Mathematics is not the language of the universe

Mathematics is not the language of the universe

Mathematics is meaningless. Mathematical logic ie formalism leads to the meaninglessness of mathematics ie the conclusions of mathematics have no meaning due to the nature of formalism. So when things like 2, 7, 4, 8 appear in mathematical logic these things have no meaning they are just symbols with out content. When you call them numbers you are using ideas that are not part of formalism all formalism deals with are contentless symbols ie meaningless symbols. If you call some of these symbols numbers you are not being ,in a formalist sense, mathematical

Thus the formalist mathematics does not deal with numbers or ideas or anything but only with contentless meaningless symbols

http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/carroll/index.asp

mapping reality is a problem of physics not mathematics -what constitutes reality is for physics not mathematics to decide

the issue is where we get – “the rules for moving the pieces/symbols on the board.” from ie where we get the rules for of symbol manipulation from.
They can only come from humans
are they arbitary
do they map reality- how do we decide that they do
what rule to we apply to judge that a rule for symbolic manipulation is correct and maps reality
but then we have the same problem

The contentlessness meaninglessness of mathematics means is has nothing to say about reality.
Those who say the language of the universe is mathematics are wrong - because mathematics says nothing about anything . The unverse has meaning but mathematics has no meaning - and thus cant give meaning to the universe

IF THE UNIVERSE HAS A LANGUAGE IT IS NOT MATHEMATICS

Please explain to me the difference between physics and mathematics. I really want to hear this one.

simple
as the quote says mathematics has no semantic content
physics has semantic content

now if you ask what physics is then go and read up on the issues around science non-science

Hey, ladyjane. Has anyone ever claimed that mathematics is the “language of the universe”? Or, better, has anyone ever explained what that phrase could possibly mean?

Logic, by the way, has semantic content, but it is still mathematics. So is physics. All symbols must be given meaning by the users - by people.

Are you just pissed off at your math teacher?

the symbols in formal formalism have to have a unique identity to seperate and distinguish them from other symbols
thus the symbols create an ontology
just like words and logic
words imply an ontology ie an identity to distinguish them from other words ie horse has an essence different to a cow
logic requires that the Ps and Qs have seperate identities
without the law of identity logic cant work
but this law of identity projects onto the universe a certain ontology ie we assume things have an essence

thus our symbols words and logic project onto the universe an ontology

NOW THE PROBLEM
as pointed out by the Australian philosopher colin leslie dean

due to this hidden ontology in logic and language we end up with epistemological meaninglessness ie self contradiction
as soon as we give semantic meaning to something we end in epistemological meaninglessness due to this hidden ontology

so we have only one position A MEANINGLESS UNIVERSE
if we only go by mathematics then

  1. due to its lack of semantic content we have a meaninglessness universe
    or
    if we use language to give meaning
  2. we have a meaningless universe due to nature of logic and language

pythagoras and his ancient and modern followers

That’s pretty much crap, ladyjane. Descrete identity of symbols does not constitute an ontology. It constitutes a dictionary. Horse has a different definition than cow. The law of identity projects nothing into the universe. All mathematical systems are analytical - they do not need to correspond to any phenomena in order to constitute a cogent system. You may be projecting stuff out into the universe, but mathematicians are not, and they know it.

The universe lacks any intrinsic meaning - is that your point? Okay, fine. No need to pick on mathematics. The lack of meaning in the universe isn’t due to math or logic. It’s due to the fact that meaning is a manmade idea. And men (and women) didn’t make the universe.

you take that up with Gibson Putnam O hear Hookway etc

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/logiccentrismbook.pdf

Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views

[/url]

Lady jane,

I think your making a good point badly…You have taken a quote where someone is writing about GEB by Douglas Hofstadter. But the conclusions you come to from it are a little confused. For one mathematical logic and formulism aren’t the same thing. Mathematics is the languge we use to describe the universe this is true. ‘The language of the universe’ is a bit meaningless because a language is something used to communcate ideas between conscious beings. So what exactly do you mean by the language of the universe???

I think what your trying to say is we can’t totally describe the universe interms of symbol manipulation alone. This is because, as godel proved, any formal system is incomplete.

mathematics has no semantic content so it cant describe the world -thats is the role of physics not maths

godel proved nothing as his proof is invalid

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … GODEL5.pdf
GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GÖDEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS
CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS
By
COLIN LESLIE DEAN
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)
GAMAHUCHER PRESS WEST GEELONG, VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
2007

Oh, is that what she’s trying to say? We can’t describe the universe completely because we can’t (even) observe all of it.

Logic rests on some axioms - call them assumptions if you like. But everyone who has studied logic knows this.

Heidegger is an idiot.

It is a mistake to confuse an observed property with an essense.

ladyjane, if you are really arguing against essentialism, you could choose a better tack. Rationalists have always sought to employ logic to prove essentialism, and even vice-versa.

I just don’t really know who you, or these writers, are attacking. Plato and Aristotle were metaphysicians, yes. But no one takes them as the last word on logic. I didn’t read all of that PDF file. I wonder if Russell was mentioned. Wittgenstein was a fraud. Russell and Whitehead did not suffer the same illusions that Wittgy did.

Matehmatics can be reduced to logic. Logic is NOT concerned with semantic content. It is concerned with operations - the relations between statements. The content of statements is proto-logic. The truth of these statements is either determined (either) pre-logically, or analytically. You are arguing against an idea that no serious logician holds.

logic assumes the very thing it is trying to prove circular argument petitio
principii are invalid

thus maths has no semantic content and cant give meaning to the world
and mathematics thus cannot be the language of the universe

Any deductive argument can be written as an assumptive one. What is your point?

Ok, look, physics IS math. Mathematical languages were derived in order to describe physics. Barring any others who may have come up with the discipline simultaneously, calculus wasn’t birthed because Newton was just crazy intelligent. He had dreamt up the idea years before, true, but never pursued ‘inventing’ calculus until he needed it to describe physics.

His laws are all mathematical relationships:

  1. A body in motion stays in motion…blah blah, it’s a rephrasing of the second law
  2. F = d(mv)/dt or F = ma for v << c
  3. Every action has an equal but opposite reaction, or, for example, the force you exert on an object equals the force exerted on you by the object. F = F

And since then it has been physics’ aim to describe everything mathematically. The motion of a vibrating system could look like this: mx’‘+bx’+kx = C

The force of gravity: F = Gm1m2/r^2

The point is, without math, physics has no meaning. You can say, “Hmm, it appears that there is something that makes stuff attracted to the earth,” but without math you get an incomplete picture and can make no real conclusions. Case in point, who would think an apple exerts the same force on the earth as the earth makes on it before mathematics?

you dont seem to be following the thread

yeah, except that physics, like all hard science, requires math, or logic (same thing) to determine the relations between pieces of data. As has been pointed out, if you took logic/math away from physics, you would be back in the Middle Ages - at best.

physics tell us what the world is like not mathematics

and physics being involved with meaning
then
ends up in meaninglessness as colin leslie dean has pointed out