[Comte De St. Germain]

Recently a friend of mine and I got into an argument over if the world could be considered in only quantifiable terms(as numbers) or is it more conceptual than math(my point of view on the debate). I personally could not see the entire existence of the universe only in mathematical terms. His argument being that all things humans experience can be coded into math and even things above our dimensions(4+ dimensions) can be calculated by math. I argued that it would not be possible to comprehend such things or prove them, thus making it conceptual and that human experience cannot be quantified as it comes together. This oversimplified what we said, but the argument was along those lines. RVF guys what are your thoughts on this?

[polymath]

Both concepts and mathematics are human structures that hold information. Neither of them is real.

Mathematics is a way of bookkeeping.

Concepts are a way of modeling reality.

Neither of them is able to fully reflect the universe around us. Even with all the tools at our disposal, we cannot perceive the overwhelming majority of things that happen in the universe. Now you tell me, how would we model or quantify something that we cannot perceive?

[Comte De St. Germain]

That was my issue with his argument. He said it was all numbers and that math existed of such concepts(multi-dimensional physics), thus making the world quantifiable. Before I had to leave I asked him that same question, in that it was impossible to quantify something that cannot be perceived.

[redbeard]

How do you quantify someone's health?

How do you quantify how enlightened an individual is?

How do you quantify how good someone's game is?

Most things can be boiled down to a measure...or a number, or at least a comparison...but it is still just an estimate or guess at how good one thing is to another.

Math has its limits. And without computers, that limit becomes much smaller.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

It sounds like you are arguing with someone who has elevated mathematics into a religion.

A born-again mathematician, if you will.

No amount of logic and reasoning is going to change his faith.

[cooledcannon]

I think math is the nature of the universe, and not a man made concept. I would think math encompasses everything, but if there is a "higher" spiritual dimension I would not know.

(05-19-2014 01:22 AM)redbeard Wrote:  

How do you quantify someone's health?

How do you quantify how enlightened an individual is?

How do you quantify how good someone's game is?

Most things can be boiled down to a measure...or a number, or at least a comparison...but it is still just an estimate or guess at how good one thing is to another.

Math has its limits. And without computers, that limit becomes much smaller.

You encompass everything about those topics... and into a number. Thats what programming is, really, a string of zeroes and ones. It exists with or without computers, so everything can really just be boiled to a number, even if it is really large.

A pixels position and color can be listed as a number, a picture can be the sum(theres probably a different/better method) of all the pixels. A video can be the sum of all pictures, with a different number signifying the audio. And so on.

(05-19-2014 01:27 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

It sounds like you are arguing with someone who has elevated mathematics into a religion.

A born-again mathematician, if you will.

No amount of logic and reasoning is going to change his faith.

I would argue logic and reasoning is applied math.

[cooledcannon]

Interestingly, some random chick posted on fb many years ago something similar, based on how works of art can be distilled down to a single number. Like the Mona lisa and various examples I cant remember. Basically it was a chick attention whoring and tryharding to be smart(I dont know her irl, so i wouldnt know). I think kids also commented on how copyrights mean you are copyrighting a number, albeit very large. It may have been the original post/picture, and the chick just shared it(not came up with the idea herself)

I commented on how child porn is basically a number. Back then, I was only 13 or so, and I loved adding randoms(with enough mutual friends) and trolling them in the comments of their stuff. Iirc, chick responded by how disgusted she was. Teh lolz.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

cooledcannon Wrote:

(05-19-2014 01:27 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

It sounds like you are arguing with someone who has elevated mathematics into a religion.

A born-again mathematician, if you will.

No amount of logic and reasoning is going to change his faith.

I would argue logic and reasoning is applied math.

I'm more inclined to believe that math is applied logic.

[cooledcannon]

(05-19-2014 04:20 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

cooledcannon Wrote:

(05-19-2014 01:27 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

It sounds like you are arguing with someone who has elevated mathematics into a religion.

A born-again mathematician, if you will.

No amount of logic and reasoning is going to change his faith.

I would argue logic and reasoning is applied math.

I'm more inclined to believe that math is applied logic.

Actually, you are right. I think that was what I read before(that math is applied logic); its just im feeling so fucked up and am not thinking clearly at all when i was posting it, which is why it was so wrong, and thought the phrase was the reverse.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(05-19-2014 04:24 AM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 04:20 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

cooledcannon Wrote:

(05-19-2014 01:27 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

It sounds like you are arguing with someone who has elevated mathematics into a religion.

A born-again mathematician, if you will.

No amount of logic and reasoning is going to change his faith.

I would argue logic and reasoning is applied math.

I'm more inclined to believe that math is applied logic.

Actually, you are right. I think that was what I read before(that math is applied logic); its just im feeling so fucked up and am not thinking clearly at all when i was posting it, which is why it was so wrong, and thought the phrase was the reverse.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(05-19-2014 01:27 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

It sounds like you are arguing with someone who has elevated mathematics into a religion.

A born-again mathematician, if you will.

No amount of logic and reasoning is going to change his faith.

He claims to be atheistic, and does not claim to have any spirituality period in any form not even through schools of philosophy that do not imply the existence of God. I wouldn't go so far to say he's a born again mathematician, but I feel he is either a nihilist or will progress to be one.

[TheKantian]

Your friend is naive.

People who talk about math and often times logic in this way usually have no understanding or knowledge of mathematics and logic.

[cooledcannon]

(05-19-2014 04:48 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 04:24 AM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 04:20 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

cooledcannon Wrote:

(05-19-2014 01:27 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

It sounds like you are arguing with someone who has elevated mathematics into a religion.

A born-again mathematician, if you will.

No amount of logic and reasoning is going to change his faith.

I would argue logic and reasoning is applied math.

I'm more inclined to believe that math is applied logic.

Actually, you are right. I think that was what I read before(that math is applied logic); its just im feeling so fucked up and am not thinking clearly at all when i was posting it, which is why it was so wrong, and thought the phrase was the reverse.

Its one of those days when I was horribly horribly depressed.

[cardguy]

Mathematics is a game with rules and no goals.

Philosophy is a game with goals and no rules. Indeed - most of the game consists of arguing over what the rules should be.

As for the argument between maths and concepts. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem might be important here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%...ss_theorem

Quote:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory

So even if you break the universe down into pure numbers. You will still have a little bit left over - in terms of trying to capture everything that is true aout the universe.

I think? I am no expert when it comes to Godel.

I am still trying to understand why there are 365 days in the year?

Since there are 52 weeks in a year and seven days in a week.

So surely - 52 x 7 should equal 365?

But it doesn't.

It equals 364.

[cooledcannon]

(05-19-2014 03:42 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Mathematics is a game with rules and no goals.

Philosophy is a game with goals and no rules. Indeed - most of the game consists of arguing over what the rules should be.

As for the argument between maths and concepts. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem might be important here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%...ss_theorem

Quote:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory

So even if you break the universe down into pure numbers. You will still have a little bit left over - in terms of trying to capture everything that is true aout the universe.

I think? I am no expert when it comes to Godel.

I am still trying to understand why there are 365 days in the year?

Since there are 52 weeks in a year and seven days in a week.

So surely - 52 x 7 should equal 365?

But it doesn't.

It equals 364.

Basically, Godels theorem is, no matter how complex your math theory is, it cant prove the basic stuff. Like 1+1=2, for example. It relies on that to be true, but cannot prove it, so the entire theory is hinging on it. It is consistent(and correct), but not complete, because it cannot prove the basic principle.

If something is complete, it cannot be consistent(or correct) because it would just be circular logic that is wrong.

I tried to explain it in a way that non nerds will get, but I probably am not doing that well.

Also, a year is 364(and a quarter, but not exactly) days because thats how long the earth takes to orbit around the sun. A day is that long because its how long the earth takes to make one full rotation on its axis(one day and night cycle).

Not sure why a week or a month is the length it is, but I assume those are more society determined than objectively. A month is relatively close to the length of time the moon takes to orbit the earth, but not exactly(iirc, its 28 days)

[cardguy]

Nope - a year is 365.24 days long.

Which means it is not true to say there are exactly 52 weeks in a year.

Since 52 multiplied by 7 equals 364! :-)

I stumbled on this face during a maths lesson.

I had to work out how much something cost per year.

It involved working out the cost per day - but you had to give the answer in terms of the cost per year.

Instead of multiplying my answer by 365 to get the answer. I was bored and decided to multiply it by 52 and then 7 - naturally assuming it would give me the same answer as multiplying by 365.

I got the answer wrong. When the teacher handed back my test paper - I quickly figured out what had happened.

I was like - 'Fuck this maths test - I have a Nobel prize to claim!'

Still waiting to hear back from Sweden...

[cooledcannon]

Haha yeah I meant 365... No seriously I did!

[cardguy]

NOTE: Please bear in mind that cooledcannon didn't know how many days there are in a year.

This might be important when judging his opinions about the ontological structure of mathematics and how it relates to our understanding of the universe.

Just sayin'!

:-)

[Comte De St. Germain]

(05-19-2014 03:42 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Mathematics is a game with rules and no goals.

Philosophy is a game with goals and no rules. Indeed - most of the game consists of arguing over what the rules should be.

As for the argument between maths and concepts. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem might be important here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%...ss_theorem

Quote:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory

So even if you break the universe down into pure numbers. You will still have a little bit left over - in terms of trying to capture everything that is true aout the universe.

I think? I am no expert when it comes to Godel.

I am still trying to understand why there are 365 days in the year?

Since there are 52 weeks in a year and seven days in a week.

So surely - 52 x 7 should equal 365?

But it doesn't.

It equals 364.

Major props Cardguy this theorem is brilliant. Bookmarking this. I never thought something like this existed lol.

[cardguy]

Wait a minute?

Which theorem?

Godel's shitty theorem about the nature of truth and consistency in any mathematical system.

Or my brilliant theorem about the Mystery of The Missing Day?

[Comte De St. Germain]

[cardguy]

Your meme game is epic!

[TheKantian]

(05-19-2014 03:49 PM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

Basically, Godels theorem is, no matter how complex your math theory is, it cant prove the basic stuff. Like 1+1=2, for example. It relies on that to be true, but cannot prove it, so the entire theory is hinging on it. It is consistent(and correct), but not complete, because it cannot prove the basic principle.

If something is complete, it cannot be consistent(or correct) because it would just be circular logic that is wrong.

Nah, it's not about proving the basic stuff. The basic idea is it's saying for any formal system capable of expressing basic arithmetic then the system is incomplete. That's for the first theorem and the second theorem is that it cannot prove it's own consistency.

(05-19-2014 04:16 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Nope - a year is 365.24 days long.

Which means it is not true to say there are exactly 52 weeks in a year.

Since 52 multiplied by 7 equals 364! :-)

I stumbled on this face during a maths lesson.

I had to work out how much something cost per year.

It involved working out the cost per day - but you had to give the answer in terms of the cost per year.

Instead of multiplying my answer by 365 to get the answer. I was bored and decided to multiply it by 52 and then 7 - naturally assuming it would give me the same answer as multiplying by 365.

I got the answer wrong. When the teacher handed back my test paper - I quickly figured out what had happened.

I was like - 'Fuck this maths test - I have a Nobel prize to claim!'

Still waiting to hear back from Sweden...

Nah, 365 divided by 7 is approximately 52 weeks.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(05-19-2014 04:16 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Nope - a year is 365.24 days long.

Which means it is not true to say there are exactly 52 weeks in a year.

Since 52 multiplied by 7 equals 364! :-)

According to Professor Google, 1 year = 52.1775 weeks, not 52. If you had added the .1775, you would have gotten the correct answer, and you would have aced the math test, and you would indeed have gone on to win a Nobel peace prize.