Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

I think a better analogy would be to put two identical cheeseburgers on a scale, and then replace them with the number 1.

Or put a cheeseburger on one side, and some horseshit that weighs the same on the other side. Then replace both with the number 1, and the scale with the equal sign. So now we have cheeseburger = horseshit!

- - - Updated - - -

The number 1 is a concept. It has no weight or nutritional value.

The number 1 simply represents the property of the ball's mass. Whatever this mass actually is doesn't matter in terms of equations.

And a pile of horseshit could have the same mass as the ball.

Then the equation is for mass.

 

[untermensche]

The number 1 is a concept. It has no weight or nutritional value.

The number 1 simply represents the property of the ball's mass. Whatever this mass actually is doesn't matter in terms of equations.

It may represent a mass but it has no mass. And it has no behavior.

A number is a concept. It only has existence in minds that understand the concept. Without minds the number one doesn't exist.

The number one written on paper is just a meaningless mark on paper without a mind that understands the concept and knows the symbol.

But the ball exists with or without minds.

 

[ryan]

The number 1 simply represents the property of the ball's mass. Whatever this mass actually is doesn't matter in terms of equations.

It may represent a mass but it has no mass. And it has no behavior.

I agree.

A number is a concept. It only has existence in minds that understand the concept. Without minds the number one doesn't exist.

Do you believe that every thought has a chemical process? Or do you believe that every thought is a chemical process? Or do you believe something else?

The number one written on paper is just a meaningless mark on paper without a mind that understands the concept and knows the symbol.

But the ball exists with or without minds.

What about its mass?

 

[Kharakov]

Someone isn't picking up on the fact that elementary charge follows the axioms of arithmetic exactly. In fact, many behaviors in reality can be described with mathematical equations.

The behaviors occur because these are the simplest behaviors that can occur. Basically, the axioms of mathematics describe the simplest, most primitive behaviors in reality.

 

[ryan]

Someone isn't picking up on the fact that elementary charge follows the axioms of arithmetic exactly. In fact, many behaviors in reality can be described with mathematical equations.

The behaviors occur because these are the simplest behaviors that can occur. Basically, the axioms of mathematics describe the simplest, most primitive behaviors in reality.

Nature gave us the idea of equations, so it seems reasonable to say that equations exist throughout nature. It's pretty obvious if the energy of the universe really is one simple equation: energy + (-energy) = 0 total energy. And all of the other symmetries point to this obvious property of existence.

 

[Kharakov]

Someone isn't picking up on the fact that elementary charge follows the axioms of arithmetic exactly. In fact, many behaviors in reality can be described with mathematical equations.

The behaviors occur because these are the simplest behaviors that can occur. Basically, the axioms of mathematics describe the simplest, most primitive behaviors in reality.

Nature gave us the idea of equations, so it seems reasonable to say that equations exist throughout nature. It's pretty obvious if the energy of the universe really is one simple equation: energy + (-energy) = 0 total energy. And all of the other symmetries point to this obvious property of existence.

Sure it is. There are plenty of asymmetries in the universe. There are even complex asymmetric relationships such as: positive actions cause more positive actions, which cause more positive actions.

Negative actions break down other actions and do not join things together, so overall, that which engages in positive actions forms groups which gather together and gain power. As intelligence is acquired, negative actions are attenuated and positive actions amplified. One learns to use positive actions to guide instead of negative actions, although in some cases one must display true negativity to negativity itself (not the being being negative).

Yeah! The second time I said being being today.

 

[untermensche]

Nature gave us the idea of equations, so it seems reasonable to say that equations exist throughout nature.

A process of trial and error has been going on for centuries.

Nature GAVE us nothing. Hard work by the very rare genius gave us equations that can predict the behavior of nature.

Humans wanted the mathematics they invented to help predict nature. And they have worked very hard to make it so.

But the fact that mathematics can be used to predict behavior is a property of mathematics, not a property of nature.

Mathematics could be used to predict the behavior of any complex system that could be closely studied and had regularity.

Human mathematics is an amazing thing, but it isn't in any way the same thing as the natural world.

 

[ryan]

Nature gave us the idea of equations, so it seems reasonable to say that equations exist throughout nature.

A process of trial and error has been going on for centuries.

Nature GAVE us nothing. Hard work by the very rare genius gave us equations that can predict the behavior of nature.

Doesn't it seem obvious that we evolved to see things as equations, and then we invented the written equations after? Evolution did all of the work by using equations in nature. I am not sure about this, but I will go out on a limb and assume that cavemen killed enough food to feed a specific number of people. We used these equations, and this behavior/intellect probably became a selective advantage.

I know that Juma said something like this earlier. I didn't agree because we were discussing how induction continues to hold. So it was a not quite what I am saying here.

Humans wanted the mathematics they invented to help predict nature. And they have worked very hard to make it so.

But the fact that mathematics can be used to predict behavior is a property of mathematics, not a property of nature.

Mathematics could be used to predict the behavior of any complex system that could be closely studied and had regularity.

Human mathematics is an amazing thing, but it isn't in any way the same thing as the natural world.

Again, just because we didn't write numbers on paper does not mean that we were not doing math before math was invented.

 

[Juma]

Again, just because we didn't write numbers on paper does not mean that we were not doing math before math was invented.

This is obviously a contradiction.
You have to clear up your concepts.

 

[ryan]

Again, just because we didn't write numbers on paper does not mean that we were not doing math before math was invented.

This is obviously a contradiction.
You have to clear up your concepts.

So, are you saying that we have to consciously invent math for it to exist and be practiced? I strongly disagree. I won't have to look hard to show you evidence that people at some point practiced math before math was invented.

 

[Juma]

This is obviously a contradiction.
You have to clear up your concepts.

So, are you saying that we have to consciously invent math for it to exist and be practiced? I strongly disagree. I won't have to look hard to show you evidence that people at some point practiced math before math was invented.

It was you who wrote that we used math before it was invented

 

[ryan]

So, are you saying that we have to consciously invent math for it to exist and be practiced? I strongly disagree. I won't have to look hard to show you evidence that people at some point practiced math before math was invented.

It was you who wrote that we used math before it was invented

I think you misunderstood my last post. What is your answer to the question?

 

[Kharakov]

It was you who wrote that we used math before it was invented

I think you misunderstood my last post. What is your answer to the question?

I'm confused- Is one of you claiming that the symbols used to represent the mathematical behaviors of the universe pre-exists the mathematical behaviors of the universe? It could very well be that the symbols, and the beings engaging in the behaviors are one and the same on the universal level, and the symbols are only separate from the behaviors in higher level minds that are metaphysically imposed upon the other beings in the universe (like our human minds).

 

[Juma]

[It could very well be that the symbols, and the beings engaging in the behaviors are one and the same on the universal level, and the symbols are only separate from the behaviors in higher level minds that are metaphysically imposed upon the other beings in the universe (like our human minds).

It could very well be that you actually tried to express something interesting. I just cannot fathom what.

 

[ryan]

I think you misunderstood my last post. What is your answer to the question?

I'm confused- Is one of you claiming that the symbols used to represent the mathematical behaviors of the universe pre-exists the mathematical behaviors of the universe? It could very well be that the symbols, and the beings engaging in the behaviors are one and the same on the universal level, and the symbols are only separate from the behaviors in higher level minds that are metaphysically imposed upon the other beings in the universe (like our human minds).

Yes, and the real equations are the ones in nature, not the ones written on paper. We can write 2 kg + 3 kg = 7 kg, but nature would only follow the correct equation.

It seems like mathematics follows the laws of nature and not the other way around.

 

[Kharakov]

[It could very well be that the symbols, and the beings engaging in the behaviors are one and the same on the universal level, and the symbols are only separate from the behaviors in higher level minds that are metaphysically imposed upon the other beings in the universe (like our human minds).

It could very well be that you actually tried to express something interesting. I just cannot fathom what.

Prior to the musing statement, there is a question for you and Ryan.

What I expressed in the statement is that at some level, the symbols and what they express could be the same.

 

[ryan]

It could very well be that you actually tried to express something interesting. I just cannot fathom what.

Prior to the musing statement, there is a question for you and Ryan.

What I expressed in the statement is that at some level, the symbols and what they express could be the same.

Can you put that question differently?

For example, you seem to be asking if we think that symbols like + were around before the universe behaved in such a way that things could add together. In which case my answer is no.

 

[Juma]

Is one of you claiming that the symbols used to represent the mathematical behaviors of the universe pre-exists the mathematical behaviors of the universe?

I'm not.

 

[Juma]

What I expressed in the statement is that at some level, the symbols and what they express could be the same.

Still doesnt compute.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, and the real equations are the ones in nature, not the ones written on paper. We can write 2 kg + 3 kg = 7 kg, but nature would only follow the correct equation.

It seems like mathematics follows the laws of nature and not the other way around.

There are no such thing as numbers in nature. There is no 2.

There are things with mass.

It is only humans that assign numbers to specific masses.

Nature doesn't add anything. Nature is everything in the universe. Nothing is added in nature. Things change, that is all.