Ok, we know that mathematics and logic are one and the same. Mathematicians have been able to come up with a 'logical' theory about the creation of the universe, through math, thus logic. Now if our version of reality is simply our interpretation of our senses, and our senses are interpretations of an outside existence, what if our senses are interpretations of the biggest math equation, existence itself being the math equation. What if what your eyes see does not exist, it is just how humans interpret the big math equation. Kind of like when you're playing a computer game, all it really is is an interpretation of 001010111001010100110110 ad infinitum. So in Unreal, when you blow someone's head off, you didn't infact blow someone's head off, it was just 001011101010001011010100. That's it. Blowing someone's head off is just how the game interpreted it.

Now, under this pretense, what do you suppose the final product of the equation would be? And how could we humans apply it. If anyone has seen the movie Pi, you may have an idea of what I mean. If existance were just a big math equation, there really would be an answer to existence...

Read the HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE by Michael Talbot. And don't neglect the spaces inbetween the lines.....

thank you much, I will look in to it!

Mathematics is a rigourus logical system created by modern humans. Therefore, its not very old. How can mathematics, which is relitivaly young compaired to the age of the universe, have created the universe.

Mathematics isn't young, it HAS been around since the beginning of the universe. Our knowledge of it is young, but mathematics itself is not. Just because there were no mathematicians doesn't mean there wasn't math.

please elaborate, notme2000

Math is objective. It is not man made. We may have made the symbols (numbers, math symbols such as %*=etc...) but two apples is still two apples. Math is the language of the universe. While we may still be young in our understanding of it, it's always been there. In the same way the world has always been round, even when we thought it was flat. I'm not saying math created the universe, though it may have, I don't know. All I'm saying is everything, EVERYTHING since has included math, and theoretically could be explained through math... So maybe that is all our universe really is... Math... Colors, feelings, vision, sound, and so on, is just how our senses interpret the math... This seems like a pretty possible theory, though it remains just a theory.

LOL.

Just because a tomb was recently discovered doesn't mean it did
not exist before so.

Similarly, just because the use of mathematics is recent doesn't
mean we INVENTED it: rather, we only learned how to use it... we
really only discovered it.

Does this answer your question ? :bugeye:

what do you suppose the final product of the equation would be?
I have no clue, I am mathematically impaired. :(


That aside, I thought some might find this quote interesting.
I guess this is one book I will not be reading anytime soon. ;)

"The Universe is a grand book which cannot be read until
one first learns to comprehend the language and become
familiar with the characters in which it is composed. It is
written in the language of mathematics." -Galileo

Evilpoet, you always have the most relevant limericks no matter what the subject, lol!

Perhaps math is a method of description that possesses transparent parameters. Every value is more than or less than another given value. It is a slippery foundation upon which everything cascades according to its own weight. Just because math is rigid does not mean that the things that it represents are.
Wow, am I full of shit or what!

No, that makes lots of sense actually!

Originally posted by SoLiDUS
Just because a tomb was recently discovered doesn't mean it didnot exist before so.

True, however things can be created out of nothing. For example, photons. When an electron drops an orbit it emits a photon. This however does not mean that there was a bag of photons in the electron. The photon was created. Likewise, math, simply because it describes the univerese, does not mean that it existed before humans "discovered" it.

Originally posted by notme2000
Mathematics isn't young, it HAS been around since the beginning of the universe. Our knowledge of it is young, but mathematics itself is not. Just because there were no mathematicians doesn't mean there wasn't math.


I'm quite sure mathematics is younger than live. The regularities we can see in nature, however, are much older.

That's what mathamatics is! Just because I'm using a man-made word to describe it doesn't mean it itself is man made!

Originally posted by notme2000
That's what mathamatics is! Just because I'm using a man-made word to describe it doesn't mean it itself is man made!


Of course it's man made. We have a mathematics that uses a base of 10. Do you know why? Because we have ten fingers. Math is just an intrument. When applied to the regularities of nature it's always an approximation to reality. The most accurate math theory thereis, Quantum electrodynamics, is still an aproximation.

Because math is not self-contradictory and as (we hope) nature is not then it follows that if mathematics can describe something as simple as the motion of a ball thru the air then why not every other bit of nature? Just because a tool helps to describe something does not mean it has always existed. Take language for example; I can use it to describe the beauty of a sunset, the pain I feel when I realize that my school district has shifted its focus from teaching me to raising my scores on standerdized test (A subtle difference yeah but there is one), or the akwardness I feel toward one of my female friends :o. Language, English in my case, can describe all these things that does not mean however that English was around to describe the very first sunset (although then it wouldn't have been as pretty due to the lack of atmosphere, if you consider a sunset to be just the shift from day to night)

Originally posted by goofy headed punk
Because math is not self-contradictory and as (we hope) nature is not then it follows that if mathematics can describe something as simple as the motion of a ball thru the air then why not every other bit of nature? Just because a tool helps to describe something does not mean it has always existed. Take language for example; I can use it to describe the beauty of a sunset, the pain I feel when I realize that my school district has shifted its focus from teaching me to raising my scores on standerdized test (A subtle difference yeah but there is one), or the akwardness I feel toward one of my female friends :o. Language, English in my case, can describe all these things that does not mean however that English was around to describe the very first sunset (although then it wouldn't have been as pretty due to the lack of atmosphere, if you consider a sunset to be just the shift from day to night)

What you said doesn't change nothing that i've said. The description of a ball through the air is still an aproximation of the real movement. Math is not the reality. It's just a description. Like any other language invented by man it can only descrive.

math is a man-made language, true, but the laws it represents are not man-made.

Exactly.

The universe seems to follow certain rules: we did not invent the
rules but we sure as hell know how to play the game.

Does this help anyone understand ? :rolleyes:

I gotcha, but what my big theory was, is what if "the big game" is all reality really is. Without observers all there is is mathematics, physics, you know?

This seems alot like the tree in the forest thing. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall then does it make a sound. Well, we can disscuss it all we want but because no one was around there is no way to verify our claims or even get beyond the stage of bickering over our claims. Without observers perhaps all there is physics but we will never know because no one will be around to observe.

P.S. It might be my sleep deprivation but did your last statement notme2000 blurr the discussion topic?

probably. Sleep dep goin here too, lol

Put a sound recorder and you WILL hear it fall. What am I missing
here ? :bugeye:

ah, but sound recorders are made to work like our ears...

I can already see god, sittin in the stars, shaking his head sayin

tsk....humans lol

I am the human sitting in a wasteland, shaking my head, saying
tsk, gods... lol

ah, but sound recorders are made to work like our ears...

Errr, no. They are made to capture the vibrations WE interpret as
sound. They are captured the way they come into existence. How
is this wrong ?

Becuase to capture soundwaves and play it back as sound is mimicking our ears... A wall has soundwaves hitting it too, but it does not record a sound simply because it wasn't made like our ears.

A perfect example is there are also machines that can display sound visually... Does this mean sound is purely visual? There is no sound, only what interpretations are made of the displaced molecules.

Originally posted by notme2000
There is no sound, only what interpretations are made of the displaced molecules.

Which is sound. Simply because your definition is more complex doesn't ivalidate the common definition of sound.

the common definition of sound I agree exists... But does my complex definition exist outside our existance? The EXPERIENCE of sound.

Originally posted by notme2000
But does my complex definition exist outside our existance?

If by "our" you mean the human species then, no. Some human at some point would've had to thought up the defintion.

notme2000,

Now, under this pretense, what do you suppose the final product of the equation would be?

Why do you want the answer for an equation if you don't even know how the equation is??? :confused:

Why do you want the answer for an equation if you don't even know how the equation is???
Guess it's just in my nature. I'd like to know what the equation is AND the answer. Always been a questioner...

notme2000,

Every answer needs a question. Give me your question and I will answer it for you (or try... and do my best...:p)...
:eek::bugeye:

So what does "God is the answer" mean!?!?!?:bugeye:

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Probably a pretty stupid question :D

Your question makes sense, but the answer does not. You see, reality isn't just a huge computer program like the Matrix. Well, I guess it could, and we are just completely oblivious to it. However, the chances of that happening are very rare. Not only that, but how could reality and life be a huge math equation? It is impossible, reality isn't a whole, it's numbered. Everyone has their own lives, own hobbies, own thoughts and minds. It couldn't possibly be summed up in one large math problem, I'm sorry.

~Shibby

It is possible. Lives, hobbies, opinions would all be part of the equation.... Lives = X, Hobbies = Y, Opinions = Z, if you will... Matrix is a good example actually... Think of when they are looking at the screen of the coding, Neo asks if it's the Matrix, Syfer says yes "But I can't really read it, all I see is a blond here, a brunette there...", same concept. From an outside perspective, or a perspectiveless perspective, so to speak, it's all just a math equation...

Lol...formulas...that is one thing i see plenty of in Alg2. Hmm, how 'bout this simple formula: b squared -4ac/2a

Lol, oh look, I've gone cross-eyed!

Originally posted by notme2000
From an outside perspective, or a perspectiveless perspective, so to speak, it's all just a math equation...
So, what your saying is that, to discover this equation, one would either have to exsist outside of the universe (clearly impossible for anything) or to lose all perspective of the universe. So do those who have gone insane gained acsess to the "equation of the universe". Also this ultimate equation stuff should be changed to ultimate program, as per your own posts.

First off, this ultimate equation would pretty much be impossible to discover... So there isn't too much a reason to persue it other than for the sake of conversation and a cool what-if. I doubt the insane see it either, if it exists, cause they still have a pespective on things, even if it's a dellusional one...

I only used the "program" as a reference in the Matrix program, but I stick with "equation" cause a program is simply a context of an equation (ie: the eqation put to use for a computer)

How about not mixing science and philosophy? Bad combo you know. And an equation put to use in a computer is usually called an "algorithm". Now, "programs" can use "algorithms". Good to get that cleared up.

Secondly, what`s with the "leaf/branch falling from a tree in the midst of Amazonas" quasi-philosophical question? Even by speculating in this whatever-I-may-call-it-question thought up by a teenager with too much sparetime and weed + a serious misinterpretation of the Schroedingers Cat phenomenon, you actually doubt the very laws of physics AND math.

Why? Leafs falls off tree, gravity pulls leaf downwards to earth and in the process accelerates it`s speed. When the leaf hits the ground, the mass of the leaf combined with speed and density (or whatever is a good word for the level of which an physical object is elastic) creates vibrations in both the leaf, the ground, and the air. Whether or not a amazonas indian is there to hear it or not, the sound will STILL be produced. So please put an end to this leaf madness, KTHX! :mad:

How about not mixing science and philosophy?
Science CAME from philosophy, so I don't see why it's such a bad thing to put the two together now and then, for simple speculation.
you actually doubt the very laws of physics AND math.
Don't doubt them, question them. And I hope you know that questioning the very foundation of things CAN be productive, though doubting them can be very detrimental.
Why? Leafs falls off tree, gravity pulls leaf downwards to earth and in the process accelerates it`s speed. When the leaf hits the ground, the mass of the leaf combined with speed and density (or whatever is a good word for the level of which an physical object is elastic) creates vibrations in both the leaf, the ground, and the air. Whether or not a amazonas indian is there to hear it or not, the sound will STILL be produced. So please put an end to this leaf madness, KTHX!
The only way you can grasp the concept is to let go of your certainty. To think you know something for certain is stupid and egocentric. You may very well be right in your statement, but you may also be wrong... You have to realize that...

Originally posted by notme2000
The only way you can grasp the concept is to let go of your certainty. To think you know something for certain is stupid and egocentric. You may very well be right in your statement, but you may also be wrong... You have to realize that...

Why may I also be wrong? Being completely not a philosopher, I don`t get any of your philosophic jokes if that`s the case.

If you have trouble comprehending basic physics, then I feel sorry for you. But calling people egocentric and stupid for not sharing your rather tilted viewpoint is just low.

And whether or not the leaf makes a sound: 2 + 2 equals 4, right? You don`t question that do you? (And don`t give me any crap about "extemely high values of 2")

Continued, if 2+2=4, then 2-2=0. Still with me? These are some basic calculations showing how our base 10 base number system works in math. Now, when the leaf hits the ground, the collision makes the air vibrate. Our ears can sense vibrations in the air, and interpret it as sound, given that the vibrations are within an approximate frequency range (20Hz-20KHz). If we can hear the leaf fall, then the sound is obviously there. If we are not there to hear it, then what happens? :confused:

I can tell you that. Certain persons starts asking "is there really a sound if no-one can hear it"? In case you still have trouble believing this, let me ask you a counter-question: How can there NOT be a sound there, even though no-one is listening? ;)

I think that`s a much, much better and more rational question. And please don`t answer it with your obviously usual ambivalent answers. :bugeye:

And oh, remember that if you doubt or question this, then you doubt and/or question 2+2=4 etc.

Originally posted by oracel
I can tell you that. Certain persons starts asking "is there really a sound if no-one can hear it"? In case you still have trouble believing this, let me ask you a counter-question: How can there NOT be a sound there, even though no-one is listening?
Some consider sound to be the perception a the vibration caused by the falling leaf. For them there is a distinction between sound and vibration. Namely sound, being a perception, cannot exsist independently of listener whereas vibration can exsist independent of a listener.
And oh, remember that if you doubt or question this, then you doubt and/or question 2+2=4 etc.
I don't see the correlation between a leaf falling and simple addition or how a falling leaf affects simple addition.

Oh yeah, perhaps instead of being such a bunghole maybe you could be more considerate of others. To me, you seemed rather rude. Perhaps I just misinterpreted you, emotion doesn't travel well through the internet.

Look, I'm not saying I don't believe in physics, or that I BELIEVE we're nothing but a dream, someone's computer program, etc... All I'm saying is that I'm willing to question them. I would see that as a strong point. To be able to believe in something, but still question it... All the great advances in the human race were made by people who questioned things that were thought to be certain ...

Originally posted by oracel

I can tell you that. Certain persons starts asking "is there really a sound if no-one can hear it"? In case you still have trouble believing this, let me ask you a counter-question: How can there NOT be a sound there, even though no-one is listening? ;)



How can we care if no one's around to listen? Therefore how can it even register as reality? Careful before you start ranting about "real" reality being "different" from the reality that comes from stimuli going in and through your brain, which is the only reality there...

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

I was at work and suddenly came up with a much better way to put it. A tree falls in the forest but no one's around for it to fall on, does it still hurt? All the forces are still in the equation, the gravity pulls the tree down, the weight of the tree crushes anything under it, etc... The relevance is this: without nerves crushed by the tree, there is no pain. Other wise there are only the factors that would have led to the pain had there been someone for it to fall on. The same is for sound. The tree falls, the vibrations move through the air, but no sound. Just the factors that would have led to sound had their been an ear around. Get my point?

Actually, how does anyone know all of these laws are correct ? How can you say 2+2 really is four ? Aren't many laws just theories ? So, couldn't our whole system of math be a theory ?

You haven't accounted for Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. This basically says that any logical system must have logical limits, that there will always be statements that one could write in that logical system that could no be proven true or false under that logical system.

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

So, no logical system can encompass absolutely everything. This isn't debateable, either; it's solid mathematical fact.

Whatever that means. ( ;

Haven't followed the whole thread but from what i can see it seems like theres three pages here of people argueing over whether mathematics is even valid! lol. If i'm a bit behind you all then i'm sorry but i would say that if maths isn't truth or doesn't discover truth then why has the one thing that is based on mathematics, technology and specifically electronics, flourished so much (and/not/or gates= binary 1-1 0-1 1-1 etc.)?? Mathematics has increased our knowledge of the universe and must surely be truth because of the things we have gained from it. Mathematics has even paved our way into space. It was fundamentally mathematics (physics really but you see what i mean!) that explained gravity and still continues to explain the universe in manay ways.

It just seems that if we were smart enough we could explain, understand and see everything through mathematics... And so without us to perceive the universe, all it would be is a mathematical equation. Vision, taste, touch, etc are just our way of perceiving and experiencing the math equation...

Originally posted by notme2000
Now, under this pretense, what do you suppose the final product of the equation would be?

3

Originally posted by hulac
Actually, how does anyone know all of these laws are correct ? How can you say 2+2 really is four ? Aren't many laws just theories ? So, couldn't our whole system of math be a theory ?

That's an interesting point, I think. Not that I believe 2+2 isn't 4. But there was (at least one) distinguished mathematician, John von Neumann, who somewhere (I can't remember where exactly) suggested the possibility that mathematics as we know it is not the only possible mathematics.

To put it on more concrete grounds, maybe you know about "intuitionist mathematics"? It is a pretty uncommon type of math in that it refuses reductio ad absurdum as a means of proving a statement. It flourished at the beginning of the 20th century, when it turned out there were serious paradoxes in set theory (see Russell's paradox, for example). One reply was (by those who called themselves "formalists" led by Hilbert) that math is like chess: a formal game of manipulating symbols. The other was that of the intuitionists, led by Brower, a good topologist, who claimed that tertium non datur ("there are only two truth values, True and False) is actually false. He and his followers in fact built an alternative type of math on their "intuitionistic" principles. True, it could only partly embrace classical math, but its foundations were claimed to be "philosophically clearer" than those of classical math. I once read Brower. No easy stuff, and in my personal opinion it's not worth the incredible effort to understand. But it proves that other ways are at least imaginable for us to make math...

(I repeat, in my opinion, two plus two make four after all.)