Actually math may be a bit mathemagical, created from primally instinctive imagery. Existence (of any conceivable image of an object; which can of not combine into an objective description) and said nonexistence, is the first foundation of primary dualism.
That extends all the way into analog-digital process, as has been shown in retrospect.
So what is the 0 in between 1 and 2?
the 3 that could only be an a-priori aspect, pushed outside of the set .
As per:
'Let’s take a Heraclitean aphorism:
“One must realize that war is common, and justice strife, and that all things come to be through strife”
What is logical or mathematical or random or arbitrary or chosen about that? Maybe I should ask first if you agree with it, but even if you don’t, does it strike you as being any of those things?"
How far is this:" - give me liberty or give me death. "
from this -" It is time to insist on the truth, and to be rude about it if needs be. Politeness has its place, but I will take rude truth over well-oiled falsehood and tyranny any time."
One must distinguish between the following two statements:
The language of mathematics didn’t exist before it was invented by humans.
The universe always had the property that allowed it to be described by the language of mathematics.
The two statements aren’t mutually exclusive.
Not only that, they are both true.
When people say “The universe is mathematical” they are merely saying that the universe is such that it can be described by mathematics. Nothing else.
“The Sun is a sphere” is strictly false but “The Sun is spherical” is strictly true. Note that both statements are mathematical. Just because there are mathematical statements that cannot describe the universe does not mean there are no mathematical statements that can describe it.
Well, actually, 1) is true, and no logic is needed to ascertain it. But 2) just takes a whole bunch of stuff for granted, and congratulates itself because it is logically sound. For instance, just because it jives logically that if a property is describable and the language is developed to describe it (by the way, logic is not a language, mathematics maybe), doesn’t mean you didn’t just try to convince us that there is a “universe,” and that it has such a thing as “properties.” We do not know at all these things are true. We simply know that they provide a logical framework.
Insofar as they are both statements saying the same thing, they are actually both false. The Sun is not actually spherical. Again, its outline is a constantly shifting contour that cannot be called spherical by any stretch. That the Sun is spherical is a generalization which, though possibly very useful, is not actually true.
What it normally means is related to deductive arguments, not statements. A deductive argument is said to be logically sound if 1) it is valid, and 2) the premises are true.
Okay, so we agree statement #1 is true.
There are exactly three laptops in my room. That’s a mathematical statement, correct? It involves quantities, so it is a mathematical statement. Are you going to argue against it? Are you going to say, “You’re wrong Magnus, there are no laptops in your room”? By doing so, you’d be describing the same portion of the universe using a different mathematical statement, one involving the notion of “zero” rather than the notion of “three”, thereby shooting yourself in the foot. Or perhaps you’d say something like, “You’re wrong Magnus, the number of laptops in your room cannot be captured by any number we humans can think of”. That won’t be shooting yourself in the foot but it would be pretty strange, don’t you think? It would mean that maths is quite . . . useless.
I think I worded that thought badly. What I meant by “spherical” is “sphere-like” or “if not a sphere than at least close to being a sphere”.
The fact that the Sun is changing is not even an argument against the claim that the Sun is a sphere. The reason being is that it depends on the manner in which it is changing.
People change all the time, and yet, at all times, they are people.
I only meant it as a revelation to me and the few friends I know but since you brought it up I got curious. Quickly searching through what Mr Nietzsche wrote about maths, I am not finding that kind of statement. And what I have found doesn’t seem accurate.
Perdro ain’t wrong… I ceased engaging with James because of this/his tetchiness, when one day he snapped at me for making an enquiry.
I have a DM in my outbox from 2018, that he never got to read, as that was around the exact time he disappeared from the boards… I was issuing him an informal warning, for a stream of ad Homs towards Prismatic. I can’t bring myself to ever delete it… my homâge to JamesS.
[b]Return to Outbox
Re: “No man ever steps in the same river twice”
Sent: Sun 14 Jan, 2018 2:19
From: MagsJ
To: James S Saint
Ad Homs at every turn for Prismatic567… my next action will be a warning.
Subject: “No man ever steps in the same river twice”[/b]
[b]_
“Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.”
― Galileo Galilei[/b]
If you take the word/element ‘God’ out of the equation, I pretty much agree with the above statement… in that all things operate under the umbrella, of (what we call) maths.
A formula, of that of creation… creations blueprint, if you will.
Then why does math never just quite capture anything? It’s almost like it is an analytical framework, overlaid on the world to facilitate analysis, that through generalizations manages to mimick its intenral consistencey in what we call the physical world. We know Newton’s theory of gravity is false, but you can easily (well ok not easily) design airplanes on the basis of it.
Those references are scattered around four or five books/notebooks in aphoristic form, so good luck findin em.
Kaufmann (a translator), I believe it wuz, mentioned that N took kant for granted, which put him into the psychologism camp. He’s believing that math and logic are contingent to specific kinds of sensory apparati, and that they reflect only how the world iz perceived… not cessenarily how the world really iz.
In fact, that math generalizes rather than trip about “truth” is most of what makes it so useful. If you spend all your time obsessing about accounting for every little quirk in the Sun’s contour (‘contour’ is also only a convenient generalization) as it shifts and changes, you are unlikely to be able to come to any useful theorems regarding orbits.