4 ms·

> Mathematics is most definitely a human endeavor, and so we can’t really make claims about its existence in the universe independent of humans. I think the id

by LocalH 4y ago

> Mathematics is most definitely a human endeavor, and so we can’t really make claims about its existence in the universe independent of humans. I think the idea is that math is not created by humans, but documented by humans. Sure, the specific terminology may be our invention, but there are basic mathematical properties that seem (from our perspective) like they should be universal. For example, whatever names a being has for the numbers 1 and 2, if you take that 1 and add 1 more, you must get 2 (or the "local equivalent") as the result. My guess is that, if what we call math isn't truly universal, it's probably at least universally true within the realm of physical life, and there's likely some massive causal chain from the root properties of physics itself to the mathematical properties that we call "math". When it comes to raw, untethered "consciousness" (or whatever one would prefer to call it), this may not hold true even in the slightest. Yes, this comment steps slightly outside what could ever be determined purely by the scientific method at the end. I feel it is useful to do so in discussion, even when that cannot directly enter into research. There are some truths to the larger universe that I don't think the scientific method will ever truly be able to uncover, just due to it's rigor. Some aspects of the universe are just simply not falsifiable, but they're still worthy of discussion with an open mind.

dTal 4y ago
There is most certainly a massive causal chain between physics and what humans call "math", because everything humans do is determined by the laws of physics. The causal chain leads through millions of years of evolution and tens of thousands of years of culture. "The numbers 1 and 2" are a complex web of analogies that have not actually been demonstrated to "exist" outside of our minds, so evidence that alien mathematicians would have words for them is much weaker than our intuition would suggest. The question that must be answered is "Given the constraint of precisely modelling the world in a useful way, to what extent are all rule-based systems isomorphic?" Responding to your second point, I'm afraid I can't agree with you that unfalsifiable propositions are "useful" discussion contributions - especially not with an "open mind". The only criterion on which such propositions can be judged is whether they are fun to believe, and that is a very dangerous muscle to flex.

by LocalH 4y ago

dTal 4y ago

There is most certainly a massive causal chain between physics and what humans call "math", because everything humans do is determined by the laws of physics. The causal chain leads through millions of years of evolution and tens of thousands of years of culture. "The numbers 1 and 2" are a complex web of analogies that have not actually been demonstrated to "exist" outside of our minds, so evidence that alien mathematicians would have words for them is much weaker than our intuition would suggest. The question that must be answered is "Given the constraint of precisely modelling the world in a useful way, to what extent are all rule-based systems isomorphic?" Responding to your second point, I'm afraid I can't agree with you that unfalsifiable propositions are "useful" discussion contributions - especially not with an "open mind". The only criterion on which such propositions can be judged is whether they are fun to believe, and that is a very dangerous muscle to flex.