Do numbers really mean anything?

[apophenia]

Now what?

I believe you were going to tell me about this 'reality' thing that you keep going on about, and how you know about it.

Same way you know about it. Is there another way?

*plonk* If you'd simply stated up front that you're nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual poseur trying to look smart with vacuously ill-informed questions and evasions of the real questions, I would have known not to waste my time. I should have known from your initial post which contained such inanities as the "irrationality" of irrational and imaginary numbers, and questions as to whether, "Nature" is the language of the universe (I presume you meant mathematics, but since it was clear you didn't having a farging idea what the meaning of half the words you were using was, it could easily have been just more of the same). After giving it some thought, and deferring on a real response to your question, my initial thought was to simply tell you to sod off. Unfortunately, I chose to give you another chance, if only with a teaser. You didn't disappoint, confirming my suspicion that "there's nothing to see here" and that you are an empty vessel.

[FBM]

Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays.

[apophenia]

Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays.

Go fuck a rake.

[FBM]

Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays.

Go fuck a rake.

Why the animosity? Have I personally insulted or attacked you somewhere? If so, I don't recall it.

[Rob]

From what I have seen, FBM, Ap just likes being a dick to people(meaning this is the nicest most un-member-attacking-way of course). Nothing in this thread warrants such a response. -.-

[FBM]

From what I have seen, FBM, Ap just likes being a dick to people(meaning this is the nicest most un-member-attacking-way of course). Nothing in this thread warrants such a response. -.-

I didn't think so, but I was wondering if maybe I'd clashed with her in another thread sometime and had forgotten about it.


Anyway, something about the limitations in making mathematical models:

http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/mode ... ilding.pdf

[mistermack]

Do numbers mean anything? Numbers mean EVERYTHING.
In the beginning, there were only two microscopic pieces of energy. That's all there was. And one plus one equalled two. But then, for a very short while, one plus one equalled three, and that's what caused the big bang.

[FBM]

Do numbers mean anything? Numbers mean EVERYTHING.
In the beginning, there were only two microscopic pieces of energy. That's all there was. And one plus one equalled two. But then, for a very short while, one plus one equalled three, and that's what caused the big bang.

I was going to mention that, but...dunno...never found the right time, I guess.

[Audley Strange]

What's the mathematical equivalent for Hic Sunt Draconis?

[tattuchu]

1) Of course numbers mean something!
2) If numbers didn't mean something, then we wouldn't have thought of them!
3) Numbers are something we count on to describe our reality!
4) Numbering systems are useful!
5) This is a lame attempt at humor!
6) Please just ignore me!
7) I'm going to go fuck a rake now!
8) You can leaf me to my own devices!
9) I made a bad pun!
10) And finally, what are my other devices, and where have I mislaid them?!

[Hermit]

do numbers and mathematics really govern the behavior of the universe? Is the behavior of phenomena limited by mathematics? Did mathematics determine how things came to be what they are, or the way things happen?

Phenomena behave the way they appear to us. There is nothing immediate about them. Then we abstract their behaviour into formulae.

I don't think that it is useful to engage in peregrinations of an ontological sort about it. Let's forget about "reality", whatever sphere of it we are used to thinking. Let's just talk of phenomena and how we describe them. Let's acknowledge that we cannot categorically prise them apart. We "see things" and we create models of their behaviour, which are predominantly mathematical. As our models become increasingly accurate, more encompassing and predict the existence/behaviour of phenomena we were hitherto unaware of, it becomes very tempting indeed to believe that there is a physical reality out there, but that can no more be proven than the assumption of causality. Both may exist. We just have no means of telling if they do, or not. So, I think asking the question of whether mathematics governs the universe is barking up the wrong tree. That "problem" will dissolve into a general air of irrelevance when we jettison the idea that we are actually grappling with an objective reality. I am not saying there is none. I just mean it's beyond our ken.



Apoplexia, I hope you'll feel better soon, and that when you're in a better frame of mind you'll have a quick giggle about your previous posts and move on.


Edit: Just noticed "Post bollocks". LOL. How appropriate for this post.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I've just started reading this...



1,000 pages of the mathematics underneath everything. It's going to take a while to read it and many many whiles to understand it.

[FBM]

...So, I think asking the question of whether mathematics governs the universe is barking up the wrong tree. That "problem" will dissolve into a general air of irrelevance when we jettison the idea that we are actually grappling with an objective reality. I am not saying there is none. I just mean it's beyond our ken.

That's the direction I was headed in, yes. And I was going to bitch and moan further about how textbooks, teachers and documentaries so often make it sound as if we had mathematically conquered the whole universe, when in fact, we haven't even gotten outside our own heads. Over-reaching, I call it.

Apoplexia, I hope you'll feel better soon, and that when you're in a better frame of mind you'll have a quick giggle about your previous posts and move on.

I've read up on her various conditions as she's described them, and wish her the best, too. I admit that I could've structured the OP a bit more carefully, as well.

[Hermit]

we haven't even gotten outside our own heads.

I think we have, to a point. When the law of gravity was applied to the orbits of our planets, it became obvious that the planets did not quite travel along the path gravity said they should. Astronomers did some calculations (on the assumption that the law was correct) and hypothesised the existence of as yet unknown masses that would account for the difference between theory and observation. Based on mathematical calculations (rather than direct observation) Neptune was discovered in 1846 and Pluto in 1915/1930.

I think this sort of thing indicates that we are getting outside of our heads to an extent. What it does not mean is that we apprehend unmediated reality. We are forever limited to systematising the behaviour of phenomena as they are filtering in through our senses (and even those observations (in the widest sense) are theory-laden). "Reality" can only be known to us in regard to what it does, not what it is. So we fit formulae to the phenomena that filter into our minds via our senses as best we can. The formulae become more accurate and cover greater areas of behaviour, but ultimately we cannot say they describe reality. Nor can we even say we are approaching a description of reality. Given a different starting point, and perhaps a different set of senses, we might have come up with a completely different system, a system that is just as good as the one we do have now, or better, but can't be mapped to it.

[charlou]