What a concise explanation for a concept that always seemed self evident to me, even before knowing what it was called... Platonism.

Very good discussion. Thanks 🙏

Excellent... thanks 🙏.

5:53 Some Master keys to the mysteries of existence. Thanks sir Mark Balaguer for revealing existential mysteries of maths.

Very interesting point of view.

Great disscusion

Wonderful talk. A problem I have with the world of ideas is whether or not it includes incorrect ideas. Is the idea that the number three is even, a part of the world of ideas? And if it only contains correct ideas, who or what made that determination? What about the idea of Robert Kuhn? Is that part of the world of ideas? Is there a single-correct-idea of Robert Kuhn? Do new ideas arise and become part of the world of ideas? if so, how? Because someone thought them up? How would they get from the thinker’s mind (whatever that is) to the extra-physical world of ideas? And if the world of ideas already contains all ideas, then there can be no original thought on our part. And what does that say about something like a Charles Ives composition? Is such a composition part of the world of ideas? Did he then simply access that composition from the world of ideas?

@BugRib

4 ай бұрын

These are good questions!

Any recommendations for further explications of his attempt to refute the mental view? I didn’t find it at all compelling.

6:30 Whats the difference, if any, between this description and a description of a master wave function of The Universe (or Multiverse)? I don't see how to begin to differentiate effectively between these two descriptions. Go Bluejays!

Great discussion! Interesting topic, but the link between math and time were not discussed. In other words, without time, would math have a purpose? If you remove time, aren’t you removing space with it? Without space or time, do any of the mathematical concepts apply?

@kos-mos1127

4 ай бұрын

Without space and time you cannot have mathematics. One implies the other.

physical and mental can be subsets of abstract mathematical reality?

abstract mathematics really exists as time, or as transition from time to energy?

Can all information be contained within a single monadic structure?

"Abstract objects that are real." Right... 🤔 Math is a logically necessary idealism/tool for describing patterns in nature, but can also be expanded to include things that don't exist.

@ronpaulrevered

4 ай бұрын

If they weren't real, then why would they have predictive powers?

Computation is fundamental.

What do we not know....

2:38 , 5:53 platonics are a prerequisite to every possibility in the real world... order could not be possible without their existence... but the question is how or from where did this "rules" emanate 🤔

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

I don’t think Platonics exist or are real in any sense. Consider the dimensions and area of a circle. We can program a computer to draw the circle, and calculate its area. We know exactly how computers work, there are no mysteries there, we have a thorough physical account of everything that happens. If the platonic world that contains circles were necessary for circle-ness to exist, we should see it interact in some way with the computer logic. There should be some causal effect from this Platonic realm necessary to the calculation, but we don’t see any such thing. Everything that happens is entirely physical, in this world. There’s nothing a Platonic realm has to add to the picture.

@S3RAVA3LM

4 ай бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 platonics acknowledges the circle, and the cause or center of it is the radii. The hypostasis: the ONE, Nous, Soul = Artist, canvas, artwork. All such talk is metaphoric because such truth is beyond the existential, no mere word can be designated to it. It is metaphor. The Existential does imply the spatial and temporal, i.e, mass and magnitude, therefore you can say Platonics doesn't exist; it's transcendental. But this isn't the debate. It's seeking to understand the substratum, and from where and how all this emanated. Doesn't matter what me or you thinks, believes, or feels. The fact is, all this. And the Good. The Being. The forms. Intellect. Beauty. Harmony. Meaning. Principle. Nature(s)

@r2c3

4 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 at one time no one knew what the air was made of and they carried along their daily routines perfectly without the air molecules geting in their way until someone figured out how to catch the wind with a veil and find a good use for it... the same with platonics, they don't get in your way for most of your computer problems until someone stumbles upon a gap in understanding and never knew that someone, like Plato, had already explored that particular mental space... so, they'll never get in your way, unless you find them useful or problematic for a particular application just like the air, the circle or any other elementary shape, the light, the smell, the feelings and the list goes on and on...

@BugRib

4 ай бұрын

@simonhibbs887 - Is consciousness physical? If so, it has properties not shared by any other physical object or process (e.g. it's comprised of un-quantifiable qualities, like the redness of red as it appears to us in visual experience). Maybe consciousness is the bridge between the Platonic and physical realms, the thing that allows the two realms to interact causally. 🤔

@simonhibbs887

4 ай бұрын

@@r2c3 We didn't know what the air was made of, but we knew there was air, we knew about wind and we could observe it's effects. There was a mysterious phenomenon we observed and were aware of, and that we needed to include in any account of things like weather. We don't observe any effects that require a platonic realm, there's no explanatory gap that needs to be filled. We know how a computer draws a circle and calculates it's parameters. There's no 'Platonic' phenomenon there that we need to include any any account of what is happening.

Mathematics is based on a set of axioms. We decide which axioms to adopt. At any moment we could drop one.

@ronpaulrevered

4 ай бұрын

You're just logically assessing axioms, but that doesn't make axioms arbitrary. Non-euclidean geometry doesn't disprove Euclidean Geometry. It just adds to our total geometric knowledge.

@tedgrant2

4 ай бұрын

@@ronpaulrevered In English Football there is an "offside rule". Is it based on logic or did it come from a higher power ? Or was it invented to confuse women ?

@tedgrant2

4 ай бұрын

@@ronpaulrevered I agree that the axioms are chosen for good reasons. And that we can add change or remove any particular axiom. Likewise we could add, change or remove a football rule.

@ronpaulrevered

4 ай бұрын

@@tedgrant2 The axioms of math and logic are not equivalent to the rules of games. The rules of math and logic are necessary vs. the rules of games are arbitrary and preferential.

@tedgrant2

4 ай бұрын

@@ronpaulrevered So the offside rule isn't necessary ? So why bother to have it ?

Great topic. I think there are other things than math that can have the same quality to truth as 2 + 3 = 5. We can have other absolute truths.

@RonPineault

4 ай бұрын

David Deutsch believes that things like morality and aesthetics also have a platonic reality

@ronpaulrevered

4 ай бұрын

Economics is such a discipline that derives laws through deduction. This guy Mises wrote a book on it called Human Action.

Assuming anything is possible; especially plutonic heaven; to avoid an implosion of abstract infinities, finite reality came forth in the fields.

What the guest forgot to address was the idea that Math is a human invention that grew, in part, out of the cause and effect world we experience around us. That we then went on, over time, to expand mathematics beyond what we can experience, in no way makes a case for it now, therefore, somehow being more than just a human invention.

@wmpx34

4 ай бұрын

He called it the “psychologist view,” i.e., it’s all in our heads.

@sujok-acupuncture9246

4 ай бұрын

Maths is not human invention but human discovery.

@longcastle4863

4 ай бұрын

@@wmpx34 It may be in our heads and certainly in our culture, but the main point is that it correlates really well with some parts of reality and is therefore a tool we use / a tool we invented that turned out to be excellent for understanding our world and, hopefully, for adapting to and surviving in it. What I have trouble understanding is, why make it more than that?

@wmpx34

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863If nothing else, exploring the question could lead to a better understanding of why the universe operates by such an ordered set of rules. You know, why this way and not another way. It could very well be that mathematics was invented, but not by us.

@blijebij

4 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 It's a significant aspect of human nature to seek explanations for the reality we are a part of. Some people, who are more emotionally oriented, do this through religion and spirituality, while others, who are more rationally oriented, seek more example explanations through mathematics, extending it to reality itself. However, the underlying need remains the same. Often, we are driven by our needs and desires. Additionally, the idea of mathematics as the explanation for reality is not foolproof. So, people can control a lot, but hardly their needs or preferences!

Nature is fundamentally about purely abstract, dynamical relationships. Likewise for mathematics. In nature,constraints that form in the dynamic result in specific outcomes, and mathematics models that. Ultimately it is all purely abstraction.

@kos-mos1127

4 ай бұрын

Nature fundamental is the limitless capability to be. Nature is whole that cannot be reduced to the sum of her parts. This is the reason why mathematics does not give us a functioning reality. Take the most powerful computer that you can imagine and plug all the mathematical equations that describe the universe and you still won’t be able to simulate the real universe.

logic and maths are just those statements that pertain to specific implications or rules. there is no other truth, nature is its own kind of truth, but it is the same kind of truth, a form embodied.

Mathematics is not only eternal but also ubiquitous, true everywhere where intelligence can evolve.

@kos-mos1127

4 ай бұрын

Mathematics is not eternal. It’s language that we use to create closures around the world.

@sonarbangla8711

4 ай бұрын

Penrose thinks mathematics is based on faith. Ifs rules are eternal and true for all time and space.@@kos-mos1127

@desxifrador

3 ай бұрын

mathematics is a language, indeed. but we humans did not invent it.

@sonarbangla8711

3 ай бұрын

@@desxifrador Mathematics is what proves divine design and is the mind of god.

@kos-mos1127

3 ай бұрын

@@sonarbangla8711 Mathematics does not prove divine design. It’s just shows we can construct logical statement from axioms.

This to me is profound, because it's bigger than the multiverse can ever be. And it contains all real and non physical objects, ideas, etc. It is very interesting. I do believe mathematics is eternal and has always existed.

I was confused before but it’s all clear now lol 😊

Are our perception of a color and our perception of a number qualitatively different things?? Is your experience of "red" different than mine? That seems possible. But, "three" can't be perceived differently and yet agreed upon. Does this say something fundamental about math???

Language, math, and even ideas can be categorized as models describing reality. You can't have math without segregating ideas into generalized categories. No apple is the same as another. Maybe instead of looking for some magical "truth," we observe, identify, describe, and model useful distinctions.

@Cuckold_Cockles

4 ай бұрын

You're talking metaphysics man. Abstract ideas and approaches that hold no regard for mathematics. The origin of everything is impossible for us to hold math in regards to, just as God or religion. We don't know WHAT can be used to explain it. I don't think "we should be" looking in any particular area, the collective we matters not; especially at a stage in civilization where we don't have the means or technology to even explore outside of our little realm called Earth. 'The Absurd' -Camus

@nathangonzales2661

4 ай бұрын

@@Cuckold_Cockles @Cuckold_Cockles The video was about metaphysics. His arguments were weak, while math is simply an extension of language constructed to be internally consistent. I only stated what is, not what ought to be.

@dfwherbie8814

4 ай бұрын

Sure. But going by how you’re grouping, you seem to think math is something we invent as opposed to something we discover

@Cuckold_Cockles

4 ай бұрын

@nathangonzales2661 the video was about if Mathematics explains our reality or we explain reality by founding and utilizing mathematics. 'Is it arbitrarily subjective to our immediate perceptive world or universal?' Is the moral of the story

@Cuckold_Cockles

4 ай бұрын

@dfwherbie8814 I'm not scheduling an opinion whatsoever, simply describing my viewpoint of the guests narrative or arrangement of thoughts on the idea itself

For his example dismissing physicalist view: alot of math is rooted in experience of the physical world, and then mathmaticians can abstract and imagine and invent symbols and languages and use the abatract (based on the real idea of quantity) idea of quantity, and difference, and shape, and interaction to discuss and play out things that dont or cant exist in reality. Like how a horse and a bird is rooted in the world, and man imagined Pegasus. However because reality 8s so complex, a pegasus like creature may be possible to exist someday. Reality is based on operates on, utilizes, allows seemingly a large amounts of certain domains of math, these maths correlating to physical quantities, their characteristics and interactions, and possible interactions. Then minds developed, and pen and paper and computers, and the ability to ask and imagine 'what if what if what if'. There exist a trillion or so apples, there is the idea of addition and multiplication and expinential. It is easier to write symbols on paper then construct reality: i can write 999999999^999999999999^9999^9999999^99999999^999999 apples This does not exist on Earth. And at 1 point 0 apples existed on earth. The notion of eternity and math: lets say energy/matter ultimately cannot be created or destroyed, there is a quantity of Somethings, it was not made, formed or fashioned from Nothing and it cannot be turned into Nothing, This implies infinite time, so maybe this universe reached some perfect stability and will exist eternally or maybe there will be infinitely different iterations of physical reality over the course of the eternal future. What Mathematical notions will be true in a possible physical Realities? If this physical reality no longer existed, and the next 10 universes are entirely different, what is the nature of true math notions in this reality, that are untrue in others? Or is it impossible for true mathematical notions, to ever be false in any other possible reality. Is it possible for a real physical reality to be made in which the relation of circles circumference and radius is not pi, or by adding 1 object to 2 objects results in 5 objects? It seems the idea and attempt to make a rectangle and square in any possible physical reality would be the same. If something such as 4 segments could exist in any reality, there are certain orientations they can be placed in to form certain shapes. The eternal truths of some of these sturdy bases of math and geometry, required extremely complex physical reality in order for them to be known. A physical reality can exist without minds existing in it, and that reality would by the nature of existing at all be a mathematical reality, for it would be quantities and qualities interacting resulting in results. The reality of the differences of substances, the periodic table of elements and their creative interactions. That X amount of Protons + Y amount of Neutrons + Z amount of Electrons = wood or metal or water or air or ice cream or steak or rubber or apple or mango or plastic or sand or glass or grass. The realness of reality, possibly ultimately escapes only just 2d symbols on paper, that infinitly infinitly infinitly infintly things can be imagined, but the pool of what may be imagined or abstractly symbolicly written may be larger than the pool of what is physicaly possible in this or any reality, but at the same time I dont know how long it would have taken all humans who ever lived to sit in a room with pen and paper and design every animal plant and insect from scratch. Luckily we now have super computers that can spedily play out infinitesimal subtlties of variations. As nature has done as well in its way. An insect, the abstract idea of a leg. +2, +2, +2,+2....millipede.

(2:00) *MB: **_"but it's not a physical object or a mental object instead it's an abstract object"_* ... I use a graphics program where I can draw out a star shape and then drop an image inside it. All you end up seeing is the image presented in the shape of the star. It's like a mask (or a "power clip"), but the masking object itself is never seen. If I remove its contents, all that remains is an empty placeholder ... _but the placeholder itself still exists!_ Numbers are numerical placeholders for things that exist. They aren't the thing that exists, but they exist in the same way that my mask exists. ... "1 of something" is a logical statement.

In other words, maths is real only in its applications elsewhere in our description of reality? 🤔

🤔

Force is Maths.

But what is infinity?

@faismasterx

4 ай бұрын

A concept.

This view is called Mathematical Realism

I presume you think I did not know these arguments. Either way the math describes what it describes. There are no numbers calculating themselves into form and function. There are no cellular automata or a ruliad. No multiverses no many worlds. Evan words like duality, dualism are misunderstood given the fractal pattern. It is what it is whether you choose to believe it or not.

Id recommend Jacob Klein and Morris Kline to anyone interested in this :)

Nothing VS something

There is a grammatical error in the title. It should be 'are mathematics eternal.' The subject is plural, not singular. 😊

(7:19) "The best anti-realist view is the fictionalist" err the obvious anti-realist view I think would've been Zeno because he's the one who claims katalepsis contains relations between the present and future. Fictionalism includes nuanced beliefs about prediction and hypotheses whatever those may be, nevertheless the future could be both a fiction and transcendental

No bad influence to YoYo

Math is on the same level as language and time they are human concepts or constructs that do not appear in reality a product of the mind

Is beauty eternal? Imagine a world where beauty is "used" like math - to model and predict certain things: as a causal means. Suppose some scientist would tell you that some aspect of beauty is causing the motion of planets or the consistency of billiard balls? Aesop had a sound theory that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". If beauty were like math wouldn't there be agreement as to the different apprehensions of beauty? Wouldn't beauty be generalizable and homogeneous? I can imagine a world where beauty is canned and put in a straightjacket of agreed upon values. Yet, unlike numbers, my personal access to beauty remains intuitive. Yes beauty is culturally influenced, but one's personal taste and judgement of others' tastes seems less learned and mediate than essential and immediate. Less processed and mediated by thought more instantaneous and assigned by the senses. Why do we like some types of music and not others? Some movies and books and not others? Some politicians not others? Is there a "calculation" behind all preference or another kind of "filter"? Unlike math we aren't indoctrinated in beauty in school. Why is that? What if it were reversed and we were "taught" what is beautiful and it was left to us to develop counting skills in a setting similar to art class or gym 🏋️‍♀️? Would math 🧮 be less rote and tedious and more instinctive and fun? Instead of idiot-savants like "Rain Man" would we have Gaugin's of geometry? Pollock's of topology? People with instinctive views of mathematical form and function? If there was such a society how would it differ from our own? Would it have cars and electricity and planes? Would it have chemistry ⚗️ and medicine 💊? If beauty were indoctrinated would opinions be more welcome or less? Would society be more complex and harmonious or less complex but more contentious? I think that no amount of indoctrination of beauty can dissipate the sexual urges and its Impetus for finding attractiveness in others. That individual senses of beauty would remain immediate. Unlike math it would always inspire a personal and visceral urge to advance, cultivate or preserve its view. Unlike math it would not have to be advanced by a few specialists. Every individual, sensitive to it, would respect, if not esteem, it's every value. Would have a personal view of its relevancy or irrelevancy. Whether it pertains, or not, to ones personal, and REAL, cognition. From the most minute to the infinite it would challenge your personal aesthetic in such a way as to demand a cogent response. Does it fit or not fit in with your views? If it is coherent your aesthetic will change, if it is not coherent it will have to change.

Math is just how we express what is already present. It describes something, it's not a thing otherwise. Duh.

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “If the ocean were ink for ˹writing˺ the Words of my Lord, it would certainly run out before the Words of my Lord were finished, even if We refilled it with its equal.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “I am only a man like you, ˹but˺ it has been revealed to me that your God is only One God. So whoever hopes for the meeting with their Lord, let them do good deeds and associate none in the worship of their Lord.” Quran 18:109-110 The only Transmathemathics is outside Creation.

this is something philosophy has always or almost always taken as obvious, that our theories do not reflect nature perfectly. this is assumed for example by both bohr and einstein in their competing papers on quantum mechanics and its completeness. nobody should take such a notion completely seriously, and not taking that notion completely seriously has largely been the subject of philosophy since the beginning of inquiry. if what mark said about taking physical theories to be true, was true, there would be no need to philosophy at all. everything would just be obvious.

the two views of 'antirealism' or 'platonism' are the same epistemologically -- either math is there and we cannot access it, or it is not there and we cannot access it. it's basically an ontological argument, which belongs in metaphysics with deities and multiverses.

@HyzersGR

4 ай бұрын

Can we not access it by using it?

@LittleMushroomGuy

4 ай бұрын

That is not true at all

@alexanderjenkins7929

4 ай бұрын

Ontological numbers, as defined by the principles of ontological mathematics, are the true basis of reality. They are not mere human constructs or abstractions, but rather the foundational elements of existence. In this context, numbers are seen as living, dynamic entities - not static or inert. They possess an intrinsic quality that gives rise to the fabric of the universe. This perspective asserts that everything in the universe can be understood in terms of mathematical relationships. It's not that the universe is described by mathematics, but rather that the universe is mathematics. In this view, ontological numbers are the eternal, immutable truths that underpin all of existence. They are the basis for understanding the true nature of reality, beyond the scope of physical observation and experimentation. Ontological mathematics redefines the understanding of numbers, emphasizing their fundamental role in creating and shaping reality, as opposed to their traditional role as tools for quantification and measurement. This shift from a conventional to an ontological understanding of numbers is key to grasping the full implications of this philosophical and mathematical framework. chat.openai.com/g/g-5AVr52m7w-ontological-mathematics-bot

@1stPrinciples455

4 ай бұрын

Maths Only handles our perception. It cannot handle the higher dimensions absolutely and only theoretically at best, even if it cannot prove it has theoretically handled higher dimensions for the simple fact that humans cannot prove scientifically realistically that higher dimensions exist. Maths is just a human construct. It's artificial and not fundamental

@anywallsocket

4 ай бұрын

@@HyzersGR i mean the math the video is talking about, ie. what the symbolic language represents -- the 'realness' of the language is overt.

Numbers are the photons of the brain. The brain can only *see* numbers. The eyes can only see visible light. Numbers are a spectrum but its ultimately tied up to the human condition.

@user-ys3ev5sh3w

4 ай бұрын

"No distinction between numbers and shape. Numbers could not exist without shape". Pyphagoras (reincarnation of Euphorbos).

i subtly disagree with mark, and i outlined it bellow. it is a subtle matter, but it is easy to make category errors here, all the great philosophers make them, and from there we descend into conclusions that are subtly mistaken but hold some resemblance to the truth as it really is. this is by no means a complete exposition, but it gives a more or less clear picture if you read it carefully.

So it could be one of these ideas, none of these ideas, a combination of one or more of these ideas or a combination of none of these ideas. You do the math 🤔🙃

ja but that assumes the reality we create via the perception of our minds of the world outside (e.a. Math) is the right one just because it works for us eo ipso in dealing...

0:42 ... the most obvious one is this is the system of natural numbers ... There are infinitely many primes, as demonstrated by Euclid around 300 BC. 1:46 ... well if I had three pebbles what's that? MB: so that's one view there are basically four views you could have here one is three is this general term that applies to piles of three things that's a physicalistic view then there's a psychologistic view that three is an idea in our head (it's all in my head) exactly then there's an anti-realist view that there's no such thing as the right and then there's teh platonistic view that three is a real object but it's not a physical object or a mental object instead it's an abstract object 2:17 this is fascinating and let's talk about (zero and irrational numbers) 4:20 ... in set theory it's been proven contrary to the common wisdom that there are infinitely many sizes of infinity so most people think once you have infinity that's it you can't get bigger you throw more objects in it's still just inifinity but in 1870 it was proved by Georg Cantor that actaully there are many sizes of infinity and in fact infinitely many sizes of infinity they keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger (transfinite) trans finite Cardinals they're called. 4:46

Math is It only symbol that describes reality. It is NOT math pictures reality but conscieusness show math How pictures reality. Out conscieusness math is It nothing only abstract symbol.

My cat does not ponder such things. Or does he? Why?

A 'Platonic Heaven' doesn't help us though, suppose it does exist and 'contains' things like numbers and triangles. When we calculate the dimensions of a triangle there would have to be some causal interaction between our world and this Platonic world, but we can automate the computation of triangle dimensions. We can do it in a computer, an entirely physical system that we control and can inspect in absolute detail. We know everything there is to know about how it works, and none of that entails it causally interacting with some other universe. Everything that is happening in it is fully described by physical theory. Therefore there is no role for a concept of triangles in a Platonic Heaven, there's no work for it to do, no phenomenon we need it to explain. I think he was right when he initially described mathematics as a language. That's correct. In languages we can describe things that exist like triangles and apples, and we consider that objects that match these descriptions are those things. We can also have descriptions of things that don't exist in the world, such as unicorns and hobbits. For a description to exist it doesn't need to refer to anything, but it can refer to something. Referring to something means there is a physical mapping between the description and a part of the world, and that mapping is a physical process. So fingerprint recognition software can match a scan of a finger against a record of it's pattern, or an image classifier can classify a picture of an apple with the tag 'apple'. So descriptions referring to things is a physical process we understand very well and can engineer. To say that a description does not refer to something just means there's no mapping from the description to anything physical.

No, only I am Eternal. 😂

Truth can exist without humans, but existence can't exist without humans :)

@kos-mos1127

4 ай бұрын

Existence exists without truth. The only property of existence is the capability to be.

@mgregory22

4 ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 Existence comes from the intellect. The intellect divides reality into things that are relative to each other (i.e. A and not-A), so existence is relative. Truth is absolute. It's reality, it's infinite. 2+2=4 is true in all worlds, throughout all space and time, but the ideas that construct the statement 2+2=4 require a consciousness to define them.

@kos-mos1127

4 ай бұрын

@@mgregory22 Truth is relative and comes from making observations of existence to form assumptions in oder to construct the syntax that 2 + 2 = 4. Existence is not a predicate it's what everything else predicated on. Existence is pure being and without existence you cannot have truth. Reality is the matter that makes up all substances. Truth is a concept that maps to reality. There is no such thing as an independent truth existing in a platonic dimension.

@mgregory22

4 ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 I agree that there's no such thing as an independent truth existing in a platonic dimension. What I'm saying is truth is everything. It's the totality of existence. A truth like 2+2=4 is pointing directly at it, as I described earlier. It's true for all space and time. Existence is relative. It's based on cause and effect. Nothing exists without being dependent on other things. Truth is not dependent on anything.

@mgregory22

4 ай бұрын

Or it might make more sense to think of cause and effect as arising from existence.

drop the idea that 3 exists out there somewhere, because somewhere doesn't mean anything with respect to that concept. all possible abstractions are possible, all impossible abstractions are impossible, that is enough, stop there. there is independent existence of mathematical concepts as differentiated form any other abstractions that doesn't mean they are not real or that the truths of mathematics are false. it just means that the truths we find in mathematics are truths that are independent of us, the real world and so on, or anything that "actually exists" they just have be able to be embodied or followed in principle to exist and that is almost a tautology when it comes to logic and mathematics. think of them all as existing with no reliance on being real or existing in any tangible way. therefore the argument appealing to physical theories just misses the point, that is not an argument for Platonism but an argument against it and for the physicalist view if you really think about it, but out physical theories are in logical language or mathematical language, which is the same thing, it is a rule set and symbols we use to predict stuff and apply it back in experience. the only way they are fictions as we use them are as they are embodied in thought and on paper or in a computer, as notation devices and operational behavior of human being using the theories of nature, they are not identical to nature either in form or in practice. when it comes to pure mathematics we must separate what we are doing when we are doing maths or thinking of maths, or understanding it, whether in proof or application, and the concepts themselves which are only possibilities of such things, who's only independent existence is in the set of possible abstractions which requires no independent existence to be real. this view is not an anti realist one or a physicalist one, it is a merger of physicalism, psycologism and platonism, when we do math it is as a physical process where the abstractions are embedded in our behavior as physical systems through our psycological faculties, we can only make a rule set reliable to the point of proof if the rule set is infact unambigous in that form by some rules we can reliably follow, if we started using some other convention instead we would follow a different rule set, but both are part of all possible rule sets, those are the platonic forms, they do not exist, but they are real, their reality is a different kind of reality, saying it is out there somewhere, or that they depend upon their existence in some independent sense to be real is missing the point. when we do mathematics it is according to a physicalist and cognitivist principle, of physical systems comprehending and following rules generated independently of the forms other than the form partaining to nature, this is necessary for human being to be able to do maths at all, that doesnt mean that the set of possible abstractions is restricted by what actually does happen in any sense, that is where we tread wrong here, there is no explaination that can go beyond this empty form of destinction, other than to eliviate us from our need to understand the forms within a rigid framework, because that isnt possible without using the whole set of possible abstractions as a basis, which is necessesarily unbounded in all ways you could possibly imagine even in principle. so what we are doing with language or maths or whatever else, is constriained by what actually happens in nature, beecause the emergence of the proof of fermats last theorem certainly did happen as a physical process, or we have to say something incoherent about nature itself, namely that it produces results it cant produce. it isnt that the consequences of analysis are wrong or incoherent but they only rely on the reliability of setting and following unambigous rules and their truth as it is evident to us is constrained only by the workings of nature producing our understanding of them and their operational content. you can't say something as simple as because cantor did something back then that means it isnt a result of a physical analogy, that is simply missing the entire point, it isnt that all mathematics has to describe statics or dynamical facts about nature to be embodied in nature, no, nature just has to accomodate the rules and the rules followed as undestood by the people doing the mathematics, in the world when we are doing it, but that is a one way street, in no sense does that restrict the possible abstractions, just the realizable abstractions in understanding, because an understander has to be embodied in nature. in principle there has to be a hypothetical understander for all mathematical concepts that are unabigous, but that doesnt have anything to do with the physical requirements of such an understander, just that the rules themselves are clear enough to be followed, that is the criteria of a form that they be spesific, thats all, the implication in the other direction is just that for a hypothetical understanding to understand a concept, and to be able to use it in any way, it must be possible to embody such an understander in nature. on one side the criteria is spesificity on the other it is suffichient spesificity in fact in nature, the relationship between them is that a concept that is not spesific cannot be embodied, but that a concept cannot be embodied doesnt mean for sure that it is not spesific. if we knew all spesific concepts that are possible we would know nature has all of them embodied in thought, but if there are spesific concept s that cannot be embodied in thought, then we will never know about them, it doesnt mean they do not exist however. but the kind of universality of nature that i believe in is that all concepts or forms if you like that are spesific, can be embodied in thought, except for the whole of nature itself which is with spesificity but not a wholistic ebodiment in though, rather it is the embodiement of all there is, that exists, we cannot show that all concepts are contained within it for this reason as well, so we can either believe nature has all concepts stowed away in thought somewhere, or that nature are missing some embodied concepts that have spesificty but never has embodiment, but we will never know about those anyway, because we are embodied. sorry for spelling errors, logic is my first language, not english. as long as you dont reach for a seperate kind of embodiement except for spesificity it is not an issue, this kind of view is perfectly consistent.

pi will be pi for ever.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" The universe is a language, refletive of God, which is pure mind. Mathematics is unreasonably effective to describe reality because reason and logic are a reflection of Gods infinite wisdom. This is why the scientific revolution happened within the framework of Christianity, and not any other society or culture. We are built in the image of God, therefore we can use logic and reason (mathematics) to describe His creation. A warm hello to all my Christian brothers. Glory to Christ! ❤

@kos-mos1127

4 ай бұрын

The scientific revolution happened under the framework of Kant because he was the 1st philosopher to introduce epistemology which is the basis for all modern science.

@pedropinho573

4 ай бұрын

Yes, Kant, who was a Christian, not a Muslim or Taoist.

@kos-mos1127

4 ай бұрын

@@pedropinho573 Kant also regarded God as another creature in the Universe.

Certain types of cardinality doesn't apply to the physical world, sure. But this doesn't rule out mental objects. Dreams are mental objects as well.

1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are natural dimensions. 0D is not-natural.

@user-ys3ev5sh3w

4 ай бұрын

0D is absense of dimension. For example set in Math has curvature(quantity) but has no dimension(quality) like peaces of broken shape.

@ready1fire1aim1

4 ай бұрын

@@user-ys3ev5sh3w Quarks are 0D. Mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts (no spatial extension, zero size and exact location only).

@user-ys3ev5sh3w

4 ай бұрын

@@ready1fire1aim1 Quarks(charges) are 0D, but mass is 2D ( magnet is 1D, gravity is 3D). Double slit experiment prove it. When to massless photons in perpendicular direction fly another photons , they make triangles (masses) and fly only into one slit.

@ready1fire1aim1

4 ай бұрын

@@user-ys3ev5sh3w The big idea is "do quarks have spatial extension?"... and they most certainly do not (which is a good thing).

@user-ys3ev5sh3w

4 ай бұрын

@@ready1fire1aim1 I consider 4D to be quintessence 5-pole (5-vertex simplex). It consists of 5 3D gravitons (our unierse North East South West). 0D may be connected to 4D making loop. "Solitary to Solitary" Plotinus (Vi,[9]7).

Numbers are 4th dimensional

No. When humans cease to exist mathematics will also cease to exist. Period. And unless we discover other intelligent life in the universe who also uses math this is fact as far as facts go and as far as we know…

@MrVontar

3 ай бұрын

Huh, there is a reason science work. Are you sure you thought about this?

Math does not exist in time, it has nothing to do with physics or the universe or the real world, but physics, the universe, and reality has everything to do with math. To talk about there not being mathematics at some point is literally using math and logic itself.

@dr_shrinker

4 ай бұрын

Math has nothing to do with physics, but physics has everything to do with math…huh?

@maxhagenauer24

4 ай бұрын

@@dr_shrinker I don't know what it means for math to be eternal but math and logic are everything in a sense. There is this part of everything where math and logic is not just necessary but it is everything. To speak of it in a physical sense, like being eternal, is wrong because to speak of it being limited goes against what it is.

With Him are the keys of the unseen-no one knows them except Him.1 And He knows what is in the land and sea. Not even a leaf falls without His knowledge, nor a grain in the darkness of the earth or anything-green or dry-but is ˹written˺ in a perfect Record.2 Quran 6:59 Everything (every matrix, every set, every infinity, every mathematics, every past, every present, every future in every space in every dimension in every universe in every CREATION) is Recorded in the Lohil-Mehfooz.

"if the physical theories are true, the mathematical objects have to be there" -- does this language not reek of child-like logic? firstly, what do you mean "true" -- scientific theories are useful because they work, and they work because they embody logical symmetries of nature, but these symmetries are the representations, not the nature being represented. you see you've got it straight backwards -- theory (mathematics) models the world, not the other way around -- you don't find perfect circles or the number 3 in nature, but you find them symbolic language. One is the simplification of the other, you figure it out.

@maxhagenauer24

4 ай бұрын

What do you mean by mathematic objects in this case? Physics relies on math but math doesn't rely on anything.

@anywallsocket

4 ай бұрын

@@maxhagenauer24 the quote is from the video, not me. math relies on logic, and logic is just the conservation of information -- that's why physics works, because the underlying math is self-consistent. it's utility, is just the fact that nature itself is consistent in many ways.

@maxhagenauer24

4 ай бұрын

@anywallsocket Math ad logic have to be consistent. To say they aren't is still using Math and logic. Physics has to work and nature has to be consistent.

@anywallsocket

4 ай бұрын

@@maxhagenauer24 yes sure, but models have limits and can produce inconsistencies relative to what they’re supposed to model. Take singularities (division by zero) for instance. Nature doesn’t have to obey any law but those required for our evolution. Regardless I’m not sure your point.

@maxhagenauer24

4 ай бұрын

@@anywallsocket Nature does have to follow some sort of laws, the fact its doing anything is for a reason, its still following logic and math. What I am trying to say is physics, the universe, reality, they all depends on math/logic but math/logic which describes everything, doesn't depend on anything itself because it is everything and it describes everything.

Platonics, ultimately emanationism. A back light, or a projector, the image and sufface. Nous is the realm of the intelligible realities, Nous of course is the ONE's overflowing, from the ONE, into the ONE, by the ONE, the mediator between the ONE and Soul Think of a man: intellect, mind, forms or thought.

If you deny the platonic, you likely, too, unwittingly deny the Principles. When you think of the higher forms, do not think of what you think form means, but the platonic form or the archtype of something. What is the form of Beauty? Whatever participates in the form of Beauty will be beautiful, but a thing that is beautiful is not The Beauty that is the archtype - the thing participates in That, or is touched by the Divine. You can discuss the proportionality of things, but you won't be understanding why it is what it is - discuss the effect all you want, that doesn't reach the truth. Platonics is the good stuff - not for everybody though. If you cannot overcome your mind, stay away, do your mathematics like a child playing in a sand box. Ultimately, it's acknowledging Principles, the virtues, being and becoming, structure, laws, nature(s), relations, etc. Why is it what it is. What is the Cause. How is Soul?

The language of life. Just look and feel your fingers and tell me numbers aren't real.

Clear as mud???

Mathematics isn't a thing. It's a model from the intention of mimicing nature. Physics is a mimic of nature, that exists as only imagination in people's mind Arithmetics triumps mathematics if you seek to understand nature truly opposed to the effects of nature - it acknowledges the principles. 0 is placeholder, 1 is principle... there's some books: theology of arithmetics, history of Greek mathematics, the universal one, lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism, touches of sweet harmony.

👎

"Is Mathematics Eternal?"... well, let's see : .. if you divide 7 by 3, or 7 ÷ 3, the result would be 2.3333333333333333333333333333333333333 to no end, forever ETERNAL.. So, the answer is yes, Mathematics is ETERNALLY IMPERFECT invented by imperfect men...

@tomjackson7755

4 ай бұрын

SMH

Stop asking meaningless dumb questions like this.

Ask ˹them, O Prophet˺, “Imagine if this ˹Quran˺ is ˹truly˺ from Allah and you deny it: who can be more astray than those who have gone too far in opposition ˹to the truth˺?” We will show them Our signs in the universe and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that this ˹Quran˺ is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is a Witness over all things? They are truly in doubt of the meeting with their Lord! ˹But˺ He is indeed Fully Aware of everything. Quran 41:52-54