I agree, it is what I have been trying to argue all along. As Tegmark says: "the universe does not have some mathematical properties, it has only mathematical properties" I think the semantic confusion is that mathematical numbers (symbolic representations) are invented by humans (perhaps our greatest intellectual accomplishment), whereas in nature there are no numbers, but only specific values which relate and interact mathematically, depending on the environment in which they must function. I love the mathematics of H2O. At room temparature it has fluid properties and functions as a liquid; below freezing it has solid properties and functions as a solid; above boiling temperatures it has gaseous properties and functions as a gas. A body of simple molecules, able to exist in three different states, each state subject to specific mathematical functions, due to the temparature of the environment. IMO, a compelling example of the mathematical essence of the universe.
See, now I'm confused by your arguments. You seem previously to be arguing that mathematics is more than just the language, yet here you are saying that it is the "formal abstract representations..." i.e. a language, that describes "*functions*". If you are saying that mathematics is merely a language then, as Baldeee and others have pointed out, it is a rather trivial matter that the language does not define, create, or do anything other than represent/model reality. Baldeee raised the comparison of English also being able to describe those functions in as equally accurate a manner, albeit not necessarily understood by non-English speaking people. But it is trivial that any language is only understood by those who understand it. The same is true of the language of mathematics. But you seem to be arguing that mathematics is not just the language but also that it IS the functions by which the universe operates. Yet your own language seems to be confusing on this matter. This is why I asked for people to define the term, as to some it is only the language, to others it is the relationships, the functions themselves. Does the fact that those functions can be expressed perfectly in the mathematical language mean the functions themselves are mathematics? Or merely mathematical? Or neither? The same functions can be expressed in Japanese just as accurately, but are the functions therefore Japanese? Sure, I agree that the universe operates according to strict relationships (even if probabilistic), to certain truths, that we may or may not ever discover. This is surely true of any stable system, as has previously been mentioned (or it may have been in the "lost period"), and what we are arguing about here is the nature of those relationships, those laws, rules, "functions". Are they mathematical simply because they can be accurately described in the language of maths? I would say not as we can describe them in English as well. But then what other word is there that quite so succinctly captures the essence of those relationships? Maybe it's just a matter of semantics after all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry, it was in response to Pluto2"s post that mathematics are only descriptive and not the real thing. But you are right, my answer seems confusing. And that is the problem of the semantics between Human Mathematics, which are descriptive and the Universal Mathematics which are *functions* of the Universe. I agree. I hope I have corrected this now. My position is that the Universe is a *thing* but that its mathematical *functions* are not things but the how the *functions* it emplyed long before we discovered that, and that function is mathematical. I believe I answered that question in a previous reply to someone. IMO, that statement is a false equivalence. I believe the reverse is true. The Universe functions mathematically, which can be observed, understood, and formalized in human scientific mathematical language. If you watched the link, everyone agrees that they're experiening a feeling of discovery, rather than of inventing the language of the Universe. And let me qualify *language* with the exchange of "*information* in the universe itself is through the mathematical function. *Mathematical* works fine for me, but it depends on the contexts it is used in. I agree, I based my argument on the link to ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0 which is actually a condensed version of my verbose attemps to explain it. (all bolded words by me)
I'd say that human beings pioneered counting and invented the names of numbers 'one', 'two' and so on. They invented the abstract ideas of 'addition' and of 'number' itself. The reason why addition is useful in our lives is that grouping things together seems to be isomorphic to counting, it shares the same structure, it follows the same rules. The proposition 'one apple plus one apple equals two apples' is true of physical reality since the process of grouping a single apple together with another single apple and then counting them also produces 'two' as a result. I wouldn't say that this proves the metaphysical conclusion that reality ultimately consists of mathematics. It just shows that reality has structure and order, and that humanity's mathematical creation is capable of capturing and representing some of that order. If there were no humans, there would be nobody named 'Fibonacci' and no idea of 'Fibonacci's sequence'. There would still be snail shells that develop through physical processes, the results of which seemingly produce Fibonacci's sequence when subjected to measurement by humans who possess the concept. So the human-originated idea of Fibonacci's sequence seemingly captures another isomorphism between the logical relations between abstract human thoughts (pure mathematics) and the behavior of physical reality. The question of why the logical relationships between abstract ideas in the human mind (or in the mind of any suitable cognizer I would suspect) sometimes (but not always) appear to hold true in the rest of reality as well, remains one of the more profound mysteries. It still isn't clear what justifies the widespread intuitions of necessity associated with these ideas either. I don't want to jump to premature metaphysical conclusions regarding these fundamental questions. It's fun and often intellectually productive to speculate, but I don't think that any of us has the final answers.
Yes, represented, like cavemen are represented by Fred Flintstone. Yes, the forces are real. The vectors that represent them are not. Yes, relationships are real. The words and/or numbers that represent them are not. A representation of reality is not reality.
If you have a brain and the ability to think, as opposed to a drawing of a brain, please, make use of it.
So how would you use your brain to test your idea? What specific tests would you use to determine whether mathematics is "real"?
Observing nature. Reality. As Write4U wrote, we cannot see equations popping up in reality, but only the values and functions. Physical reality IS mathematics. The fact that we can represent something means that the language we use is isomorphic to that something. Some way, some how.
I asked you to be specific. Describe an experiment that would show that mathematics "is" real as opposed to just describing what is real.
That would confirm that numbers can be used to describe atoms. How could your experiment falsify your hypothesis?
I wanted to revisit this statement because I feel there is an inherent weakness in that argument. It is true that *today* we can have explanatory narratives accompanying the maths themselves, because we are beginning to understand what really goes on in the universe.. But before the invention of human symbolic mathematics which formally (scientifically) describe the mathematical functions of the universe , many narrative attempts in many languages had been made to describe the (spiritual) nature of the universe, and they were all wrong, with a few exceptions, such as Pythagoras, Plato, Hypatia, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc. But then, in the early days many of these brilliant minds were silenced by accusations of engaging in *blasphemy* or *witchcraft* and being in "league with the devil", due to the existing *narratives* (scriptures) of those days. How many *narratives* (pick your language) of the nature of the universe have been trashed and relegated to the dumpster? A living sentient god, the hand of god, devil, angels, demons, demonic possession, ghoulies, ghosties, miracles, heaven, hell, purgatory, anger, vengeance, jealousy, divine instructions, "god works in mysterious ways"!!!! etc, etc, etc.......... the list goes on. All these books and scriptures were early attempts to explain the nature of Universal functions. Did they accurately describe the nature (essence) of the universe? I think not. The Egyptian pyramids were constructed employing *Pi* long before we recognized it was a universal mathematical constant. The simple fact was that Egyptians used *wheels* to measure distances and thus unwittingly used *Pi* to construct these great works. Thus comparing the language of mathematics (symbolically or by narrative) to subjective and ignorant human narrative language of Universal functions is not a strong argument and therefore trivial in respect to Truth. It was only after real measurements were made by the founders of mathematics and formally described in symbolic language, that our *understanding* of how the universe functions can be described (approximated) by verbal communication. We need only look at this thread to see how inexact narratives can be. Personally I enjoy this type of exchange, because "understanding" is an evolutionary process and as interested layman I learn from every exchange and eventually (hopefully) will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and gain a good understanding of the basic natural universal functions. p.s. as an ex-musician, I gained an understanding of the wave function, harmonics, interference, and last but not least *empathic response*, not only in humans but in all living and perhaps even in inanimate matter. "Movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction"..
I am beginning to consider that the mathematical nature of living beings allows us to intuitively recognize the mathematical nature of "counting". Actual experiment with Rhesus monkeys (evolutionary quite far removed from humans) have the ability to count, at least in some abstract way. They can clearly make a distiction and choices between "more or less" of something. In fact when compared to human subjects the monkeys held their own in instant recognition of different amounts. IMO, that is a rudimentary form of mathematical mental abiities..
Your statement is false to begin with. It would only confirm that we can count the number of atoms. Spellbound did not say or even imply that counting atoms describe atoms themselves. Your challenge to falsify what Spellbound actually said is a strawman. There was no attempt to describe atoms, only a numerical identification.
You again seem to be confusing the mere language with the functions that the language describes, tend giving importance to the language used rather than to the discovery of the function. Any language can describe the function, but that does not mean the function is "of the language". If mathematics is the language then describing something in that language does not inherently make something mathematical any more than describing something in Japanese makes that thing japaneses... unless we also use the term "mathematical" to describe the nature of the function, which just so happens to be most succinctly and efficiently written in the language of mathematics, the language being the specific shorthand developed to efficiently describe the functions. But you are still equating the two (the language and the functions themselves) when to do so is unwarranted and, as shown, fallacious, although you can't seem to accept the argument that demonstrates this. Yet the universe still operated, the functions still existed, prior to the language that most efficiently describes them. Thus there is indeed separation between the language and the functions themselves, I am sure you must now agree. To be blunt: so what? That they did this and didn't have the language of mathematics shows quote clearly the distinction between the two, surely? Yet you continue to argue, for some reason, for the language being a key factor in your argument? Your thinking seems vague and confused, even if at the heart of it, that the functions themselves are key, seems quite reasonable. You have been arguing for the importance of maths due to the symbolic language we use for it, yet here you have argued that the functions exist whether we have the language or not (which I agree with) - the same way the sea exists whether or not we have a word for it - and then you conclude that the language of maths is somehow not to be considered as just another language?? Even though as a language it conforms exactly to the role of any other language: the symbolic/written representation of what we wish to convey. Your conclusion simply does not follow your argument. The argument of narratives often being inexact is merely an argument from complexity. The symbolic language of maths is regimented, conscise and efficient, governed by a few rules. The narrative language less so. That the rules of the language of maths conform to the rules of the functions they are trying to describe is why the language is efficient, but it is still just a language. Talk and argue about the nature of the functions themselves, but arguments trying to use the language of maths itself as somehow elevating what it describes seem flawed. Focus on the functions that are being described, how they follow certain rules etc, how every operational system seems derived from those rules, and you would get further than following this issue of language, IMHO. One is never an ex-musician. One either is musician or one is not. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But don't go down the route of suggesting empathic responses in inanimate objects: that way lies pure woo. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I never claimed that human mathematics *makes* something mathematical. On the contrary, my claim is that the universal functions are mathematical and when we *discovered* this mathematical nature, we recognized it and only then were we able to translate the mathematical functions into exact human mathematical language. It is a matter of priority. But it must also be admitted that most earlier attempts to explain what we observed were not only inexact, but just plain wrong, regardless of the local spoken language. The early discovery of constellations had mystical meanings, assumed to influence earthly events and still thrives today in Astrology. I have never argued against that . In fact I have tried to explain, but apparently not succesfully. Good, at least we seem in agreement with the thrust of my argument. The rest may be the impression I gave, but is not what I was trying to promote. Yes, but all I claim is that human invented mathematical language is specific to describe the Universal mathematical constants and functions. No argument from me here. Sorry, if I gave that impression, but that was not the intent. . Actually, rather than trying to explain a specific function, my *intent* is to find a common denominator to all universal functions. This is why I am a fan of Bohmian Mechanics. True, I meant that I am no longer playing music for a living in front of audiences, where *empathy* is an integral part of the artist/audience interaction. I just wondered if in some way this phenomenon is a property of the universal mathematical functions. One argument in favor is that it does not violate the mathematical function. Thank you for that thoughtful argument. You are absolutely right to avoid getting caught up in the semantics, or perhaps requires more thought on my part to clarify my thoughts before I post them. p.s. As to the woo aspect of *empathy*, consider the cause for empathic response in most living things. As I understand it, human empathy is a result of the *mirror function* in our neural network and if we generalize this even more into a *universal mirror function*, that might then possibly relate to say, *entanglement* , which clearly displays a mirror function. We don't know how or why, but from what I understand, entanglement is a real *mirror* phenomenon. IMO, a discussion of the *mirror function* and *empathic response*, which I feel may be related to, and an extension of the abstract concept that "every function is in the direction of greatest satisfaction". However , that is perhaps better suited for another thread.
Again... I asked you to describe an experiment to test your hypothesis. If nothing existed, there could be no test and your hypothesis would not be falsifiable - i.e. not scientific.
