Is mathematics invented or discovered ?

[UnbornTao]

On 14/12/2025 at 11:17 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Hmmmm language in my eyes... appears to mediate/filter/stabilize experience (while not having anything to do with the generation of consciousness itself). But I definitely think it is an element in creating out social reality; money, laws, contracts, gender roles, job titles, borders... all exist because of shared language. It also frames perception - we don't experience raw reality, we experience an 'interpreted' reality. Language supplying categories... so I imagine if our language had 10 words for a feeling, we might notice that feeling more precisely. But if the language had no words for the feeling the experience still happens. It would just be more nebulous/fuzzy and harder to hold... maybe even easier to dismiss?

Language also creates psychological objects - ego, anxiety, trauma, success, failure.

Mathematics as a language would operate the same I imagine... the raw experience of one banana, then two bananas... we can use 'plus' as the operator. It is a tighter cleaner language. Less wiggle room and brutal consistency. Raw experience would be one banana, then another banana. It is  'pre-mathematical' - no numbers required. Even animals can get that far - my little miniature poodle certainly can. Mathematics enters in when we abstract 'one', 'two', 'plus'. Then instead of dealing with the experience of the bananas we are dealing with relationships stripped of content.

And that is the key move there - once we say 1 + 1 = 2 the bananas disappear. Apples work... fingers work - anything works! So it turns into structure...

Anyway dunno where I was going there  

Yep, after a few days of casual consideration (i.e., tireless effort), I've come to the conclusion that I don't really know what language is  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Yep, after a few days of casual consideration (i.e., tireless effort), I've come to the conclusion that I don't really know what language is  

Neither 💀

Not knowing it is 🥹

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Neither 💀

Not knowing it is 🥹

Not knowing applies to everything though 🤔

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Carl-Richard

But boss! What can I do but commit to the baseline condition of being a finite knower inside an infinite, shifting reality?

I am aware of one banana. Another appears. I see two vaguely half moon shaped, yellow, hand-sized cylinders before me. 

My new lense adds some pluses and equals in there to remove my being from the codependent nature of subject/object arising.... And begin my journey into the distortion of the true self 🫣

Edited December 21 by Natasha Tori Maru

[UnbornTao]

21 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Neither 💀

Not knowing it is 🥹

Oh, it's probably something.

I'm inclined to say "invented," but that would be based mostly on fruitless intellectualism and extrapolation rather than real insight. So, yeah, time to contemplate language. Also, what a "thing" (or distinction) actually is would likely need to be addressed as well. It's possible that banana has also been invented by you, in your experience - which is to say, when you remove everything added by you, what remains is meaningless perceptive input of an unknown "thing."

What would it take to deeply experience our ignorance regarding this matter, rather than just thinking about it?

Edited December 21 by UnbornTao

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

What would it take to deeply experience our ignorance relative to this matter rather than just thinking about it?

Ha ha ha - a bunch of vision sensations, smell sensations, touch sensations, possibly taste sensations. Maybe some sounds in there. 

Just a bunch of is. Happenings. Ams. That constitute some experience arising...

🍌🍌🍌

[UnbornTao]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Ha ha ha - a bunch of vision sensations, smell sensations, touch sensations, possibly taste sensations. Maybe some sounds in there. 

Just a bunch of is. Happenings. Ams. That constitute some experience arising...

🍌🍌🍌

Three bananas.

Discovered. Done deal. Next.

[Matty1]

Mathematics is not just a language, it's a construct that allows us to build upon it, rather than having to start from scratch with an axiom every time we need to work with it. It's more similar to a hand-written computer program than anything else. Language by itself is mostly relational, whereas mathematics is inductive.

Edited Friday at 05:08 PM by Matty1

[Human Mint]

I liked the explanation.

Is no-language a language? I think it is.

[Human Mint]

On 14/12/2025 at 6:11 PM, UnbornTao said:

Also, I'm not exactly sure that its being universal (in the sense of being broadly applied, perhaps) has to be incompatible with its being invented.

But in my experience, I keep bumping into assumptions about language. Like: it is objective, it is just an add-on, it is absolute, etc. 

Like the OP says, it is true in the relative sense. 

Mathematics is a slice of the same unity. Like english or chemistry.

Edited Friday at 11:59 PM by Human Mint

[UnbornTao]

10 hours ago, Human Mint said:

Like the OP says, it is true in the relative sense. 

Mathematics is a slice of the same unity. Like english or chemistry.

My observation so far is that, at some point, it didn't exist - it had to be invented. That way of perceiving, interpreting, and framing reality must have been created by us humans. Where does the observer begin and the observed end? Maybe without the observer, there is no object.

But this is not an insight. 

[Human Mint]

8 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

My observation so far is that, at some point, it didn't exist - it had to be invented. That way of perceiving, interpreting, and framing reality must have been created by us humans. Where does the observer begin and the observed end? Maybe without the observer, there is no object.

But this is not an insight. 

Speaking relatively, ratios are already there and we create the symbols to represent them. Think of Pi, or relationships like how many times can an ant carry its own weight.

But if you're creating reality, including physical reality, that means mathematics is just another invention.

It is like music. Sound waves are infinite, or should I say pitch is infinite. Moving by half tone is a convinient frame of using pitch. The harmonic series is a specific feature of sound, but is it the only one? I don't know.

What does Love has anything to do with this? Well, the only reason we select pitchs and combine them is because we have an atraction for sound. Maybe the harmonic series exist because that's what low consciousness produces. 

Same with numbers, they're infinite but we use conviniently just a narrow set of them. Reality is a big song and mathematics is not different than music or a rock crashing to the ground.

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Human Mint said:

Speaking relatively, ratios are already there and we create the symbols to represent them. Think of Pi, or relationships like how many times can an ant carry its own weight.

But if you're creating reality, including physical reality, that means mathematics is just another invention.

It is like music. Sound waves are infinite, or should I say pitch is infinite. Moving by half tone is a convinient frame of using pitch. The harmonic series is a specific feature of sound, but is it the only one? I don't know.

What does Love has anything to do with this? Well, the only reason we select pitchs and combine them is because we have an atraction for sound. Maybe the harmonic series exist because that's what low consciousness produces. 

Same with numbers, they're infinite but we use conviniently just a narrow set of them. Reality is a big song and mathematics is not different than music or a rock crashing to the ground.

The issue I see with this is that it itself arises from the presumption - or operation - of language. We keep failing to experience reality prior to language, confusing it with words, labels, or symbols, as if language were a trivial or extraneous activity independent of so-called objective or "real" reality. And yet, it goes beyond merely making comments on things. Perhaps certain things depend entirely on language for their very existence.

Edited Sunday at 12:38 AM by UnbornTao

[Human Mint]

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

The issue I see with this is that it itself arises from the presumption - or operation - of language. We keep failing to experience reality prior to language, confusing it with words, labels, or symbols, as if language were a trivial or extraneous activity independent of so-called objective or "real" reality. And yet, it goes beyond merely making comments on things. Perhaps certain things depend entirely on language for their very existence.

There has to be intelligence for language to exist. Or language is an expression of infinite intelligence.

Is very common to not grasp the awesomness of it, that's what makes us human taking for granted infinite Intelligence.

One thing is to think, then other thing is to grasp or feel the intelligence of the Universe. 

I don't think you can scientifically prove meaning. You can study a language and its history but your success depends on your ability to access this Intelligence.

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, Human Mint said:

There has to be intelligence for language to exist. Or language is an expression of infinite intelligence.

Is very common to not grasp the awesomness of it, that's what makes us human taking for granted infinite Intelligence.

One thing is to think, then other thing is to grasp or feel the intelligence of the Universe. 

I don't think you can scientifically prove meaning. You can study a language and its history but your success depends on your ability to access this Intelligence.

Okay, but what is it? That's the thing to contemplate.

As for meaning, why mention it? There might be a relationship between language and certain forms of meaning, but these are different subjects.

We still take language to be inherent; in other words, it's an assumed reality for us. We have a hard time having an experience prior to language, which I think could be an eye-opening exercise, even though I haven't attempted it in earnest yet.

For example, when you say that radios already exist and we create the symbols to represent them, this still isn't language. The symbol (or words, sounds, gestures, formulas, equations, and so on) are not the same as this possibility of language. So what is it?

Food for thought.

[Human Mint]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Okay, but what is it? That's the thing to contemplate.

As for meaning, why mention it? There might be a relationship between language and certain forms of meaning, but these are different subjects.

We still take language to be inherent; in other words, it's an assumed reality for us. We have a hard time having an experience prior to language, which I think could be an eye-opening exercise, even though I haven't attempted it in earnest yet.

For example, when you say that radios already exist and we create the symbols to represent them, this still isn't language. The symbol (or words, sounds, gestures, formulas, equations, and so on) are not the same as this possibility of language. So what is it?

Food for thought.

Because fundamentally language is meaning making. "Language" itself, what does it represent? Is it a fixated thing? What individual meanings do you hold to make sense of the word language? What form can it take? It can take million of different forms. You use it in a variety of ways: computer language, human language, dog language, RNA language, the love language, the language between a mother and a baby. Your view of language is too limited to human language. But what I argue is that it is the intelligence of the Universe expressing itself. And language is a way of deep intelligence. 

Anyway this talk could be a distraction, be careful. Aim for absolute understanding because it is absolutely possible.

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Human Mint said:

Because fundamentally language is meaning making. "Language" itself, what does it represent? Is it a fixated thing? What individual meanings do you hold to make sense of the word language? What form can it take? It can take million of different forms. You use it in a variety of ways: computer language, human language, dog language, RNA language, the love language, the language between a mother and a baby. Your view of language is too limited to human language. But what I argue is that it is the intelligence of the Universe expressing itself. And language is a way of deep intelligence. 

Anyway this talk could be a distraction, be careful. Aim for absolute understanding because it is absolutely possible.

Is it, though? I wouldn't be so quick to make that conclusion (about meaning-making). Again, the question is what language fundamentally is, rather than the various forms or manifestations it can take. When you ask what it represents, this is where my "complaint" lies. The act of representing something - such as an experience - with something else may indeed be the purpose of language. That is to say, take away language, and the act of representation cannot come to pass.

You seem to want to adopt some hearsay and claim that this settles the matter, but the question remains. And as far as I can tell, this is not about an absolute. It is something to be dealt with on its own terms.

I don't expect that we could discover its nature here simply by exchanging ideas; at best, this discussion can support our meditations. Also, don't presume that this issue is easily resolved by arriving at a conclusion or a satisfying answer. Insight is required.

[Human Mint]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Also, don't presume that this issue is easily resolved by arriving at a conclusion or a satisfying answer. Insight is required.

I don't presume that. That's precisely why I said this conversation could be a distraction... for you.

Maybe you cannot arrive at an answer because language is an illusion. So maybe language is fundamentally an illusion. 

[UnbornTao]

13 hours ago, Human Mint said:

I don't presume that. That's precisely why I said this conversation could be a distraction... for you.

Maybe you cannot arrive at an answer because language is an illusion. So maybe language is fundamentally an illusion. 

This is trickier than throwing spiritual platitudes around, it seems to me. This is where questioning comes in, since it's likely that we think we already know what it is, or else we settle for an intellectual conclusion to believe in and call it a day. And distraction - relative to what? If the goal is to find out what this whole language business is about, then this line of questioning is appropriate, if only as a starting point.

I like to start with my experience of language and the way I relate to it, and proceed from there. This provides a more authentic footing from which to inquire more deeply.

[Human Mint]

43 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

This is trickier than throwing spiritual platitudes around, it seems to me. This is where questioning comes in, since it's likely that we think we already know what it is, or else we settle for an intellectual conclusion to believe in and call it a day. And distraction - relative to what? If the goal is to find out what this whole language business is about, then this line of questioning is appropriate, if only as a starting point.

I like to start with my experience of language and the way I relate to it, and proceed from there. This provides a more authentic footing from which to inquire more deeply.

Sadly most of the time when participating in conversations or discussions, the last thing that arrives is truth. It might not be so obvious through a forum but being present in the same room is obviously what happens most of the time, anything but truth. For the simple reason we are so so different, we  have different preferences, motives and needs. Even if we both want to know the same thing one might be in a different state.

Plus, maybe an answer is just intuitive and cannot be spoken... How do you know?? How do you know if I am speaking the truth or I am lying? Not like I want to lie, but being truthful in a conversation is as hard as it gets. Sorry, that's how it is.

You can only know what language is through your own experience. That much should be obvious. And I don't know what kind of communication you resonate with the most, so I could be talking very accurately but for you it is just nonsense. Or I can say nonsense too, that is not wrong, just not helpful.