3 ms·
You might as well ask "Are ideas real?" in the broader philosophic sense. Yes, they (with math as a subset) are real existents within consciousness. The questio
by RagnarD 3y ago
You might as well ask "Are ideas real?" in the broader philosophic sense. Yes, they (with math as a subset) are real existents within consciousness. The question of mathematical ideas' connection to reality is epistemological. "Real reality" pertains to metaphysics - the externally perceivable stuff of reality that exists independent of our minds (as in, eternally prior to, and subsequent to, the existence of any humans or other beings with conceptual consciousness.) Math is an epistemological tool to abstract the causality of existence into a simplified structure amenable to consideration and manipulation by human consciousness.
A quadratic equation can be used to approximate the coordinates of the trajectory of a thrown object in a gravity field. I think the really interesting question is why that particular equation reflects that trajectory. Arithmetic operators - multiplication and addition in that case - in a particular order, are approximating the causal operations of existence that are actually at work. I think of this as the philosophy of mathematics and much more should be done to investigate it.
- coxmichael 3y ago> Math is an epistemological tool to abstract the causality of existence into a simplified structure The mathematics to accurately predict or relay reality is still complex enough that it’s often beyond us. You’re right in that it’s a tool to understand, but if we’re using simplified math for simplified reality, is it really epistemological? As you suggest, math isn’t outside the boundary of philosophic investigation. It never was in the past, and I don’t think better approximations change that calculation.
- balder1991 3y agoYou made me remember this article you might have read before: https://www.wired.com/story/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never-understand/ https://www.wired.com/story/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-...
- coxmichael 3y agoThanks, I’ll give it a read
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sharts 3y ago> the externally perceivable stuff of reality that exists independent of our minds How can any perception be independent of mind consciousness? And how can mathematics reflect anything other than that consciousness?
- RagnarD 3y agoIt's perceivable as long as a consciousness exists with sense organs. Existence doesn't depend on that perception. Existence existed long before any minds existed and will it exist long after. ("Long" is a euphemism here for eternally.)
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago> real existents within consciousness "Within consciousness" doesn't belong here. Even if all sentient life in the universe died out tomorrow, the idea of triangles (and "triangluarity") would still exist.
- bandie91 3y agowell… on the other hand: have been triangles ever experienced without a consciousness? this "the idea of triangles would still exist" statement looks very reasonable, but can we ever proove it? you can not remove ALL consciousness to verify. at least a bit consciousness must be in the system to do the experiment. yes, it very much coincides with all of our understanding of reality, that abstract ideas like triangluarity is independent from any consciousness. at least any consciousness known or conceivable to us so far. so my extension to this statement would be - admittedly supernaturally-sounding - that: Even if all sentient life in the universe died out tomorrow, the idea of triangles (and "triangluarity") would still exist, possibly because there is a consciousness above/beyond of the conceivable the universe to sustain their existence.
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoWe're very quickly coming to the realization that information is a physical quantity, like mass or energy. (And can be measured and follows some sort of physical laws.) If so, then consciousness doesn't need to exist for information structures to exist.