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 Hari Menon on
-
Dear Cindy ,
The history of evolution of a thing has to be looked into before we can categorize - we are born in the middle where many things have been already categorized and labelled and we take them as a fact and neither are we at the end of this so - it is a question of keenly peering into the past .
Most sciences have their genesis in a ''need'' - a human urge and want arising out of developing circumstances . Most inventions are attributed to scientists rather than intelligence . It is still a need that has dictated the search and many have come across utilities whilst searching for something else . Much as Columbus ended in America !
The human is such a creature that is perpetually in motion and unsatisfied - curious as to everything and nothing and always willing to take credit for anything it has made for utility and unusable left to a vicarious nature or God.
Now mathematics of all the sciences holds a very high position - due to the very basic operations of perspective - a case of One being two . Duality is where mathematics start and ends in utter confusion in the rarified atmosphere of Binomials, Calculus,And the plethora of invasive ancient variables of the Greek alphabet .
To come to the nub of the thing - It was not Invented at its origins - it was a reality existing already to even the very first born conferred by nature due to the very powers of perception in him (namely the seeing of another ).
Rigidity enters into a thing when at some point in time a person aggrandizes it and makes it his own - these are the origins of a science proper - where we have fathers and mothers of sciences . Rules and regulations are imposed all in the name of making it intelligible yet rational to another .
In the light of the above - we can say that it was made to happen by a bunch of people at various times and societies who dictated the conduct of the profession . So Created would be it - but with a firm understanding that it is man made and not god made creation .
Science is correct when it says that measurement of time and other factors ''life'' (I take it as age and so arithmetic is involved) can be proved by mathematical equations as within the concept of science - Mathematics is more subtle and pervasive than the others - so there is a penetration of its use into other so called lesser sciences . We need not dispute what science says as you have to understand that our view of mathematics is more pragmatic and confined to how many wives i have , or children or the kilos of butter used etc . Whereas science vis a vis mathematics has defined ambits of which our poor BRAINS cannot understand and never will.
Einstein was one of a kind - he was a Philosopher Scientist - every one after him is a pretender and are only riding on his shadow - Cindy always go for the best never settle for even a second best (from what comes within you ). For him the metaphysical and the scientific held no dissonance as HE was his own thinker and so had no contradictions in the self .
Maths is a poor springboard to metaphysics since the number one is a representation of something that cannot be represented by images or thought . It proscribes the thing which in metaphysics we are concerned with . So the most we will come to are inferior theories of Unity after years of search .
The assumption of a metaphysical search are : There are things other than the Physical Or Material
Since they cannot be made into objects (at present ) they are subtler than representations and symbols and pervades the Physical .
They do not follow ANY physical or known laws of observed nature.
Bodilessness is the rule in such a search (Meta ).
There may exist many or none of other states of existence .
The only Instrument is the body and consciousness for such a search (body need not run for this )
Anything which "becomes'' an instrument in the search however good it may be MUST be given up after a while (ie.books, theories, masters, mathematics etc) Since the use of an instrument makes you shove your consciousness back into the body and mayhem will result .
Have an Ideal Horatio and test the infinite out - like say pose a question to the will and it will show provided that you are honest to yourself - (eg. how does a blind man see ?, Is it possible to have an expanded life even after merging my individuality etc ).
Oh and get rid of the instrument always - always remove the instrument so not use it as a shibboleth. - Use science but sparingly to start and get rid of it or you will get deluded soon - same with the scriptures and authority (all are instruments)
-
Permalink Reply by cindy erwin on
-
Thank you Hari for that deeply insightful response.
So you say "created", as it has evolved from counting to calculus.
-
-
Yes Cindy in the light of your question - because the Invention part and the definition that you had given were more concerned with the Faculty of Thinking and Dreaming which we cannot apply all across the board . We work form the Gross to the subtle for ease in understanding . There is a thing which I feel you have to be aware of since you have taken the care to apply precision to your thought (it is commendable) - If we were to analyze Creation on which we are both agreed upon as a starting point - obviously we can transcend this very same idea - From the gross material need this creation had an agent or many agents involved or 'people' involved - when the need arose in them for a thing the idea was given to the the 'thinker' or we need not put so much faith and can attribute it to a smart clever person who got the idea of quantifying things and later other great souls who made it symbols as the needs were many and the educated masses wanted more information - Now since it is an Idea - it now matches your First alternative or criteria at this stage (as the immediate obtained reality was refined ) by use of a subtler principle viz idea . So from Top Down view - your question satisfies the criteria of an Invention (more subtle) and lower down it is a creation (more physical)or bottoms up perspective so there is perfect harmony in what you have stated - In one case we are resolving the effect into cause and in the other case we are resolving the cause into effect (both require different thinking process) . But we have used an assumption in order to transcend mainly that ''a person had an Idea" - this assumption we placed it in order to see if our reasoning is correct as we are born after all this took place the proof is there and we can go up and down betwen these two methods of thinking - ie . Cause to effect and effect to cause and our assumption is perfect - so on an analysis of the knowledge that we now have on this subject we know we do not have to replace our assumption (or the agency assumed by us) and rework since knowledge has removed it by itself or made firm . But common sense has to be used as at every stage of transcending you have to check if you are skipping something - like say we decide to check if maths can be transcended to God - this is a very wrong approach as we are assuming too many things viz. ''decide to check if maths can be transcended to god '' !!!!. The chances are I will end up by transcending god to maths and maths to god if I am not honest with myself and use every kind of assumption without checking if ''KNOWLEDGE"" that has resulted at each stage validates my assumption or whether I am using more agents and instruments !!! (like a book on science and the authors name , and my fathers advice, and my friends reasoning etc!!!!). We are so dishonest with dealing with ourselves most of all we have no intellectual integrity .
So basically option 1. was subtle 2.option is a more grosser idea and one morphs into the other easily and faultlessly - so the example is perfect .
-
-
Hari, your reply is Outstanding! I totally understood what you said. LOL... and you got what I was inferring. 'happy that'.
I appreciate what you have said about using math to connect the transcendant to God. It is a thing people are trying to do these days isn't it?
As you say; When a new plateau or platform arrises it is best to stop at that level and readjust ones balance and understanding.
I always start with the definations as we comprehend them; keeping in mind that not all sources give the same defination. But to this end we can start with the simplest being the most correct.
ie: God is the word people use to describe the 'super-human' controlling factor. or God is the word people use to denote the Creator. Here inlies the crux.
In todays world, they are not necessarily the same, if you allow the mythologies to add a dimention then certainly in question as to inference.
So to try to mathematize creation is too soon for us yet.
Especially since I believe the creator is outside our universe.
-
-
Dear Cindy ,
Absolutely you have got the nub of the matter - we who are engaged in Theosophizing, or Philosophizing or take pride in being Thinkers (it is a reasonable pride) should not think or use words according to ordinary usage or as people are generally wont to use . The difference is that people use words so loosely and interchangeably without precision . Yes the simplest meaning for a word has to be taken and we should re work its ambit and our understanding at various levels of thought. A strictness in this will automatically bring self control to the body - one need not torture the body nor fight with it since the Body stands within our mind and intellect.
The word God can be as you have said properly made to transcend in understanding till it becomes formless and absolute which should be as it is to be understood as it was meant and not as we take it to mean . If it may be of help to you there is a thing called Pure concepts or Truth Concepts - they do not admit to any changes in meaning and its ambit of conception they are
Bliss,Infinity,Truth,Eternity,Intelligence,Consciousness,Knowledge,God,Self,(not I which is limited )Will,Being and Existence - All these are subtle principles and one cannot truncate them with limitations when using .If so used then it means it is being used not in its potential form but in a very truncated form . For instances in all the pure concepts when we ''think on them'' we must be clear of a few things in our minds we should not ''imagine'' or conceive the following
1. No lines to be assumed in the above word meanings.or divisions to be assumed .
2.No movement to be assumed by any of these concepts.
For when we think on Existence if we talk of non existence it is wrong as existence cannot be qualified - it is like death !! drawing a line since there cannot be non existence in existence and existence is the rule - since it is a single word while non existence is a qualifying and subsidiary word where we cannot have non existence (it is a shadow) as it depends on one knowing what existence is.
Note the places where you get stultified in thinking - go to the thought which stultified you and make it a ''shadow'' wall. Koans are helpful but they do to the mind what Hata Yoga does to the body - knowledge is not there only an apparent progress . one is torture of the mind and the other is torture of the body . With knowledge both are very effective but it is a vicious circle........both stop thinking in a person - and thinking alone brings knowledge .
-
-
you know, I think you just dist me.
It is the ordinary usage of words and trying to make sense of how people use them I believe: seeing how the words in each generation and century of people have changed that we can be objective and make some real progress in understanding our evolutionary progress and then make some new assertions and help people progress to a unified condition.
In meditation you calm the mind and leave emotion behind but you cannot seperate your mind from thought when thinking.
It is through our physical senses that we begin to comprehend our surroundings and through that we make intelligent decisions about our needs. It is by using all the experiences of life, personal and cultural and historical; gathering all knowledge that we can come to some conclusions about pure or true concepts and weather there actually are any: which I suggest there are not.
For if you think of pure or truth as singular or as being a universal thought I am saying "no they aren't" by the simple diversity of all minds no two people will agree on what bliss for instance is. When a body is used to activity such as a sportsman and he dies in his prime, would it be 'heavenly' and blissful as ''complete joy'' to rest in peace. Lack of motion and chaos in the molecules would be torture to a busy soul. And Death for instance is a place our metaphysical being goes after the body ceases to continue. It is an unknown realm of existance, a place of being; and being is existing. Not to be confused by existentialism. "I exist therefore I am."
OR are you saying that those said concepts are pure or true because they have no opposite? Or are you saying that list of concepts are pure or true cause someone else said so?
I don't think one should put perimeters on thoughts or thinking and I don't believe there are any right or wrong ways of thinking. It is only in the application of the thought which makes it right or wrong in conventional thinking. Yet I say there is no useful way of thinking as right or wrong; it is a matter of useful or not to the purpose. It is negative and positive: calm or chaos and each have a use. It is ones intent that makes the difference to the cause one is asserting and how others react to it.
As for koans, a riddle is only as good a tool as to make the mind think and once that happens look out world. thanks.
-
-
Cindy ,
I owe you an explanation - you are correct , but A pure concept is not mine or anybodys invention - It only helps to expand oneself into freedom of thought not limit oneself - please do not see what I write as a rule of thumb - on the contrary they are just some pointers to a different aspect on looking upon things - I actually do not like the word perspective - cognition is a better word since there is some knowledge and intelligence as attributes . Coming back to the Pure Concepts
Cindy every word in every language works on at least two out of three levels on a human being
Every form perceivable has a name - so Name and form go hand in hand
Another there is feeling attached to a word - a ''word Idea '' or an Idea underlying the word meaning
And lastly there is transmission of knowledge by the word - Where the Word meaning is assimilated - this is a matter of knowledge in the intellect.
The mind has an ambit only where Names and Forms are there - where there are no names or forms - the mind does not exist . Because the function of the mind is concerned with only Forms and Sound (a name of a form is after all a sound ) - it cannot distinguish between any forms and sound - The sound as uttered by one person and heard by another - Brings a form to the mind (but no particular knowledge of the form ) - Or creates a form in the mind by its vibrations . ie in the listener .
It is the intellect that determines what the form in the mind is - it "brings forth'' the knowledge on the form . This is automatic recall without effort from the memory of a person and its impression . This automatic recall is an action of the intellect in which our ego does not partake . There is no conscious willing by the subject in normal cases- sometimes if the impression in the mind is not clear or very hazy - then the intellect is at pains to get the knowledge pertaining to the word .
So the mind is particular as far as it displays an image - but general in the sense that it CANNOT distinguish intelligently as ''this is a house'' or ''this is Cindy'' it just displays the form and the intellect determines the object particularly .
The nature of the mind is doubt and the nature of the intellect is determination .
Another thing is you have to admit that there is an Idea contained in every word - just as we all have ideas but no words which is Fantasy - This idea in a word is the ''Standardization'' of the Idea behind the word so that the word is uniformly understood by all speakers of a particular language and its meaning is not misconstrued . Because there would be mayhem if only a word was there and no underlying idea behind it as everyone would be free to attribute whatever they felt was the representation of the word - much like the establishment and war mongers in every country. So as in a Kathakali art form in which masks are used - to standardize the inner colours of an actor so that the audience is not misled by bad acting or over acting and is left in doubt as to the character of the protagonist (whether Divine etc etc ) . So again this Word Idea which standardized the knowledge contained in a particular word was actually a Standardization of ''Feelings'' in all people who are literate - since all ideas arise from feelings . So we use a word with feeling and meaning - now you see how deep conditioning and bondage is . A person who knows this fact about language will feel so bound and crave for a minimum of freedom in thought . On unconditioning - one becomes infinitly unbound . The body cannot be blamed for bondage . The freedom is inexplicable and divine at the same time .
Take the words - Anthropomorphic or ism - for an Indian steeped in a culture of Epics and Avatars - one shudders to use this word as it constricts the word idea of Avatar .
But we are ''Forced'' to use the word anthropomorphic when we correspond with english speaking populations .The understanding of this word is through Archetypes in both the western and eastern world - for us the perfect Archetype of anthropomorphism is Sri Rama and yet there is no bondage as in english as the imagery is very sublime and dream like . Which is very hard to cull in the english language unless one goes in for poetry or the arts - but again the imagery we have in poetry (words) far exceeds the art of some of the best artists - then you may enquire what of paintings - the imagery is so vivid in words that music has led to dance and drama forms - the connotations are so evocative that - we hardly have painters of the worth of a Raphael or Van Gogh .
it is a western standard of art . and means nothing to a chinese or an indian or an australian aborigine or a spanish or an african .
So in the light of the aforesaid discussion - I will attempt to describe a pure concept for your help - A pure concept is a non object (ie. it has no name of form - genus or species ) - and they can only (if you proceed with a body centric intellect) be known to the extent of inferential knowledge (meaning that you would still need some examples in the open world ) and so your knowledge of these concepts would be less than perfect (I speak with reference to the english language ) - What we (in the eastern world and the ancient Greeks in the western world and the Red Indians,Mayans,Incas and most of the Iberian Peninsula and some europeans with Epics ) normally do is all words designating non objects are taken as comprised within the word GOD , or ISHVARA or what ever and then work our meditation on that (of course we are also included in the word ).
I am giving you a glimpse into something which you will not get from books or academia . Ten years before I myself did not know these things - Belief that we are total and pure knowledge is the only way - as Vivekanada said - "One walks in a fool (into samadhi) and comes out with knowledge ". In whatever I say or write I have chosen the upanishadic path - mainly that all what I write or say has already been written or said by someone else . Unconditioning is not easy - bondage due to education and language is even more so . It is this bondage that you have to experience acutely and look for a way to escape this - there is a thing to be said about the Greeks their ''Gnothi Seauton'' or ''Gnothi Secauton'' as some have put it is not excactly as the english translation of Know thy self - it has to be known as as Guru or gOd or Master instructing the disciple as (Knowledge)....Know thyself . The disciple is addressed as Knowledge by the master and nothing else .
I will narrate a small example of how Brahma gave advice to Sri Rama who had gone to him for initiation (sri Rama was himself a god who had forgotten his divine origins ) Brahma (the creator) Just told him :
You are the son of Vishnu (ie. the all pervading which is the word idea and meaning of Vishnu) and NOT the son of Dasharatha (ie Ramas biological parent ).
-
-
Thank you Hari, I appreciate the detail you put into this response.
I am actually writing a 'thing' and have made a special point about using words and how the brain translates so your input was helpful to that purpose.
However when you got to the section regarding the use of the words - Anthropomorphic or ism you failed to remember to take into account the basic grammer rules. Anthropomorphic refers to the ability to morph where anthropomorphism is the active ability of doing it.
I agree though about being bound to say something in a way to express an idea verses telling. When we want to tread lightly so as not to upset the reader but wish to translate with assurity and commitment. Such as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
As the eye draws in the information weather it in word or form the mind translates as you said to intellect than emotion, following a neural pathway of constructs made in the brain since infantcy. But yes translation from one language to another is quite another story.
I have tried to read the Koran three times and find it difficult to get through the first page everytime. I have read the Baghavad Gita, another wonderful book with some of the mythical stories of India, the Tao te Ching, and others I fail to recall at this time. So I do have some insight and knowledge of what you are talking about. I know about Yoga and meditation as well.
Did you see the movie Cocoon? There are visitors from off Earth and they are wearing a people suit; inside they are balls of energy. I believe some day humans shall evolve to that.
Although I am totally enjoying the discussions we are having I still need to know for this paper 'thing' I am writing, how to identify maths: as invented, created, or evolved or discovered? What is your final answer? Then we'll talk more on other subjects OK? Thank you sincerely.
-
-
Dear Cindy ,
Yes I have seen Cocoon, quite some way back when I was in college , it was a good movie,still remember it.
Just to lay the ghost at rest , In the Indian context Vedic Yagnas required calculations of auspicious times - theses were linked to celestial or astronomical calculations and the Yagnasala (the place where it was to take place ) had certain specific calculations relating to their size and shape etc. So mathematics and its allied calculations evolved as a result of this need -Here I do not speak of the more rudimentary calculations of counting . There are sutras related to Vedic Mathematics which start from the addition etc of numerals in the first Sutra and which by the 18th or 22nd sutra (I am not very sure) dealt with asymptotic axis . These calculations are still used by astrologers in the present day , I have had close relationship with an Astrologer who was also a Yogi and he has shown me how celestial (Astronomical ) calculations were done - much as the chinese use an Abacus for pretty complex calculations - he used to use a set of 22 cowri shells of various sizes to do the calculations and it was pretty fast and very much went over my head. There are (or so I have heard) of such calculations being done for auspicious events as early as 2000 BC or even earlier . In ancient India basically - mathematics, algebra and geometry were used quite frequently . In the western world these disciplines were introduced by the Arabs . As early as about 250 years before Newton , Tycho Brae , Gallileo etc.These things I leave it to the pundits my knowledge is very sparse , But it is an uncontested fact that the origins of Maths (maybe not as a science proper in the western context) was that it evolved as a human necessity . Cindy there has been a small problem that most countries who are not english speaking have been facing - It is the limitations of language and the aggrandization of history of their peoples and sciences contrary to what is the truth firstly by the now defunct British Empire who saw everything as a man who is jaundiced would see things . Almost all the written history of the countries under their sway is in English written by Englishmen who had a vested interest in both ''civilizing'' the natives and to prove in despatches that they were doing their work as''England expected every man to do his duty'' to the Crown. A lot of glossing over of the history of various countries in the Commonwealth were suitably adjusted , inaccuracies introduced and perpetrated in the name of Academics and research - It is a purely white mans view without any reference to the indigent population or their capabilities . So It would be well nigh impossible to get a true picture from anything written i the English language as it was more a matter of Political expediency and a kind of white mans hubris that the slaves should be shown as slaves . Later academicians in the English speaking world have very rarely taken balanced views as their primary sources were from the Empires documentation. This is a problem that is still continuing in the modern world . Even presently any person who is an ethnic person writes a proper history of the things as it were in English , he does not get admitted to any society or other Institutions which are c** laude or tripos - so we get a bad name that we are bad at history and (as all things) History was ''given'' to us by the white man !!. But we are not overly bothered as also it is with the Chinese about a western history and perspective or institutions of science or philosophy or intellectual rights or even medicine . When we talk of the evolution of anything what I would like to now ask you is are you asking on a prejudged knowledge or on an actual wanting to know of the truth of certain things . Our cognition of History of evolution of a science may not adhere to a strictly western view . I have stated the facts plainly and the possible places where there may be dissonance - unless you want to know the truth of the evolution of the particular Science - all things have to be considered all round for a ''thing'' to be primarily a fact . The timeline is important to ascertain the genesis of a thing . All what I have written is of no use to me For me maths first entered my life (which correspond to the same time that counting started in human history) when my mother taught me to count . Both the times are same - otherwise I would not have the faculty to assimilate numbers . A world view interests me an individual view does not.
The brain is also of no interest to me nor neural pathways - to a brain surgeon it may hold more fascination . I do not intend being one so late in life - the knowledge is useless to me . I do really hope that I am not being abrasive - some things do require that one has to eschew niceties . .I trust your large heartedness in assimilating this reply .
-
-
-
Interesting David. Care to elaborate?
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
I agree with David.
Mathematics exists and is discovered. It (math) is the same here as on Alpha Centauri.
What is also interesting is that even if the universe was created with different input parameters (physical constants etc.) mathematics would still be the same. I have not seen anyone really explore that in Cosmology.... However - if they (Cosmologists) do not think it to be true, then why are they using the same math for the variety of infinite cases.....
Usually this breaks down into1) Atheists. i.e. Math is a language created by the very unique human mind
vs
2) Platonists. i.e.Platonists are considered Mystics, they believe Math has a real existence independent of Humans.
so far, my casino on Alpha Centauri is making the same profit margins as the ones here on earth.
-
-
Dear John,
The options presented by Cindy was only two - my answer was in relation to that specific write up . Everyone is entitled to believe (within Right Reason) whatever they want to . There are too many errors of the intellect in your view . Mathematics is a Science and so an Idea it does not exist the way a human being or a tree exists . All sciences are subtle and exist as an Idea . It does not spring from the body or mind - it is from the Intellect and is demonstrable . I personally feel that as a man speaks a language - knowledge of alphabets and pronunciation and meaning are a prerequisite - so too in Metaphysics or Transcendental Sciences (are we not involved with that in this forum ?) there are certain prerequisites before one acquaints with the subject proper .
Additional introduction of irrelevant material only creates an obfuscation of the issue - It does not matter what anyone believes in about mathematics - what was expressed was not an invitation to a disagreement or agreement but rather was done strictly within the parameters of the question asked and as I Understood it . If it helps fine if it does not also it is equally fine , I am a contented either way.
In my defence what I am saying is, try to look at it, where is the connection between Platonism , Athiesm, Cosmology, Maths, Existence ? You do great injustice to the Word Idea of each and every one by connecting them in one breath. None feel the same, all are diverse and not an iota of a connection exists between them - "feel'' the word before it becomes a thought .It passes comprehension how you managed to make suc a connection - The only answer is Agency and Empirical existence.
A primary rule of transmitting information is nobody states the obvious : every one who knows the 4 basic operations also know that in mathematics as sentence is to language statements are to it - it is language represented in another form - just as spelling and grammatical mistakes are there in sentence construction in mathematics it is interpretation of the statement and errors in reasoning. Calculations are secondary - one cannot calculate when one does not apprehend. Any illiterate can count money and do basic operations - it makes him evolved the first time he does it and joins the ranks of mathematicians or people who understand mathematics so in world terms he has attained to that time in world history when Mathematics evolved. The same with Reason and Intelligence - The age of reason in the Western world is accepted as from the time of Greeks - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - when a man attains to right reason he becomes part of the Age of reason in the world not before . He may be in the 20th century but he is still a barbarian . Just as hands and legs evolved and man started to walk on earth , the same way when we are born into certain circumstances we have already a developed faculty for understanding that particular science since we are born AFTER it is evolved. So anyone can become or everyone born after the Age of reason has a faculty which can understand Philosophy or Reason . Same with any Science , otherwise you would not be born in this age and time. This is the underlying truth of "Weltzeist''.It is also the spirit of Platos most famous dialogue - Meno . I will not write.......
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
