Is math the structure of the Universe?

[rossum]

For example, when dealing with sets the + in the expression 1+1=2 would represent the combining of sets and the digits represent set sizes. But when dealing with boolean logic the expression in the expression 1+1=1 the digits represent a bivalent truth value(true/false, yes/no, or many others; the metaphor is multi-layered) and the + operator represents something different.

“There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don’t.”

rossum

 

[Paddy_Walker]

It kind of sounds like you are looking for a Platonic form.

As used in every day language numbers are an abstraction and an inference preserving metaphor. As abstractions go while you can find physical instantiations of something that shares the properties of the metaphor, but there isn’t instance of the pure abstraction. Trying to treat the abstraction as something concrete is called reification. Note that this is also a classification of logical fallacies when used in logical arguments.

Numbers are useful for constructing logical isomorphism of many systems. But how the numbers map to the system may vary. Operations performed on numbers (multiplication, division, subtraction, addition, and others) often (but not always) can be mapped to physical actions. Whether or not a mapping can be made will depend on the system.

For example, when dealing with sets the + in the expression 1+1=2 would represent the combining of sets and the digits represent set sizes. But when dealing with boolean logic the expression in the expression 1+1=1 the digits represent a bivalent truth value(true/false, yes/no, or many others; the metaphor is multi-layered) and the + operator represents something different.

yet 1 exists in a concrete way; 1 planet, for example. this 1 also extends itself into the abstract in a seemingly useful way. but did 1 begin to exist with the planets existence, was it a concept from before time, a concept with meaning. what was this original meaning of 1?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

yet 1 exists in a concrete way; 1 planet, for example. this 1 also extends itself into the abstract in a seemingly useful way. but did 1 begin to exist with the planets existence, was it a concept from before time, a concept with meaning. what was this original meaning of 1?

You’re conflating the abstraction with a set that has the properties encapsulated by the concept/abstraction (in this case a single planet). Concepts are indicative of the presence of a mind. Did minds begin to exists that conceptualized set sizes when planets began to exists?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

You’re conflating the abstraction with a set that has the properties encapsulated by the concept/abstraction (in this case a single planet). Concepts are indicative of the presence of a mind. Did minds begin to exists that conceptualized set sizes when planets began to exists?

They might have, I don’t know. if a mind can conceive an abstract 1 and concrete 1’s are available at the same time in that universe. it could have been possible that this universe did not have any 1’s, maybe they were all unstable, chaotic, inter-dimensional 1’s, sometimes they might look like multiples or at other times they’d cease to exist.
is 1 an inherent part of the universe and the mind a captive to counting things? is there some sort of cosmic symbiotic relationship between the two…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

is 1 an inherent part of the universe and the mind a captive to counting things? is there some sort of cosmic symbiotic relationship between the two…

There is at least an isomorphic and metaphoric relationship between numeric concepts and some systems.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

There is at least an isomorphic and metaphoric relationship between numeric concepts and some systems.

you know the way plants grow leafs at a sort of 90 degree angle as the plant grows taller, it seems to me that there is a sort of organized peculiarity to life. are maths totally abstract or is there a natural order to be seen?

 

[InJesusItrust]

you know the way plants grow leafs at a sort of 90 degree angle as the plant grows taller, it seems to me that there is a sort of organized peculiarity to life. are maths totally abstract or is there a natural order to be seen?

The only reason I can think of as to why people deny the obvious order they see around them is they do not like what it connotes: that there is a design behind the universe. Even Anthony Flew became a deist because he could not deny the obvious anymore.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

are maths totally abstract or is there a natural order to be seen?

An instance of a system is what would be concrete. The description of the system is abstract. To borrow a phrase often used in Computer Science there may be several “levels of abstraction” between a concrete and abstract system. Some types/applications of math are more abstract than others.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am the OP.

THANKS!

I will keep watching and learning.

 

[DaveBj]

In university, the joke is that you spend the first year of Pure Mathematics learning what 1 is. You spend the second year learning to count from 1 to 2. The rest is trivially derived from those two.

The empty set, {}, is the set which does not contain anything.

Zero is that Cardinal number of the empty set: card({}).

One is the cardinal number of the set containing the empty set: card({{}}).

Clear?

rossum

I am the OP.

THANKS!

I will keep watching and learning.

Me too.

Actually, I think that rather than math being the structure of the universe, it’s more that physics (rather than math) is the description of the structure of the universe. I have a small collection of books by Christian scientists (not Christian Scientists – different animal), and somewhere in one of them the author said that if you want to learn the language of God, learn physics

 

[Jim_Baur]

I am convince that math does not run the universe.

We made it up, and if we all passed away, so does math, logic and all of the other things that human reasoning developed–chess and so forth.

I am also convince we do not know the nature of the laws of nature. We describe them with math. But that is it.

I am also surprised that thoughtful physical scientists use math–they cannot weigh it, measure it, see it, tell if it is living, if it is a solid, liquid or gas. It is analogous to God, for those of us that believe in His beautiful creation. The physical scientists limit themselves to things that they can measure etc.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

An instance of a system is what would be concrete. The description of the system is abstract. To borrow a phrase often used in Computer Science there may be several “levels of abstraction” between a concrete and abstract system. Some types/applications of math are more abstract than others.

it is at this time of year that a mans thoughts often turn to phyllotaxy and its associated plastochron and phyllochron. while often in the vernacular we will unthinkingly say the plant chooses a particular leaf arrangement or whatever it must be more accurate to say the plants internal mathematical model dictates that at this particular time a new leaf bud should be instantiated along with its opposite twin at an exact interval and angle predetermined by - well, when and by whom. our poor plant is without doubt a vegetable, without mind or understanding, but never was solomon, and all of that. it is a fact that the lily of the valley has hid her wisdom beneath a veil of ordered apparel.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am convince that math does not run the universe.

We made it up, and if we all passed away, so does math, logic and all of the other things that human reasoning developed–chess and so forth.

I am also convince we do not know the nature of the laws of nature. We describe them with math. But that is it.

Well there are certainly are forms of math that cam be attributed to the people that created them. Such as integral differential calculus to Isaac Newton, among others.

 

[Linux]

Is maths the fundamental structure of the universe?

I would say that if mathematics truly measures or describes objective quantitative objects in a way that truly reflects the quantitative aspect of their nature, then this would mean that rationality is the fundamental basis of the Universes quantitative nature and existence because rationality is the fundamental basis of Math. We can see that this is true from the simple fact that we are aware of logical distinctions in objective things, and mathematical distinctions our first and foremost an acknowledgement of distinctions in things.

 

[Linux]

I am convince that math does not run the universe.

We made it up, and if we all passed away, so does math, logic and all of the other things that human reasoning developed–chess and so forth.

I am also convince we do not know the nature of the laws of nature. We describe them with math. But that is it.

I am also surprised that thoughtful physical scientists use math–they cannot weigh it, measure it, see it, tell if it is living, if it is a solid, liquid or gas. It is analogous to God, for those of us that believe in His beautiful creation. The physical scientists limit themselves to things that they can measure etc.

But you are using logic and reasoning to get to your conclusion. Big Fail.