mathematics define or create reality?

Math is a language that describes the 'particular reality' that it (the mathematician can 'see'. It is one among mant tools that the human mind uses to understand. A 'locally' valuable tool, at times, but no more..
See the Aronofsky movie "Pi".


Oops, silly me for responding...


Then you will. People seem to 'believe' what they 'need' to believe...

If ending your 'search' is of such value to you, why not just end it now?
Overindulging in alcohol can end your 'search' also. Seems easier somehow...
Many find great joy and fulfilment in the 'search/journey'!
Perhaps your search for meaning will be richer than finding that there is none?

There are times to 'do' and there are (more importantly!) times to 'be'!

I don't see how mathematics could "create" anything except the hypothetical, so it depends on what it is you're wanting to create.

Even then, because of Godel, math leads to a dead end just like all other human intellectual endeavors.

Number is a concept, and like all concepts can be compared to reality, and used to recreate reality...

Mathematics is the most intricate, comphrensive and internally coherent form that human vanity has yet produced. It explains nothing, it does not reflect an objective reality. It is the most complex thing we have built and, in my opinion, a very ugly structure in most cases. It is ape thought pressed into the imaginary firmament.

Darknight!!!!!!!

Quite the opposite...and that is why your name is Fido.

Brightnoon has spoked, and da dog has done lifted his leg to it...

BrightNoon takes the dog to a french poodle salon for primping so that its appearance matches its personality.

A shet, a shower and a shave can make a new man out of any dog...

Let me see if I can correct this without abusing its source: Number is a form, and math is a logic, a rational use of the form... But forms are not produced... For example; signs and symbols are not produced... Does some one produce a symbol of red for danger when every child learns to associate blood and fire with danger??? The same is true of all our basic forms, that they must reflect a certain reality.. The form of a circle must reflect the reality of the circle; but as such, the form is only an abstraction of the reality, not a production, but a conclusion, a judgement, and as a judgement, it is knowledge, as I understand it from Kant, that knowledge is judgement, and all judgement on the reality is contained in the form, so that the form accurately defines the reality... So with number, that physical reality can all be expressed as more or less, one or two, whole or fraction, and etc... What we can sense we can measure, as our senses are a measure, however inaccurate which we attempt to correct with devices...Of course, it has certain failing...It is good in gross... It always begins with the axiom that one is one, and all math is based upon the value of one, the unit, the monad...But we all know that while one fish is one fish, that all fish are not equal; so the concept accepts certain inacuracies... Yet this is also true of all concepts, that they are not just ideas, but ideals, perfect by abstraction... No real dog is perfect... All ideal dogs are perfect... All conceptual circles are perfect, and no real circles are perfect... It is only because, as a concept and logic that math can represent reality with great fidelity that we deal with it... It is not exact, but generally correct.

Yea, let's bury the hatchet Fido and get down to business.



Yes they are, by the child in this case. When I say that mathetmatics is created, I don't neccessarily mean a man sitting a desk inventing new signs for calculus. At the most fundemental level, when mathematics is better known as logic, or simple thought, there is still an invention. The signs are not facts of nature; they are facts of the reality which is our interpretation of nature.



Who does the abstracting?



Again, you see the point I'm trying to make.



All concepts in math and formal logic, all formal concepts really, do not only admit certain inconsistencies, they are composed of nothing but inconsistencies. Such ideas are our attempts to make coherent these diverse experiences. These generalizations are useful, but they are not true.



Exactly, except useful does not neccessarily mean true.

Even if a form is inaccurate; and even if they, all forms as ideal are consitantly untrue does not mean they are not useful... They are flexible and can at once contatin what we do know about a phenomenon and what we do not know... They are not a real value; but a utilitarian value.. So the problem with math can be reduced to one: What is it good for; and since it does reflect reality fairly accuratly in spite of gross inaccuracies, I would say it is useful...
Compared to words which is our means of expressing moral reality, math is much more effective... The problem comes from this simple fact: Numbers can represent physical reality with great fidelity; but physical reality is a moral problem that must eventually be approached, and understood with moral forms...

I believe you have said it wrongly: A form is only as true as it is useful, because truth is told by how well a form supports life, as life is the ultimate problem... But; Truth in a narrow sense does not mean useful, so that a tremendous cascade of true equasions went into the construction of the nuclear bomb; but its use is strictly limited for mankind...

Hey Architect,

I'm not much of a mathematician (see? I just misspelled that word and had to correct it). But I would like to offer my perspective on your question/quandry if that's cool. I see that you asked not to get just rhetorical answers, mine may border on this (or take a flying leap into it, as the case may be), but here's what I'd like to offer:

[INDENT] I'm not sure they do. There's a great deal of good-thinking people who don't adhere to this notion at all; That mathematics can explain or predict at all. I suppose the most-used counter-argument might be Chaos, or perhaps even the apriori notion minute-by-minute dynamic changes in life, movement, choice, molecular movement, thermo and hydro-dynamic forces and much more precludes, by their complexity alone (if for no other reason), mathematical explanation of most phenomena and/or predictions. I say this is apriori; but it's only because I see it as so.

I'll quit blathering on this; but the short version is: Could you, perhaps, be placing a bit too high-a-premium on mathematics in search of your 'direction'?
[/INDENT][INDENT] As I suggested above, I'm not sure they explain much anyway, but I'd think they most-certainly can use to build. It's a good construct for conceptializing - from thought to reality - the aims we want. As far as 'creating' goes: Sure, why not!
[/INDENT][INDENT] Well, welcome to the human race! This isn't to belittle or otherwise cast disparagement on your plea - quite the contrary. You're in good company; we all want to find this direction.
[/INDENT][INDENT]What I want to say is this: Whatever satisfaction you might find, in life's direction, is not likely to come from anyone else. If you look to, "... someone or something" to push you in the right direction you'll inevitably doom everyone around you to disappointment. Your direction can only be satisfactorily formulated by you; this is because of your uniqueness. Look to others, without looking within for 'satisfaction'-type answers and you'll find none.
[/INDENT][INDENT]The trick is to delve deeply into those issues, questions and thought-eddies that tweek your interest and hint at promise. Flesh out those, within yourself and you'll have a better-than-average chance at finding the direction that 'feels right'.

[/INDENT]

For you, mathematics might be just the ticket. It might end up being the means by which you find direction or what 'reality' is. It sounds to me; however, that your questions are of such a nature as to preclude mathematics being the answer. They sound deeper.

I hope this helps - Thanks

Mathematics has not ended my search, in fact I would say that I have more tendency towards mysticism than ever before thanks to an understanding of the foundational problems in mathematics. Reality is simply all there is by definition. If we experience, then it is in reality; if we cannot experience it, then it makes no sense to speak of.

I do not understand the views of mathematics being proposed here, they are rash and seem a bit ignorant. Mathematics does not have predictive ability, it is the inductive method of science which uses mathematics for precise formulation that claim predictability. Mathematics is as perfect as humans are, it is subject to the same flaws as the mind is; it is incomplete, filled with paradox; as deep as we can proceed into the structure of thought is as far as we can go with mathematics and thus physics.

Mathematics clearly has 'pragmatic' applications, such as every piece of technology more complex than a crude piece of furniture (as carpenters do use arithmetic and measurement), but it is also meditative. I believe it to be an art form more than anything, and I very much enjoy solving the problems that can be formulated. There really is no art as pure as mathematics(except perhaps logic, of which mathematics is considered a child) as its subject is simply constructs of human thought which have been formulated in such a precise way that there is little to no need for interpretation. I personally find a succinct account of a mathematical situation, that is, a very well written proof, to be beautiful in the same way that a very well written aphorism is, one which strikes you very directly.

There is nothing inherently vain in mathematics. I only do it for the joy of the puzzle, and the aesthetic aspects of it. Sure, I am proud when I have labored over a very difficult puzzle and succeeded, but this happens in any field of work or art. There are many beautiful and useful ways of thinking about what is around us that come out of mathematics, they sit with me in the same way a Zen koan might sit with some( and do with me on occasion). Mathematics stimulates the part of the mind that philosophy often leaves behind, and there is much to be said about it. It does not answer questions which cannot be answered, it will not give you any profound secrets, but it is indeed a very fine art.

Know that we can never know for sure the 'reason' behind reality, this implies a departure from reality, which we can never achieve. You cannot fully understand the nature of reality from within reality, for any reason which is given is also an element of reality and must subsequently be explained. Now, reality can be defined in relative terms, which is plenty enough to give humans and absurd amount of control over their surroundings, but there is simply no way to show causation over correlation. All we know is what we have seen and experienced. It can't be shown that individual things affect other things, it can only be shown that there is a correlation between one action and another, and this can be made extensive. We know that neurons firing in your brain in the correct sequence and location causes your arm to raise, and we know the sensation it causes and of the phenomenon of will, but we cannot show a direct causation. This means absolutely nothing on a practical level, however, since we can still manipulate things to such a high degree and our theories have held quite well over the years. There simply are no answers to certain questions.

I think we agree.

... I'm reading an essay entitled "How Properties Emerge" ... the author assembles a mathematics of downward causation in order to demonstrate that the concept of downward causation is not mathematically incoherent ... does the fact that it can be expressed mathematically mean that downward causation is real? ...

Real in the sense that there is a concept and a logical/mathematical structure attendant there to....How real is a four dimensional object? At least as much as downward causation, and the system of mathematics concerning higher dimensional objects has shown itself to be useful. That being said, we do not know if our description of a fourth dimension captures every aspect of what another species which might be 'four dimensional' might consider, but what we have with the mathematics of higher dimensions is nothing but an imaginative and useful generalization of existent phenomena. The higher dimensions are not spacial concepts to us, they are syntactic generalizations which apply successfully to certain sciences.

Zetetic, that is a great point. Whenever we use the word 'real' in philosophical discussions, we have to understand that there are two possible meanings. From the perspective of solipsism (which if not a dirty word, despite what some people say) everything is real. In so-called 'objectivity,' reality may exclude mental representations, if they conflict with 'physical reailty.'

Mathematics is not an art form or craft. Nor can one alone create the obvious simplicity which fundamentally allows mathematical systems to operate. I'm not looking to mathematicians for answers to my problems; rather, it is the actual mathematics instigating my research. The theory and stratagem involved in solving a mathematical equation result in the formation of methodical technique and herein lies the beauty of the craftsmanship associated with mathematics. The crafters of these theories are judged based upon the clarity and impact of their work, but by no means may these theories explain anything more than a present occurrence in time: an interval that effects something of present and future value. The ultimate summation of the infinite intervals recurrent in today's world would unlock an eternal source of insight for all. This is the search so pertinent right now in my life.

TBA