Was MATH invented or created?
Given the definitions of each term and given that math is like a living thing or taken on a life of its own, in a manner of speaking, I am curious to know opinions on how to call its insinuation into the lives of people.
Invented: 1. create something new; to be the first to think of, make, or use something. 2. make up; to make up something. (other source) to come upon, to find. To originate; to contrive, devise, or construct, as something that did not exist before; to construct by use of imagination; to concoct; to fabricate.
Created: create 1. make something; to bring it into existence. 2. give rise to something; to result in something or make something happen. 3. produce inventions or art: to use imagination to invent things or produce works of art.
Is invent and create close enough to be considered one and the same thing? And yet they are not synonyms.
That being said, why do we give such credence to the absolutes that math supposedly explains, devises, discloses etc.?
Science insists that life and times can only be explained and proved by mathematical equations’, for instance Einstein’s works on time and relativity, and the new work done on sting theory, etc.
I think we have been confusing proving such metaphysical phenomena with measuring it and people are taking a concrete position about science and saying that if math can not equate it than it is not real.
What say you?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by cindy erwin on
-
Dear David,
please forgive my tartiness in replying to this particular response from you. Yes certainly, no is a possible answer to my direct question was math invented or created, but that would not encourage a dialog without the rest of what I said. I realize discussing atheisism wont further our converstation, however Platonism might. And with that said, how can one deny math? I would agree math is not a science, math is a tool used to formulate, weigh and measure amounts in the process of science which is also a tool used to discover the basic qualities of anything.
I loathe how the old time thinkers / philosophers seperated and segrigated concepts and ideas as you say into seperate schools of thought. If we have to tag these ideas they are simply classes in one large school of thought. Rationalism and empiricism should not oppose they should compliment as different ways or 'perspectives' of looking at a thing in order to recognize it better. They should not compete for control. Our minds have the ability to accept and use all forms of thought and spectrum of analysis to explore all facets of life and get to understanding the world we live in; dare I say the absolute truth, as you say.
Your opinion is just the idea I was wanting to explore. I have heard scientists speak of Maths in this manner before and am confounded. How did you arrive at this conclusion? How can you use maths to identify all the facets of life and living.
You said " Mathematics is the only source of absolute truth."
What is meant by as absolute truth? I recognize absolute as all encompassing but truth in my opinion is "a matter of perspective." For example; you can identify an object or situation and explain it to others and I can do the same, but we would describe something different, because we are not sharing the exact perspective.
I agree that niether way alone will get us to where we want to go. I suggest a balance and acceptance of all methods will be the optimum solution. Meditation for instance is a method of focusing the mind. It makes you let go of all the nonsense that media and everyday life impose on your mind and allow you to see the infinitesimal and cosmic arena in a more simple way. then you can apply the connections which maths disclose.
Dontcha think?
Science used to be the method of the mystics in a time before common era. We have evolved in our thinking and All our sources and resources should be utilized. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. A thought or theory rather may be set aside till it is needed.
Yes I like your answer, Rational ideal mathematical philosophy is the way.
-
-
Very thought provoking Hari. My eyes are opened further.
However and although you are correct in your strict compliance to my posed question, thank you. I disapprove of anyone saying another thought or idea is wrong.
I may have failed to notice another perspective. It is my opinion that all views have validity in as much as truth is a matter of perspective. "From where I sit" I can see things in a certain perspective, but the person sitting opposite me will certainly see things differently, we are both correct and telling the truth as we see it from our perspective with respect to the truth we must accept there are things we are not given perspective to until we turn around and look in another direction. That is why I posed the question about the roots of math.
I am not familiar with weltzeist, care to elaborate? I am aware of the word Weltschmerz from German origin meaning a state of melancholy brought about by belief in inevitable disappointment; world-weariness; romantic pessimism. Is that what you meant?
In another vein of your response, I would point out that the word barbarian is misrepresentative by virtue of the authors narrow vision. Because barbarian primarily means foreign and things which are foreign by its definition is without knowledge and understanding of the foreigners ways. but I digress...
-
Permalink Reply by Hari Menon on
-
Dear Cindy ,
Yes the word should have been zeitgeist leading to a world view .And the word barbarian was used more in terms of "vandals of the intellect'' , without knowledge and understanding yes of the rules of the intellect . Never personally or in a manner that is physical .I hardly write anything with a body centric view . Cindy on the matter of perspective we should not lightly take the fact that all humans have perspective and that each one has a different perspective , the question that we should ask ourselves is am I using my faculties in a way which gives the RIGHT perspective . We cannot by any reasoning just assume that each one has a perspective - the question is, granted that fact, how true are perspectives and to what extent they can be refined . It does not make sense (at least to me) that two people look at a chair or a car or a house and either ''Like'' it or ''dislike'' it . It cannot be so - these things are inanimate and incapable of arousing such feelings - unlike a human being who talks and can goad or sweeten a persons attitude to them. Something is missing somewhere . The truth is there is this thing called pin hole camera in which the picture appears inverted same as in the lense of a camera - we are seeing a thing but unlike the inversion of the image in a camera - we see it as it is - now the problem is the inversion is not one of the image as in a camera but the ''inversion'' happens in the knowledge in the intellect . This inversion in the knowledge in the intellect can be corrected by the right employment of methods and an understanding of the intellect . It requires (at first it may so appear) the employment of an ''inverted perspective'' so that the image in the mind and the knowledge in the intellect is aligned and becomes infallible. It becomes a joy after some time - it is more effortless than the effortlessness in perspective that we percieve.
Logic as a science is not what people think it is - it is actually an enumeration of the mechanism of reason as employed by the intellect - it is a practical science and has to be related as an understanding how reasoning arises in the intellect and how knowledge comes to a conclusion on the particular item or object in question. If a person ''reads or studies'' the laws of logic it will not help . He would be no more illumined than at the beginning in fact he would be burdened with additional things .
Once again coming to the roots of maths - it is human ingenuity that has given rise to the subject - ingenuity is not discovery - the overriding concern is that there was a need and its aspirations led to the the primary building blocks of what we term the Science today . Look at it this way and whether it is reasonable or not in the light of the following condition - man's every need has come from earth what ever it is and there is a latent potency in earth to meet all of mans physical needs . There is no need that a man can have that is not obtainable from the earth . This much about the physical - how has it come about ? through the use of Intellect so so the intellect is more powerful than the earth as all things on earth are fashioned by man by knowledge through the intellect . What is there ? a man need intellectually that cannot be given by the intellect ? the latent potency of the intellect is a million times stronger than that of the latency in the earth . And we are at a stage where the species is at its twilight and we have no idea of the intellect or what the mind is (it being inferior to the intellect) !!!!. Everyones intellect sees things the same way and the instrument is faultless ...........but to use knowledge so uniformly and erroneously ...........Or maybe I should learn to disregard myself and be more considerate to my body ...
-
-
Dear Hari,
Thank you for giving such a thoughtful and deliberate responce. I appreciate that. You have a unique perspective on things and I enjoy trying to see it. It does take a stretch and a flexibility of mind. phew...
I would only remind you how like and dislike in regards inanimate objects refers to human emotions with artistic appreciation and psychological inferences.
What percentage of human perspective is influenced by emotion? Even the most evolved person is highly affected by beauty and peaceful reflection as invoked by nature and is emotionally effected. You really can't seperate the mind from the thought.
Our minds have expanded by using constructs which were created by memory and emotional connections. It is the basis of our understanding anything. Perspective is garnered by direction, knowledge, and understanding and everyone has a right to their perspective and it is that which takes humankind along the waves of evolutionary pushes. None has a wrong perspective and I know what you mean by 'right'. When we all can reach a consensus about anything we will be making progress. Vision does play a part in comprehending what we are seeing, and what we can understand. Logic is a tool used to sort and make rational understanding of perception. What makes us think or believe that the person who wrote the laws of logic was any more insightful than you or I? So thank you, I won't bother reading it.
It did take ingenuity to discover how repetitive counts could take us to the evolutionary place we are now. Maths as you say, was uncovered by cleverness and a heartbeat to seek out and uncover natures secrets, a love of seeing into the process of finding out what makes things tick.
Intellect is ones unique mind using the knowledge ie: collected information on subjects pertinant to them to communicate.
In my original discussion I basically asked for opinions. It is my contention that opinions are like noses, everyone has one and sometimes they smell. But they are definately useful tools and make contributions to the human condition. No two are alike although there are only a few designs artistically speaking.
It is because of such diversity that makes life interesting if not difficult.
My point is that we can't seperate science from art or maths from imagination for it takes a combined effort in the brain to recognize and utilize these tools to communicate and connect with others in life both physically and metaphysically.
-
-
Cindy oh me oh my , I always promise I will not write lengthy blogs but end up writing long ones - It is because I fear making myself too cryptic which would only confuse the reader . Again you have given me fodder !!. To be honest you do have a subtle approach to thinking , but I do believe I have to be reasonably clear on what I write - so at times it necessitates giving some clarifications before I get to the nub of things and in other cases I have to give reasonably simple illustrations to get the point home. i think this will only last till the moderators warn me to keep things brief !!!.
Emotions or feelings are not artistic in human beings - it is there in every one as it is the root of all actions and thoughts . Think of the man who takes up a gun and shoots down people in a grocery or school or in a cafeteria , there is nothing artistic or objective about it - it is an intensely subjective and self centric act by a person who has identified himself fully with the body and for him retribution is by taking out other bodies which is the highest form of revenge within his poor comprehension.
100% of emotions and feelings affect human perspective - thus killing the cognitive faculties , man is actually a bundle of emotions only . This is nature and has three aspects , divine ,active and Ignorance (Sattwa, Rajas Tamas) .In the macrocosm it is Calmness ,Activity and Violence .
Mind is a strange thing - the mind actually displays images and reflects thought. whilst the intellect displays feelings and reflects knowledge . Now thought is knowledge based so it is possible to isolate thoughts from the intellect and thus control the mind.
Everybody has wrong perspective and right cognition .(including myself)
Our mind never grows - it is function based .
Our intellect never grows it is also function based .
What however you perceive as growing is changes observed within you due to the identification with empirical ego and not the real self .
Logic is a science which explains how the intellect as an instrument functions - of all things it is not at all argumentative as common usage and understanding. It is not Reason per se but the mechanism to understanding reason in the intellect.
Theory of evolution has no place in Higher spirituality - It means you are accepting that the infinite is incapable of expressing itself in an instant and is so stupid as to take time to evolve things and that it cannot be done in an instant . What is wrong in thinking that Adam and Eve were created in an Instant from the cosmic mind ? . In dream we conjure images so easily from within ourselves . Why does man require a cause and effect for every thing ? when there is neither cause or effect ? Maya is the depending on a shadow - the shadow here being cause and effect .
According to Aristotle - Opinion hardens into belief and later into Faith none are worth their salt and all are far removed from the Truth that they do not enter into any discussion in metaphysics . The eastern view is also the same - and we do not have the word Faith , but rather we have Bhakthi which is more than faith despite the erroneous translations into english as plainly faith. Maybe Christian Theology will correctly define by Faith what Bhakthi s rather than mundane translations and understandings.
Opinions are worthless -both ours and anothers but I do agree it is your contention .
It does not matter if a person uses intellect for mind and mind for intellect - they are only restating the belief of the vulgar market place . We are undifferentiated presently in knowledge - we have to differentiate it to know the self
Diversity is again a feeling of the observer - remove the conditioning and the world is colourless , nothing exists besides you .
I will quote one of the greatest philosophers in modern times (Nietzcshe) "Existence is only justified as an aesthetic phenomenon ''
He does not mean pure existence - he means our sorry existence as human beings which we colour with our artistic tendencies . He does mention elsewhere that ''We are perhaps greater artists than we believe ourselves to be " and again about a certain naivette in human beings who are artists as Honesty in deception . ie by declaring themselves as artists they were being honest about their deception - Nietzcshe was occupied with a material way of transcending which he wanted to do in the western tradition . The greeks claimed him ultimately !!!!.and he turned to other ways of transcending futility.
There are only two aspects of the Divine - Science and Arts , everything in this world is either a Science or an Art or between the two the distinctions blur as more and more of the human element enters into it - like say Economics or Quantum physics - it goes into the realm of the artistic and acceptance by authority - by which I mean the man may have been a scientist but his personal ideas started entering science and corrupted it but carries the weight of authority of science since his formal training was as a scientist - now there are more of these sorts and less of scientists which shows that we are losing reason and so we have the ''God particle'' - this is again an aspect of Maya who is gods handmaiden and always serves her master by slowly pushing god into any equation - God is defined as a being who has Maya under his control and is not prey to it but uses it as an agent through nature (both individual and cosmic) with full knowledge .
Brain recognizes nothing - it is matter and dies with the death of the body . It is only a conduit for more subtler manifestations .
I hope I have been helpful in some way or the other .
-
-
Mari, you have been most helpful. thank you.
-
-
Hi again John,
I'm curious, How do you get to your casino on Alpha Centauri? My only knowledge of that is from the tv series Lost in Space which I enjoyed as a young girl. Glad your casino is doing well.
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
well... using current relativity (special, not general) you can get there in 3.6 years
see here: relativistic rocket
Alpha Centauri is about 4.3 light years away. Traveling at 1 g, turning around and decelerating at 1 g (gotta brake the craft) takes 3.6 years of on-board time.
(1 g is the gravitational acceleration at sea level).They use 100% efficient thrust which is doable by using the momentum of a photon to accelerate the craft. Suggested is a Graser (Gama Ray Laser). One converts the matter/fuel directly into gamma rays. (happens all the time).
(I had to throw this in... couldn't resist it)
John
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Considering this is in the “Survey” forum category, then anything more than one of the four answers is outside its scope. (Both, None, Created, Invented).
Use of the word “Atheists” is incorrect; it should be “Materialists.” I appreciate the correction. Thank You, David!
My previous comments focus on the question “Does Math exist or is it a Human Creation/Invention.” This is not what is being asked. Hence - I declare myself “out-of-order” as claimed by Hari. Thank You, Hari! Cindy – I’ll remove the posts if you want..?
I may have just agreed with all viewpoints here.… if not let me know. <G>
Regarding my answer to the wrong question, I was addressing a very common question leading to rather heated debates within the communities of physical scientists, mathematicians, philosophers etc. The question almost always separates into two groups as Materialists (Math is created and invented by Humans) and Platonists (Math exists independent of Humans).
Cosmologists use mathematics at all locations in time and space and also to study the variety of possible universes. Cosmological explorations of universes which do not allow conscious life must be done by Platonists if they are going to use mathematics in these cases. (?) Materialists should question using mathematics as a valid tool in the cases where life, and hence mathematics, cannot exist.
The arguments for, and against, the cosmological Anthropic principle seem to require a Platonist approach to Math regardless of whether you are for or against such a principle. This is a question for another Forum/Category/topic. I apologize to Cindy! I highjacked the question/thread and am sorry.
John
-
-
John, no harm, no foul or is that fowl? lol I appreciate your input and participation, truly.
I actually began this inquiry with an other query in mind, but first I wanted a baseline to progress from.
I don't see any consensus here to extrapolate a sound footing into the next phase of my thought process.
It is my contention that once a thing is created it evolves, it matures and grows until it fulfills its purpose or function and can not be contained within its currant parameters..
So if math is created, one had to give 'birth' to the numbers and they would have evolved from counting to calculas. Interestingly I just looked it up in my trusty dictionary and calculas is from 'pebble' a stone used in counting.
If math is invented someone had to have a need and devise a way to keep track of things. Symbols were created or devised. By its own defination invented is created.
So as I see it they are still actually one and the same, it is simply a matter of perspective and personal experience and knowledge.
-
Permalink Reply by Ferran Sanz Orriols on
-
Hi friends!
neither invented nor created, maths are discovered; numbers, lines, etc... have a life of their own ;-)
I'd even say that numbers, at least some of them, are more inteligent than some matemathicians hehehe
have fun today!!!
(I don't mean to offend, i'm only the crazy fellow of the site ;-)
-
-
Hi Ferran,
wouldn't you say that to be discovered a thing has to exist and to exist it has to come into being, and that means creating? And once a thing is created it can evolve.
Isn't it interesting how we had these symbols to identify numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and now we have computer language that utilizes just the 0 and 1 to represent so much.
But I can't see how numbers are anything more than a tool to help a person express an amount.
confidentually, I don't understand how numbers can represent a process, like Einsteins theory of relativity.
Thanks for your input.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
