What would the world be like if there weren't mathematics?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hello all. I guess that this is the place for this question, critical thought (the mechanism of philosophy) being necessary (so is a healthy dose of imagination), as this is potentially far reaching.

What might our life on this planet be like, what might we be like, if there were never a concept of numbers, in any form?

‘Counting’ is now a meaningless to nonexistent term. ‘Language’ itself would be different. How? ‘Everything’, I think, might be different. How so?

There are so many Perspectives here, this would be an excellent opportunity to practice a cumulative effort. If something that is offered is in ‘error’, actually has ‘math baggage’, we need to be able to spot it and point it out, perhaps offering a modification, if possible, rejection if not.

I am not decrying ‘math’ at all, that is not the point (‘believers’, please, relax), this is simply a potentially enlightening and enjoyable thought excursion (even, perhaps, for the ‘believers’).

What do you think?

I’ll start;
‘Truth’ (or ‘All’) can no longer be said to be ‘One’.
“Truth is One” would have to be changed, for instance, to; “In Silentium, Verum!” (“In Silence, Truth!”)

Obviously technology would be off on another track completely.
There will be cerebral stretch-marks’ tonight!
Join the dance!
This can well be a happy thread…
You are invited!
*__-

2

It seems latter proposition would naturally precede the former anyway, for one first experiences the true profundity of silence, and consequently apprehends fundamental unity.

“After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music”

3

Considering this thought further, I am trying to conceive of the world without mathematics, and the idea becomes increasingly absurd.

The human experience is grounded in divide and separation, scarcity and necessity.

A world without maths is a world without man

but truth is a blatant contradiction! the great comedy :laughing:

4

Ok, we awake in the morning, or wherever, and we start from scratch. We are mature, healthy folks, intelligent, awakening in the woods. No anything, but our nekkid arses, and that cutie that is waking next to us. WHat world, life, day is lived without math? How can we feed ourselves? Shelter without math? It has been done! Modes of transportation?
Yes, when i mentioned stretch-marks on the brain, they must be bought with thought.
It is ‘absurd’ because it is not our experience in day to day life. There is going to have to be some powerful thought and imagination, and a bit of head scratchin’! *__-

Our ancestors would laugh…

5

if there’s no math? then there’d be no computers. no advances in medicine. no philosophy. you’ve asked a stupid question, not a philosophical point.

6

So, you think that the world would be different? Go figure…
I wasn’t making a point. Perceptive…
Philosophy does not depend on math. Life existed before and without computers. There has always been ‘medicine’, and advances are possible without math. Different advances.
We might, MIGHT, not have the longevity of life provided by our technology, but the impact of our technological progress on the environment, and our present ‘quality of life’ leaves much to be desired.
But thanks for stopping in…

7

if the world is so stupid it can’t even count fingers, yeah the world would be different to today. how many fingers do you use to pick your nose?

If men can’t even count then I am pretty sure there’d be no logic hence no philosophy… no Wittegenstein, Bertraind Russell… have you even read philosophy?

true, but the world was different without computers, hence proving my point

correctm, ‘medicine’ that can’t even cure the common cold.

yes, advances back to the stone age.

no thanks, i’ve just wasted 2 min of life.

8

you missed the point

to be human is to be self-aware, and self-awareness implies awareness of separation (self v. other and “out there”), perception of difference. Mines vs. yours, us vs. them, ours vs. theirs (sets!)

Here we find the underpinnings of logic itself, and thus mathematics – they both assume the absolute existence of things which are separate, and things which are the same.

These are mathematical concepts being used to interact with the world, even if we don’t study and formalize them.

9

Well, animals, including other primates, survive without formal math - and some show signs of at least a rudimentary self-awareness - they probably have their own ways of comprehending singularity and multiplicity - of comparing one quantity against another - or processing shapes - but they don’t have arithmatic, so they don’t have any formalized mathematical systems - so, i think we can still reasonably hypothesize about where we would be without an established system of numbers . . .

i don’t think doing away with math necessarily requires us to do away entirely with all notions of quantity, unity, multiplicity, selfhood and form - we simply need to try to imagine what life would be like if we never learned to count . . .

i’m thinking of the example of the mother squirrel who is raising her litter of three baby squirrels inside a small furrow. one day, the time comes for her to bring her offspring out from their den into the open woods. one by one she carries them out and places them on the open ground. After the third one has been removed, she continues back to the den in search of more. finding none, she runs back to the space where the three of them are sitting, surveys the little pack and then runs again back to the furrow in search of more - this repeats several times - why? because once her litter has been placed in an open area it looks considerably smaller than when it was contained within the furrow, and the contrast has left the mother squirrel confused . . . so, she has a concept of quantity, she simply can’t count . . .

10

Some articles on the Piraha tribe:
spiegel.de/international/spi … 91,00.html
sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 111940.htm

11

You used a lower animal for animals can’t count. Less brain capacity means less need for such things. But animals can count offspring the higher up the line they are. Not as humans most likely but through their own ways. Higher order primates, dolphins, porpoises, certain whales such as the Orca. If I recall correctly it is the animals that are omnivores that have the higher brain capacity compared to herbivores and carnivores.

A world with out math for humans would be impossible, we enjoy possesions far too much.
And without numbers how would lawyers ever survive? :laughing:

12

I don’t know if they necessarily count - though clearly a chimp would not encounter the same problem as the squirrel - i would tend to think though that it’s because the chimp would have a more developed and refined sense of what each of her children looked like, their distinguishing characteristics, more of a sense of them as individual entities, and therefore would be more likely to notice if one went missing or if an interloper were tresspassing among them - a chimp would be more likely to notice the difference between three children and four children without actually engaging in a process of counting them, and without actually knowing how many children she has prior to the loss or gain of one of them - that’s a question of basic intuitive intelligence of animals, not of their ability to work with numbers - unless you’re saying that dolphins, etc actually have a sequential concept of number, as opposed to mere quantity or multiplicity. One can make size-based comparisons of groups of things without counting, no?

13

No, I don’t see that as possible. Base sized comparison is counting. Or it least the principal of counting.

14

That’s an interesting thought experiment. What would life be like for us if we had no notion of “number” or no skill such as counting? Right off the top of my head, I’d have to say that our entire evolution would have veered off in a drastically different direction - assuming, that is, that we could survive without numbers or counting. Of course, plenty of organisms exist that don’t count or conceive of “number”, but I think the question is whether an intelligent organism - at least as intelligent as us - could survive. It seems doubtful, but you never know what evolution is capable of. It makes one wonder whether counting is the only method that evolution could have infused in us in order for us to survive. If there is another method, it would have to be drastically different and would probably have profound effects, not only on our neural wiring, but on our overall biology (i.e. we’d have to be a totally different species).

15

Considering your terminology, it appears that you think any possible alternative is “stupid” then, perhaps, this thread is not for you? This is not an argument thread, it is for imagination and examination of the fruits thereof. If its all ‘stupid’ to you, just move on. No harm, no foul…

Again, i’m thinking you do not understand the point here. Thats fine. See you on the rebound.

Indeed! And there is a cure now??? Really?

And two minutes of everyone else’s time that is interested in and able to respond to the topic. Thanx anyway.
Bye.

16

Size comparison is the same principle as counting? How so? If a rat faced with the option of two different pieces of cheese goes after the larger one first, in what way is that akin to counting? Again, i’m pretty convinced that we can have a basic phenomenological conception of more and less and gain and loss without mathematics, and without counting (though mathematics / counting has certainly enhanced our understanding of those more basic notions). Counting is methodological, not phenomenal.

17

A world of hunter gatherers. Without mathmatics I would see it being very hard to build advanced buildings or having a understanding of advanced tools.

18

Really? I thought there was a biologico-genetic definition. There are some, I guess, who shatre your definition, but it is frought with problems. First, how can anyone know whether other species are ‘self’ aware?
I see the ‘self’ to which you refer as our egoic ‘self-image’.

Yup, you are talking of ‘egoic image’.
It seems that those who have actually 'walked the path of ‘self-awareness’ would disagree with your statement. It transcends the illusions of ‘dualities’, the ego, and experiences the unity, the ‘Oneness’…
Do other species have ego? We do not know that either, yet.

Yes, and the ‘underpinnings’ are unable to stand before current critical examination, exposing them for mere local phenomena.
The ‘laws’ of identity are ‘locally’ pragmatic, at best. Far from ‘omniversal’.
Logic;
I feel hungry.
No food in my belly is what makes me feel hungry.
A full belly does not feel hungry.
Therefore, if i eat, i won’t feel hungry.

Thats logic (more or less).
There is no ‘math’ involved, inherently. A math inclined person can ‘translate’ into his ‘math’, but that personal ‘math translation’ is not inherent in the proposition.

Only if you see the world like that. Many do not. Thats tantamount to declaring that ‘the tooth fairy/god/FSM’ believes in you even if you don’t believe in him’. Not logically sound.
My concepts, for instance, are rarely of a mathematical nature. They could be interpreted as such, perhaps, from a certain Perspective.

So, are you saying that this thread is meaningless? That it is impossible to imagine a world without math? Is the exercise too difficult in a context such as this?

The question is not whether ‘you’ think that it is possible to conceive of a world without math concepts, but what such a possible world might be like. If one thinks it impossible, just lurk… or not.
The topic inherently accepts (hypothetically, anyway) the possible existence of such a ‘worlds’/ Perspectives. Whether we can conceive of it, considering our Perspectival bias, is yet to be determined.
Peace

19

That seems to be why it is so difficult for folks to imagine such a thing. Math is such an ‘artificial’ thing, such a ‘relic’ of ‘thought’.
Perhaps a world of ‘meditators’, living each Zen moment, One at a time? Unmindful and un-needful of all the toys’ that technology, as we know it, provides? Un-needful and unfearing, a life of ‘quality’ as opposed to (‘quantity’… we must count, when ‘quantity’ is foremost. How do we know who ‘wins’? Cultural…) an insanely pursued ‘eternal existence’.

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
Einstein, Albert

“Truly great madness can not be achieved without significant intelligence.”
Tikkanen, Henrik

‘Imagination’, what I’m seeking here.

Really? How often, do you think, that ‘mathematicians’ get laid?
(Evolution has many ‘dead ends’…)

Perhaps not.
One doesn’t earn stretch-marks on the brain by considering the ‘obvious’…

20

Perhaps we really don’t need all the skyscrapers, the iPods and cell phones, cyclotrons… to survive. Perhaps this ‘technology’, taken to extremes, will prove an evolutionary cul-de-sac?
Imagine(!) if all the energy that has gone into ‘technological’ means of communication, completely bypassing the ‘misunderstandings’ inherent in the ‘system’, had gone into, oh, ‘empathic’ communication, where ‘misunderstanding’ is not possible. Or 'space travel and exploration vs ‘remote viewing’?
Advanced tools? The ancients were performing eye surgery and brain surgery with shards of obsidian, trepanning with stone tools… and successfully!!
‘Advanced’ is a matter of Perspective…