"the queen" of all sciences

I had a oneness once- but I couldn’t really keep it (they eat voraciously and tend to wallow in their own shit like most swine) so I set it free in the woods and haven’t seen it since…

-Imp

hi:)
thanks for all your clues here. Tell me please (if you like) what is numerology for you. Is it a pratical connection between philosophy and mathematics or is it kind of imaginary trick?
Are any connections between numbers and psychological traits. Things that happen in human lives?
I am asking cause numerology was started by ancient philosophers (they say). I think mathematic is the same way illusionary as numerology is.
Your ideas?

Perhaps Colin’s friend has a broader idea of what is real than what Platonists and most scientists hold?

The ordinary meaning of reality is that it has happened in fact, it is part of the history of the actual universe. But in the world of mathematics, most ordinary objects like doorknobs and tables are not meaningful, are not part of language, and in fact are not tangible at all. On the other hand, numbers do have special attributes that give them meaning. They are real in some possible world of numbers.

If that sounds crazy, then consider the status of ordinary objects in the actual universe. Ordinary objects like doorknobs and tables are not ordinary when viewed outside of their ordinary element. When viewed through a microscope, or a telescope, or a stethoscope, or in infrared or in x-ray, we ‘see’ right through them - they are invisible. In fact they are no longer are real. They have lost their phenomenal status.

Also, there is the anthropocentric (Freud) human element to be considered. Without people there are no such objects as doorknobs and tables at all. To a bat, would “doorknobs” still be doorknobs or would they now be tables?

You hit on a valid point there with Freud. Numbers, mathematics etc. don’t exist until human beings conjur them up, they are just another one of the many abstract concepts that human beings have devised. They most probably were given birth via sublimation.

What exists before mathematics is instinct. Call it the “will to power”, “libido”, “pleasure principle”, passion, emotion etc.

When a baby is born, does it have mathematics imprinted in its mind? No. But what it does have is instinct.

I also support the statement that mathematics is something made up by humans. This is not to say that it is in some way incorrect.

Here’s how I see it: Mathematics is a system based on the abstract meaning of quantity. As quantity is a way of classifying objects (or a group of them) it is in a sense no different than colours or other similar systems. And because quantity is a natural way for humans to see things (probably based on the psychological fact that humans tend to categorize similar objects as the same), mathematics seems perfectly natural to us, even absolute.

But if taken a different perspective there might be no quantities. For example to us remote controls separate from each other would count as two (or pick any number you’d like) remote controls.

But you could also see them as separate entities, even though they seem alike they exist in different places of space-time continuum and thus are nothing more than unique entities and restricting the usable numbers to one since they have never thought of anything similar hence have not added up anything so to them the numbers above one don’t exist. Therefore making the seemingly natural concept of quantity and mathematics nothing more than a human construct. Mathematics’ nature - to me - is human and to us correct but not universally absolute.

And since I’m so incoherent I suppose I should state my stance on this matter in one sentece: I believe everything we know and sense is just human construct, it may or may not be close to “reality”, but it doesn’t change the fact that maths and physics “work” just as philosophy does.

I hate the way how I am not able to picture a perspective in which quantity does not exist. :slight_smile:

But anyways that is just how I see it and I’m not making any claims about the rankings of different sciences because it is too dependant on individual values. But if I took a totally egotistic look on it I’d rank physics as number one because I like my microwave and TV. :sunglasses:

Math isn’t as broad as general philosophy–it’s fundamentaally a part of it after all–and is a priori; variables being inserted define an application to a posteriori knowledge. It’s specialized, which it why is can remain so much purer in terms of rigor than general philosophy. But as someone else has said already, it’s really just a focus of philosophy. It might be the shining child that helps us build our cars and get anywhere in science, but saying it is better than philosophy is like saying Ney York City is better than the United States.

It may be purer and stronger by density, but in the end it’s still part of the whole.

Mathematics is ontology.