Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

[Darkstorn]

What are these different systems that are not based off of counting. Please explain.

It's not just about "counting". There are different ways to count things. Such as base 8 and base 2.

/E: Math involves a lot more than just addition.

 

[bobhikes]

It's not just about "counting". There are different ways to count things. Such as base 8 and base 2.

Counting is counting how you mark the difference does not effect the count. All your doing is using a different language to do the counting which is easily interpreted. 1+1 still has to equal 2.

 

[Darkstorn]

Counting is counting how you mark the difference does not effect the count. All your doing is using a different language to do the counting which is easily interpreted. 1+1 still has to equal 2.

How do you explain the binary system? It has no number 2.

But you revealed it in your post: I'm using a different language. So... If there are different languages to math, then how is it different from languages? Both are human constructs, both are logical within their own context, both follow accepted rules.

Of course, math always means math. But then, language always means language as well.

Math and language are the same thing. Math in itself is a kind of language.

 

[bobhikes]

How do you explain the binary system? It has no number 2.

But you revealed it in your post: I'm using a different language. So... If there are different languages to math, then how is it different from languages? Both are human constructs, both are logical within their own context, both follow accepted rules.

Of course, math always means math. But then, language always means language as well.

Math and language are the same thing. Math in itself is a kind of language.

If you read my post you will see I say math is just like human language. The OP makes math out to be something different. I was posting after following the op's threads.

Just so everyone is aware the binary system does have the number 2 it is 10.

 

[Darkstorn]

If you read my post you will see I say math is just like human language. The OP makes math out to be something different. I was posting after following the op's threads.

I get that. I was more talking this point: "its basis is in counting which everyone in the world does the same".

That statement isn't true. People don't do it the same way. And ours was preceded by other systems. Such as tally marks, Latin numerals etc. There ARE different ways to count things. But just like language, they can all be translated.

Just so everyone is aware the binary system does have the number 2 it is 10.

No it doesn't. Number 2 is a very specific numeral. And it's not found in base-2. There is no number 2. 2 TRANSLATES as 10. And before we had these numerals, there weren't even 1 or 0 for that matter. These are very specific characters. They aren't math itself.

Also: Math is MUCH more than just counting. It is however the root of arithmetic. But again, math is more than just arithmetic.

 

[bobhikes]

I get that. I was more talking this point: "its basis is in counting which everyone in the world does the same".

That statement isn't true. People don't do it the same way. And ours was preceded by other systems. Such as tally marks, Latin numerals etc. There ARE different ways to count things. But just like language, they can all be translated.



No it doesn't. Number 2 is a very specific numeral. And it's not found in base-2. There is no number 2. 2 TRANSLATES as 10. And before we had these numerals, there weren't even 1 or 0 for that matter. These are very specific characters. They aren't the math itself.

Also: Math is MUCH more than just counting. It is however the root of arithmetic.

And the Romans used II. The guy counting his sheep in the fields or the banker counting there gold. The scales all over the world used the same method of counting, yes the weights might have been different and still are today but the counts all had to be accurate. Only cheaters would make 1+1 = 1 and in the old times it was punishable by death if caught cheating. All advanced methods of math are based off of simple counting.

 

[Darkstorn]

And the Romans used II. The guy counting his sheep in the fields or the banker counting there gold. The scales all over the world used the same method of counting, yes the weights might have been different and still are today but the counts all had to be accurate.

Which same method of counting? Bear in mind, you cannot use the number "1" to come up with your explanation seeing as they didn't have it in the olden times... Which would already count as a different method of how we're doing it now.

Counting it on paper using multiple different ways, would still count as multiple methods.

I would also think that counting it in your mind, by simple effect of "stone, another stone, yet another stone" is also a different method of counting.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the definition of counting: Yes, it always means roughly the same thing. But this is semantics: "Stone" refers to a stone for example. So you're actually arguing about language. Math can involve counting yes, but it doesn't make it anything unlike language. Languages can have rules too.

Only cheaters would make 1+1 = 1 and in the old times it was punishable by death if caught cheating.

They didn't know what 1+1 meant in the first place before they had the number "1" and the additive marker "+".

All advanced methods of math are based off of simple counting.

I would argue that only arithmetic is. Math is a more modern concept than you think.

 

[bobhikes]

Which same method of counting? Bear in mind, you cannot use the number "1" to come up with your explanation seeing as they didn't have it in the olden times... Which would already count as a different method of how we're doing it now.

Counting it on paper using multiple different ways, would still count as multiple methods.

I would also think that counting it in your mind, by simple effect of "stone, another stone, yet another stone" is also a different method of counting.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the definition of counting: Yes, it always means roughly the same thing. But this is semantics: "Stone" refers to a stone for example. So you're actually arguing about language. Math can involve counting yes, but it doesn't make it anything unlike language. Languages can have rules too.



They didn't know what 1+1 meant in the first place before they had the number "1" and the additive marker "+".



I would argue that only arithmetic is. Math is a more modern concept than you think.

This is taking the op of course if you wish to discuss my knowledge of math that would be in another thread. I did write an article in the RF about my math here's the link.

Why you can and can't Divide by Zero

I have also replied to several other threads on the topic indicating my thoughts on math.

Please allow the op to stay on course.

.

 

[Darkstorn]

Please allow the op to stay on course.

I will. I just figured i'd fix a non-factual statement in your post, there wasn't any need to argue; I'm sure we can all agree that there are different ways to count things.

 

[Sapiens]

Explain your No to (2)

You make a claim: "2) The laws of nature themselves are mathematical,"

You make further claims that:

• a realm of abstract and extraordinarily rich realm of reality that is "somehow" glued into "stuff" through these laws
• and accessible to knowledge through rationality.

You state without support: "Why should there be such a realm of abstract rational world of mathematics and why they intermingle with stuff is also not known."

As you can see, "2" is a series claims lacking any supporting evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A base 8 system is different from our base 10 for example.

Any system is just a convention, no basic difference. One can sort it out easily.

 

[sayak83]

I enjoyed following the thread but I would like to interject.

Mathematics is a human creation just like language but its basis is in counting which everyone in the world does the same. So unlike language it has developed the same all over the world. Also we have taken this counting method and applied formula's to it to fit the physical reality and they don't quite work perfectly because its a human creation.

This does not take away from the Theory that Brahman is the glue but it removes math as a reason.

After carefully perusing the current discussion in philosophical mathematics, I would consider anti-rem mathematical structuralism as the most plausible theory of what mathematics is and fictionalism as the least plausible. But you be the judge
Structuralism, Mathematical | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A structure is the abstract form of a system, which ignores or abstracts away from any features of the objects that do not bear on the relations. So, the natural number structure is the form common to all of the natural number systems. And this structure is the subject matter of arithmetic. The Euclidean-space-structure is the form common to all Euclidean systems. The theme of structuralism is that, in general, the subject matter of a branch of mathematics is a given structure or a class of related structures—such as all algebraically closed fields.

A structure is thus a “one over many,” a sort of universal. The difference between a structure and a more traditional universal, such as a property, is that a property applies to, or holds of, individual objects, while a structure applies to, or holds of, systems. Structures are thus much like structural universals, whose existence remains subject to debate among metaphysicians (see, for example, Lewis [1986], Armstrong [1986], Pagès [2002])). Indeed, one might think of a mathematical structure as a sort of free-standing structural universal, one in which the nature of the individual objects that fill the places of the structure, is irrelevant (see Shapiro [2008, §4]).

the ante rem structuralist holds that, say, the natural number structure and the Euclidean space structure exist objectively, independent of the mathematician, her form of life, and so forth, and also independent of whether the structures are exemplified in the non-mathematical realm. That is what makes them ante rem. The semantics of the respective languages is straightforward: The first-order variables range over the places in the respective structure, and a singular term such as ‘0’ denotes a particular place in the structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/structuralism.pdf

Now I am not saying that this is definitively the view every mathematician and philosophers of mathematics believes, but it is quite popular, and seems to do a better job than fictionalism or Quine's nominalism. I would also note that currently, philosophers (who are overwhelmingly atheists) lean towards Platonism or some other sort of realism when it comes to math than nominalism.

Preliminary Survey results | PhilPapers Surveys

Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?
Accept or lean toward: Platonism 366 / 931 (39.3%)
Accept or lean toward: nominalism 351 / 931 (37.7%)
Other 214 / 931 (23.0%)

 

[sayak83]

The square root of a negative.

i is square root of -1, but what is sqrt(-1) and abstraction of, and what is the complex number domain and abstraction of...from the physical world i.e.

 

[sayak83]

The material world is a beautiful world, we are here to enjoy this world, we are not here to find fault in this world, if you do then you have no idea how to enjoy it, or anything, your life is a wast, you miss out on this world, your whole existence was nothing but a wast.

Could you explain how the proposition that there is more to the world than meets the eye is equivalent to the proposition that I am finding fault with the world?

 

[sayak83]

No it hasn't. There are different systems. So it's actually just like language. They all make sense within their own context so math always "works". But there are many different ways to do it. A base 8 system is different from our base 10 for example.

Umm, no, that is just changing the standard...like meters to feets. Number theory is independent of such things.

 

[Darkstorn]

Umm, no, that is just changing the standard...like meters to feets. Number theory is independent of such things.

Sure, i'm changing the standard, in the same way as changing my language to for example, Swedish, would be changing the standard, which would be English here, yes. I am changing the standard indeed. I was trying to demonstrate this very fact.

You'll also find that number theory is just as constructed as language.

 

[sayak83]

Except that it doesn't - it's just a story. Seriously, how do you propose that we test this proposal in order to distinguish it from a guess?

And BTW - energy isn't stuff.

In order to conceive of tests, one has to establish that its a viable idea. One may note that atomism could not be objectively tested for more than 2500 years after it was proposed. So science can KBO away on that front keeping its options open to routes of testing it.
Hindu-s will say that insights gained from meditation etc. are valid means of testing such things...however I quite understand the worry of mixing up fictions and make-believe with knowledge conducive insights. There is the possibility of fruitful partnerships between rigorous psychology sciences and meditative practices and traditions in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism to tackle this problem.

 

[sayak83]

Sure, i'm changing the standard, in the same way as changing my language to for example, Swedish, would be changing the standard, which would be English here, yes. I am changing the standard indeed. I was trying to demonstrate this very fact.

And number theory is independent of such changes of standard. Mathematics of numbers is number theory which rigorously tells what numbers are, what their properties are, how they can be manipulated while preserving truths...and these entire extensive mathematics is quite independent of what base one is using.

Is a prime number still a prime when in a different base?

The fact of being prime or composite is just a property of the number itself, regardless of the way you write it. 15 and F and Roman numeral XV all mean the number, which is 3 times 5, so it is composite. That is the way it is for all numbers, in the sense that if a base ten number N has factors, you can represent those factors in Hex and their product will be the number N in Hex.

Basically the symbols we use to "do math" is itself a language that refer to fixed mathematical objects (or structures) that exist independently of the language..exactly like the relationship between ordinary language and objects of the physical world. This is why Platonism is so popular.

 

[Darkstorn]

And number theory is independent of such changes of standard.

My point is: So are language definitions independent of the languages used. Both are constructs.

Mathematics of numbers is number theory which rigorously tells what numbers are, what their properties are, how they can be manipulated while preserving truths...and these entire extensive mathematics is quite independent of what base one is using.

I think you're still missing my point.

The fact of being prime or composite is just a property of the number itself, regardless of the way you write it. 15 and F and Roman numeral XV all mean the number, which is 3 times 5, so it is composite. That is the way it is for all numbers, in the sense that if a base ten number N has factors, you can represent those factors in Hex and their product will be the number N in Hex.

I was literally making a point that language and mathematics are similar constructs. Arguably; mathematics is a form of language. It doesn't exist independently of itself either, for that matter. It's a human fabrication.

Further more, my post was a reply to a person who was talking about counting. And my post's context is thus: There are different ways to count.

I wasn't making ANY claims regarding the nature of mathematics except the following: It's a construct.

 

[Fool]

How do you explain the binary system? It has no number 2.

But you revealed it in your post: I'm using a different language. So... If there are different languages to math, then how is it different from languages? Both are human constructs, both are logical within their own context, both follow accepted rules.

Of course, math always means math. But then, language always means language as well.

Math and language are the same thing. Math in itself is a kind of language.

math can quantify. math doesn't qualify

The Dumb Parrot