Does mathematics really exist in nature or is math just a human construct?

No, it really doesn't. In any sense of the word.

If I walked through the woods, burning down every tree as I went, then only walked in unburned areas, such that I covered the forest without repeating my steps, would you claim I too was operating mathematically?

Except that it doesn't. The Moon's eccentricity changes continually - even over the course of a single orbit - due to influences from the Sun, Earth, Jupiter and other nearby planets. It's orbit does not match an ellipse.
It moves in response to the local curvature of space time, whatever that curvature may be. It's location from one moment to the next is not driven by any function. We describe its path approximately as an ellipse, but that is a poor approximation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many trees would you be burning? How many are remaining? Maths exists REGARDLESS of any knowledge of such a thing. It just IS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your questions and your assertion are non sequitur. You ask about the knowledge of number of trees, then insist it's irrelevant. I'm not sure how you want me to respond to that.


But note that you have again used this word "is". You are reinforcing your unfounded assertion that the mere existence of the thing is synonymous with a mathematical operation on the thing.

Again, there's a reason why you are unable to define this assertion beyond the mysterious "It just IS". You've come to the end of your logic, and beg the question: math exists because it's just true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[/QUOTE]

But you didn't. You quoted an extract that used the noun "function", not the verb, viz. "Iterated functions and flows occur naturally in the study of fractals and dynamical systems." "Function" is the subject of the verb "flow" in this sentence. So it is a noun. And the context here is clearly mathematical function, as iteration is a mathematical concept.

You appear to be extrapolating, from the fact that we can fit the observed order in the physical world to human mathematics, to some notion that reality carries out mathematical processing. I think this idea is an unwarranted leap.

If you disclaim teleology, I'm happy about that, however.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

deleted for duplication

 

Human mathematics are a *result* of observed universal behavior , which means these functions existed long before life itself appeared. If you watched the link to this excellent lecture by an eminent chemist:
ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A , you will understand how I interpret the universal mathematical functions. If you want to skip the lengthy introduction, start at 25:00

My explanations may lack *formal* semantics or syntax, but when I watch the lecture by this eminent scientist, I see confirmation of everything I have attempted to explain. As chemist yourself I thought you might be particularly interested in this clip in which he explains the mathematical *probability* of the formation of the building blocks of organic life.

 

"...your unfounded assertion that the mere existence of the thing..."-Posted by DaveC

Well you and I are here aren't we? WE exist. There are two of us! Thus maths exists.

0*2=2

There are TWO zeros!

 

But is that not unpacking the formula itself?
The result of the multiplication function is *0*.
o*2 = 0 + 0 = 0

 

You are repeating yourself and contiuning to use circular logic.

I assert that math exists in the universe. My assertion is based on the premise that mere existence of a thing is math.

No it isn't. I'm beginning to sense why you might be having difficulty with all this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But there are TWO zero's!

0+0=2

 

I don't think that is right at all. Surely, human mathematics is not derived from observation of behaviour, but from application of logic to numbers? There is no observed "behaviour" in working out that if you add 3 oranges to 2 you get 5 and if you remove 4 you are left with one. The maths starts with the abstract idea of 3, 2, 5, 4 and 1 and then the abstract idea of the operations "add" and "subtract". Maths is quantitative logic.

The application of mathematics to study of nature came far later - and is in fact only one of many applications. It is not for nothing that we speak of "pure" and "applied" mathematics.

I really think there is a danger in fetishising mathematics.

(Re the video I don't have time to watch lengthy videos. If this fellow has written a summary of his ideas I'd be happy to read that, however. I actually very much doubt that he will have said that the universe carries out mathematical calculations. I think you have probably overinterpreted something else that he said.)

 

All things exist with or without mathematics.

A deeper understanding of these things comes with mathematics.

The dynamics of things ; the movement of things ; is the cause of mathematics.

Mathematics is a consequence of dynamics.

Mathematics is not so much a Human construct but a construct of dynamics of things with the want to understand these multiple dynamics; hence Humans put numbers to these dynamics to better understand these physical dynamics.

 

[

And is the way the universe functions, which we were fortunate enought to recognize and be able to translate into human maths.

Yes, our *study* came much later, but the mathematical functions existed long before life itself came into existence.

Why use the term *fetish*?
Is there a ritual, other than the scientific method, associated with *fetishism* of universal mathematical functions?

That is why I suggested to start the clip @ 25:00. Read my posts! If, as a chemist, you are not interested in the mathematics of chemistry, then don't claim authority.

 

Yes, exchemist, any true chemist has a professional imperative to watch YouTube videos posted as a substitute for explanation. Real science is done on YouTube, not in one of your silly labs.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Laws'.

For example: If I flip this coin 1 time and it falls heads can I say there is a physical 'Law' that this coin, when flipped, will always come up heads? How about if I flip it a trillion times? Each time I observe it to come up heads. Now can I say there's this "Law" of the coin, if I express it mathematically?
If not, then why not. All other physical phenomena that are described mathematically fall into this category of inductive observational data.
If I can, then at which flip number did it become a mathematically a "Law of Nature"?


As for the original post. I've read that mathematics is a rigorous aesthetic. That seems reasonable. If you'd like to call it a language, then this would imply it was invented as language is a human tool that we invented.

 

James R,

That was an excellent post.

 

I am not going to watch lengthy videos about this just to please some bloke on the internet with views I disagree with

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. That video is well over an hour long, so even if I start 25 min in I have up to 50 minutes of tedium in front of me. No way. You also seem to assume I don't know anything about the mathematics of chemistry already. I don't pretend to have anything more than a good degree in the subject from 40 years ago, but I do have a decent grounding in statistical thermodynamics and quantum theory, for instance. So far as I am aware, these two pillars of physical chemistry are the mathematical basis for most of the subject, insofar as chemistry is mathematical: quite a bit of it is not, as many chemical systems are too complex to model completely quantitatively.

None of that makes me think that the universe carries out mathematical operations. What it does make me think is that there is a high degree of order in the universe, even though there is, at the same time, a lot of randomness and indeterminacy at the atomic scale.

My comment about fetishising maths comes from a few discussions I have had (usually with Americans for some reason), in which I get the feeling some people have the view that everything must be expressed in a mathematical model before it can really be said to be properly understood. I have come across this attitude not only in science but in economics for instance. I think this is thoroughly misguided, as it seems to me many systems we encounter in the world are too complex, and have too many independent variables and interactions, for mathematical modelling to be a realistic option. I have read articles on economics, criticising an unduly mathematical approach, due to the risk that oversimplifications are made in order to get something that can be modelled. I think we run similar risks in natural science.

 

0*2=00

Zero is being multiplied by two meaning there are two of them. Merry Christmas.