more like art than science. Applied mathematics is more like science than art. The foundation of applied mathematics comes from pure mathematics. Pure mathematics is created. It doesn't have to be that way. One can choose the postulates as well as the method of proof. It's not a science.

If that is the case why do you then walk about the face of the earth and do not float in the air?
If mathematics is an invention, as you say, you should not be gravitationally bound to a celestial object called the Earth which in turn should not be gravitationally bound to the Sun.

Why do the celestial objects stay in their orbits? Because they are supernatural beings? After all the gods and goddeses of the ancients carry their names.
This, however is because of another reason.

The study of the celestial bodies and their movements brought about the science of mathematics in the Valley of the Two Rivers 5000 years ago.

Hence the basis of mathematics is in the natural science of Astrology, the original name for Astronomy.

This in turn is based on the movement of the solar bodies?

A deception. The movement is not really there. The solar bodies do not move. We think they do. We "see" them moving.
A fallacy created by our brain, the organ of sight.

What our brains interprets as a movement is but an order of succession, the foundation of "geometric" numbers.

Mathematics is bound by basic laws the basis of which is the order of the universe.

Our creation?

 

[wildcat]

My thoughts too. Also I've heard it was used mainly as an aid to meditation.
However I find it amusing to try to answer literally the question.

A different postulation?
Is it ever?

The vibration is there all right but does it preclude the fact that sound as such is only created by and for biological life?

 

[wildcat]

You can blur the line between science and art in such fashion but only really when you look too close.

Though all things practical involve some understanding of the materials used and the constructions made it is not usually the focus of art to reach this understanding where as it is with science, that is why science is discovery.

With art you are creating something to convey a certain meaning and you have carte blanch to alter what would normally be depicted to suit that message you wish to contain in it. Hence art is not as much about the discovery of a pattern but more about the interweaving of a pattern (the message or whatever) into the object created.

As such it can be seen that in terms of focus at least the artist creates and the scientist discovers.

Well said.

Things can only be seen at a distance.

 

[Xander]

If that is the case why do you then walk about the face of the earth and do not float in the air?
If mathematics is an invention, as you say, you should not be gravitationally bound to a celestial object called the Earth which in turn should not be gravitationally bound to the Sun.

Why do the celestial objects stay in their orbits? Because they are supernatural beings? After all the gods and goddeses of the ancients carry their names.
This, however is because of another reason.

The study of the celestial bodies and their movements brought about the science of mathematics in the Valley of the Two Rivers 5000 years ago.

Hence the basis of mathematics is in the natural science of Astrology, the original name for Astronomy.

This in turn is based on the movement of the solar bodies?

A deception. The movement is not really there. The solar bodies do not move. We think they do. We "see" them moving.
A fallacy created by our brain, the organ of sight.

What our brains interprets as a movement is but an order of succession, the foundation of "geometric" numbers.

Mathematics is bound by basic laws the basis of which is the order of the universe.

Our creation?

Based on the ideas of intellectual property you may note a pattern in a set of objects, the objects may or may not be yours but the pattern which you derive from them is yours. Is this not mathematics?

Yes it was there to be discovered but the pattern does not exist in itself only the points upon which the pattern is based.

 

[Xander]

Things can only be seen at a distance.

Do you ever think that we're perhaps using slightly more intuition in our thinking than is necessarily healthy?

 

[lastrailway]

A different postulation?
Is it ever?

The vibration is there all right but does it preclude the fact that sound as such is only created by and for biological life?

It depends of how we define sound, I think.
If we accept sound is only the transmission of energy by vibration, then the sound exists independently if someone can receive the wave. That's how I usually define it, actually.
But I guess that we could define it as a wave transmitted to the tympanic membrane of an animal, thus audible.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

If that is the case why do you then walk about the face of the earth and do not float in the air?
If mathematics is an invention, as you say, you should not be gravitationally bound to a celestial object called the Earth which in turn should not be gravitationally bound to the Sun.

Why do the celestial objects stay in their orbits? Because they are supernatural beings? After all the gods and goddeses of the ancients carry their names.
This, however is because of another reason.

You are talking about science and not mathematics. They are two separate things. Mathematics is used in science, but it's also used in a lot of other things too. There are many more uses for mathematics than explaining the laws of nature. More important there is plenty of mathematics out there that has no practical use whatsoever. Mathematics is not required to reflect reality in the slightest.

The study of the celestial bodies and their movements brought about the science of mathematics in the Valley of the Two Rivers 5000 years ago.

Mathematics was started in a prehistoric time when someone first came up with a concept for the number 2.

Hence the basis of mathematics is in the natural science of Astrology, the original name for Astronomy.

This in turn is based on the movement of the solar bodies?

A deception. The movement is not really there. The solar bodies do not move. We think they do. We "see" them moving.
A fallacy created by our brain, the organ of sight.

What our brains interprets as a movement is but an order of succession, the foundation of "geometric" numbers.

Mathematics is bound by basic laws the basis of which is the order of the universe.

Our creation?

Mathematics is in no way bound by any type of natural laws. Euclidean geometry, for example, assumes that the world is flat! Even at its closest to science it's still an abstraction of reality. At worst it has nothing to do with the natural world whatsoever.

 

[wildcat]

You are talking about science and not mathematics. They are two separate things. Mathematics is used in science, but it's also used in a lot of other things too. There are many more uses for mathematics than explaining the laws of nature. More important there is plenty of mathematics out there that has no practical use whatsoever. Mathematics is not required to reflect reality in the slightest.



Mathematics was started in a prehistoric time when someone first came up with a concept for the number 2.



Mathematics is in no way bound by any type of natural laws. Euclidean geometry, for example, assumes that the world is flat! Even at its closest to science it's still an abstraction of reality. At worst it has nothing to do with the natural world whatsoever.

I had a good laugh when I read your post! Please excuse me, I am being in no way offensive.
And yet the basic thing is there. You said it:
.. there is plenty of mathematics out there that has no practical use whatsoever.
Exactly.


.. someone came up with the concept for the number two.
When I was young my wife and I had a dog and a cat. Our dog and cat thought my wife and I were one person, divided into two? They did not know we were separate entities?
Please.

What is sight, in essence? Sight is cognition.

Cognition is the basics and the origin of biological life. Later, cognition created the brain, the organ of sight.
The word sight means literally cognition. Do you SEE what I say? To see is to understand, to know.

The brain did not create cognition. What did the first cell do? It di-vided. Di < Dis > apart > a part: originating in the concept 2.

.. videre < uidere was a lost verb already at the time of the Roman Republic. The origin is the Indo-European root WID = to know > to see.

The cell does not know what it is doing when it divides? Our cognition is the cognition? Our mathematics is the mathematics? Only Homo Sapiens Sapiens can understand the concept of 2?

Dogs and cats believe their master and mistress constitute one entity?

Intelligence suddenly erupted in the human brain?

An architect or a carpenter do not need to be concerned about the curvature of the earth. It has no relevance in their little world.

The Sumerians found mathematics as a by-product of astronomy 1800 years prior to the Greeks. They invented the sun clock. They did not assume the world was flat.

Does the concrete precede the abstract?

 

[Xander]

Me thinks that Wildcat and Liquid Laser have the same stick but disagree on how it should be picked up and thrown

Maths is pattern and pattern prediction but maths is not a pattern itself.

 

[wildcat]

Me thinks that Wildcat and Liquid Laser have the same stick but disagree on how it should be picked up and thrown

Maths is pattern and pattern prediction but maths is not a pattern itself.

Of course you are right there old boy. I have been wondering how long we shall go on with this little comedy.

 

[wildcat]

It depends of how we define sound, I think.
If we accept sound is only the transmission of energy by vibration, then the sound exists independently if someone can receive the wave. That's how I usually define it, actually.
But I guess that we could define it as a wave transmitted to the tympanic membrane of an animal, thus audible.

Yes. Semantics rule as you say.
But of course sounds of silence are the best sounds. No transmission of energy by vibration there.

 

[Xander]

Of course you are right there old boy. I have been wondering how long we shall go on with this little comedy.

Comedy? I was noting that you two were thinking from different starting points but the whole investigation into the nature of maths is quite interesting. Don't stop on my account.

 

[wildcat]

Comedy? I was noting that you two were thinking from different starting points but the whole investigation into the nature of maths is quite interesting. Don't stop on my account.

All right. There lies still something at the store not said.
As lastrailway noted, everything boils down to semantics in the end.

Yet we do not discuss semantics. A third of my threads has been about semantics, but this is not it.

What is mathematics? Mathematics is the order of what is.

It is not anything we created.

Mathematics is the sound of silence.

 

[Xander]

All right. There lies still something at the store not said.
As lastrailway noted, everything boils down to semantics in the end.

Yet we do not discuss semantics. A third of my threads has been about semantics, but this is not it.

What is mathematics? Mathematics is the order of what is.

It is not anything we created.

Mathematics is the sound of silence.

Ah but we created the orange, before that it was merely a thing. We created maths because we found it, named it and categorised it.

 

[wildcat]

Ah but we created the orange, before that it was merely a thing. We created maths because we found it, named it and categorised it.

We did.
However our first ancestor did not.

Semantics does name?
No.

Semantics precedes language.
An appellation obstructs to see the thing it represents.

Semantics is about concept only.