Is mathematics invented or discovered ?

[UnbornTao]

6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Energy. 

I am not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Distance, movement, patterns, reactions. To me, that's what comes to mind when watching the video above.

Edited 17 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I am not exactly sure what you mean by that.

That's a simple example of energy. But energy is much more than that. It's everything. 

 

[UnbornTao]

@Salvijus i just edited that in.  

Distance, movement, patterns, reactions. To me, that's what comes to mind when watching the video above.

So the question remains: what is language?

Edited 17 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

11 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Distance, movement, patterns, reactions. To me, that's what comes to mind when watching the video above.

Those are the different manifestions of energy. It's the message that the energy is conveying. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Salvijus

[UnbornTao]

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Those are the different manifestions of energy. It's the messege. 

Agree to disagree  

For example, there's no "message" as an object. What's objectively there is perception, sound, etc.

Edited 17 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Salvijus]

28 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

For example, there's no "message" as an object. What's objectively there is perception, sound, etc.

The manifestions of energy are objective and with an objective message. Everything can be said by how you reveberate. And that reverberation will have a universal meaning, not a personal invented one. 

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, if you like. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Salvijus

[UnbornTao]

7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The manifestion of geometry, color, quality, feel is objective and it carries a message. Everything can be said by how you reveberate. And that reverberation will have a universal meaning, not a personal invented one. 

Hmm, okay. Let me take some time to contemplate and to think about what to say next.

[Salvijus]

Ok

[UnbornTao]

37 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The manifestions of energy are objective and with an objective message. Everything can be said by how you reveberate. And that reverberation will have a universal meaning, not a personal invented one. 

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, if you like. 

Yeah, my best answer is for us to contemplate what languag  eis on our own and maybe then share the results here. Because I don't think it's something that can be easily solved.

[Salvijus]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Yeah, my best answer is for us to contemplate what languag  eis on our own and maybe then share the results here. Because I don't think it's something that can be easily solved.

Well I already gave mine. Language is a form of communication. Be it through words, through sounds, through geometry, through colors, through fragrances, through sensations, through reveberations. Those are the different ways of saying something. All the things above are manifestations of energy - the ultimate most original language. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Salvijus

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

Well I already gave mine. Language is a form of communication. Be it through words, through sounds, through geometry, through colors, through fragrances, through sensations, through reveberations. Those are the different ways of saying something. All the things above are manifestations of energy - the ultimate most original language. 

Okay, but I also already think I know what language is. (!)

That's why we question and remain open, in a way. Do we really understand what language is? 

It might be that we're standing on artificial ground - intellect, conclusion, belief, opinion, answers. Which is to say, we take our experience of language entirely for granted as if it were the same as realizing its nature. 

Set aside everything you think you know about language and look into it - in your experience right now. 

[Leo Gura]

The number 3 is something you are imagining. It does not exist outside your imagination of it. Nothing does.

You are assuming that the number 3 exists out there somewhere. You imagine the objectivity of 3.

Edited 12 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

15 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Okay, but I also already think I know what language is. (!)

That's why we question and remain open, in a way. Do we really understand what language is? 

 As far as I'm concerned, I see no problems with my definition of what language is. I'm open to hearing opposite views than my own but so far I found none of it more convincing than mine. That's my side of the story at least. Perhaps your experience is different. It's okay. We can just agree to disagree. 

[Carl-Richard]

There are reasons for thinking they are invented and reasons for thinking they are discovered. You can heed both of those while also choosing which ever frame you prefer the most for your everyday epistemology.

[Joseph Maynor]

I feel like when irrational numbers and complex numbers arrived, mathematics became open to the question of yes it works, but is it true?  True in the sense of direct experience? (although it was the Pythagorean theorem that made irrational numbers appear real (due to the hypotenuse of the right triangle diagram). 

And irrational numbers today are considered "real numbers" in mathematics. 

Are complex numbers true in the sense of direct experience?  Not really (or not maybe?), but by implication, creation, tradition, and application, they are useful -- even though they so very different from real numbers. 

Complex numbers or imaginary numbers (as they are called) seem to supplement an existing language (or artform) of real analysis into a valuable but strange area of complex analysis which is at best a tangential "grounding" in what we might call direct experience. 

It seems to be the same issue as to whether a 4D "object" exists in geometry.  Even if no, it could still be valid mathematics.  Math is definitely weird.

[tuku747]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The number 3 is something you are imagining. It does not exist outside your imagination of it. Nothing does.

You are assuming that the number 3 exists out there somewhere. You imagine the objectivity of 3.

Yup, but it does exist in my imagination, and our collective imagination. I imagine even aliens are aware of "threeness", and the concept of a circle, and the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter being rougly ~3.14. 

The mind contains all things. Therefore you may find completeness within yourself.

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

but it does exist in my imagination

Only if you imagine it.

[tuku747]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Only if you imagine it.

The thing is, I already did. If I am an eternal being (which I must be) then inevitably I must have already thought of every conceivable thought an infinity of times before. Then, imagining a thought is identical to recalling it. It's as if all my memories, and thoughts, were already present at the very instantiation of the process of recalling themselves. In this way, the infinite potential of the mind is eternal memory. We find again and again that there are these "attractors" in thought which are most coherent and most logical, and most useful as concepts, and therefore they are recalled more often. These are habits of thought. The numbers, the ratios, the geometry, the platonic solid, the sphere, the pythagorean triangle, etc, all tools of an eternal mind.

Edited 4 hours ago by tuku747

[Ponder]

Both. Strange loop. 

[Ero]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The number 3 is something you are imagining. It does not exist outside your imagination of it. Nothing does.

You are assuming that the number 3 exists out there somewhere. You imagine the objectivity of 3.

Of course everything is imaginary, but simply stating that is lazy epistemology.

Many people imagine they have a theory of everything and yet it doesn’t hold up.