the essential quality of mathematics is it's unitary answer. In the house of mathematics, a truth is only accepted if proved. There is no place for ambiguity. Alas, Goedel, PROVED, that sometimes we have the red pill, excuse me, the choice. So we have euclidean geometry (such a beautiful construct) and others. and while euclidean is adequate for most practical purposes it is not the REAL one in our universe. This said, I do subscribe to the idea of more than one answers to problems. This is where context comes. and in philosophers' perspective this is where physics comes. The mathematical world is platonic, i.e. a world of ideas. Ideas, themselves are absolute thinks (e.g. a geometric line) but also they are non existent. We model a line by a ray of light (we know it is not a line in euclidean sense) or a string (which has other dimensions as a real object with mass), but the mathematical object is so well defined as it is inexistent in reality of the senses. In physics though, reality is somehow ambiguous. We cannot, as creatures embedded in this universe, have the god perspective (as in mathematics, or religion). So, in short, mathematics form our philosophical ideas of the absolute, while physics do not. I believe, we should not change our mathematics philosophy but rather enrich philosophy with the physical aspect of reality being the creator of truth. this is the division of materialism and idealism revisited. [avoid confusion of materialism with cheap decision making). thank you.
I would be interested to hear how she explains the dualistic principles of the Tao Te Ching mathematically. I tend to think of mathematics in the way Alfred Korzybski thought of it, as a language that maps the structures of reality more accurately than does verbal language. But I don’t know how mathematics could ever do justice to human experience of things such as love, for example.
Maybe in fractals. Like the Mandelbrot set. When I've fallen in love with someone and it turns out that the other person's personality REALLY IS super amazing and it's not just mere infatuation and layers of these person unfold before me I can imagine it like the Mandelbrot set where it's just infinite, the more you zoom in the deeper it goes and deeper you get the more unfolds. Of course then I usually end up getting burned in relationships so then for me it's like an impossible equation and I can't seem to figure out what part I forgot to plug in or how I managed to mistake insanity for complexity LOL. But that's kind of the feeling I get when I'm falling for someone I get image of the Mandelbrot set.
Reality is a very cloudy term. Ideas shape matter and matter shapes ideas and the principle of causality is falsified by this logic. So it is the other way around as well. The metaphysics of physics are ineffable to us in our current form.
@@bradmodd7856 Okay. Reality is a "cloudy" term, and ideas shape matter. Fine. Walk through a wall, and I am very interested in the rest of your ideas on this subject.
@@edzejandehaan9265 In "reality", there is no "wall", it's just a bunch of elementary particles which form a mosaic you are trained to call "wall". "Walls" usually meet at "right angles" and form something we like to call a "rectangle". "Rectanlges" are nice, because their two main "directions" form an "orthogonal basis" of "2D space".
@@tpog1 Oh, I am just "trained" to see a wall. Same goes for you as for our friend Brad, show me the subjectivity of cloudy notions as solidity, and walk through the wall. Should be an easy feat for one as enlightened as you....🤣 Until then I am not too impressed by your opinion. A bit more serious, in that'reality' of yours there is no 'bunch of elementary particles' either, or a 'mosaic', there is no 'training', and there is certainly no 'you', (or 'I' for that matter). Every term becomes devoid of any meaning.
@@edzejandehaan9265 I didn't want to express any opinion but to give you an example of how your ontology (the things you have names for and can talk about) is informed by mathematics. "Walls" of caves are never flat or at right angles, but those which humans make are, because mathematics informed our ontology about things like "2d space", "right angles", "flat surfaces", and "rectangles". That's why we build things like that, because mathematics shapes our reality. It made us give names to things (and thus acknoledge them) which have no basis in reality per se, like the (probably) rectangular living room you're (probably) sitting in right now. Edit: And yes, you are "trained" by evolution to "see" a wall. In fact you are trained to "see" in the first place. In this way our senses shape our reality. Our dominant sense is the visual one which is why our racism is defined by skin color. Bat racists probably hate conspecifics that have a high-pitched voice. Just like our senses shape our reality, mathematics (our sense for logics) does too.
Our reality at the deepest level is pure math...in quran in Eljin sura is written " i know everything through numbers "so gods knowledge is math and its digital
mathematical axioms presuppose Aristotelian logic and other forms of reasoning. Epistemology/ philosophy and metaphysics have a higher level of purity.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
Siliva really is something.
Exemplary of beauty & brain.
Art is effing the ineffable. Beautiful.
the essential quality of mathematics is it's unitary answer. In the house of mathematics, a truth is only accepted if proved. There is no place for ambiguity. Alas, Goedel, PROVED, that sometimes we have the red pill, excuse me, the choice. So we have euclidean geometry (such a beautiful construct) and others. and while euclidean is adequate for most practical purposes it is not the REAL one in our universe. This said, I do subscribe to the idea of more than one answers to problems. This is where context comes. and in philosophers' perspective this is where physics comes. The mathematical world is platonic, i.e. a world of ideas. Ideas, themselves are absolute thinks (e.g. a geometric line) but also they are non existent. We model a line by a ray of light (we know it is not a line in euclidean sense) or a string (which has other dimensions as a real object with mass), but the mathematical object is so well defined as it is inexistent in reality of the senses. In physics though, reality is somehow ambiguous. We cannot, as creatures embedded in this universe, have the god perspective (as in mathematics, or religion). So, in short, mathematics form our philosophical ideas of the absolute, while physics do not. I believe, we should not change our mathematics philosophy but rather enrich philosophy with the physical aspect of reality being the creator of truth. this is the division of materialism and idealism revisited. [avoid confusion of materialism with cheap decision making). thank you.
I would be interested to hear how she explains the dualistic principles of the Tao Te Ching mathematically. I tend to think of mathematics in the way Alfred Korzybski thought of it, as a language that maps the structures of reality more accurately than does verbal language. But I don’t know how mathematics could ever do justice to human experience of things such as love, for example.
Maybe in fractals. Like the Mandelbrot set. When I've fallen in love with someone and it turns out that the other person's personality REALLY IS super amazing and it's not just mere infatuation and layers of these person unfold before me I can imagine it like the Mandelbrot set where it's just infinite, the more you zoom in the deeper it goes and deeper you get the more unfolds. Of course then I usually end up getting burned in relationships so then for me it's like an impossible equation and I can't seem to figure out what part I forgot to plug in or how I managed to mistake insanity for complexity LOL. But that's kind of the feeling I get when I'm falling for someone I get image of the Mandelbrot set.
Thank you!
Silvia is the dream wifey. Wow
Really interesting discussion, now I want to buy the book. You should show the book's title in the notes!
Didn't Bertrand Russell give up on Mathematics moving to Philosophy?
Search RUclips for "The ELEMENTS in six dimensions, arranged by volume periods of nuclide mass averages"
How do language and mathematics correspond to reality? Because Mathematics is REALITY. This is also known as *Ontological Mathematics.*
beautiful woman with a functional brain, a rare sight.
(applies to men as well, to a virtually undistinguishable degree)
If i experience bigfoot sleeping in my shed does that mean it does?
Hm, I thought it was the other way round, reality should shape mathematics.
Reality is a very cloudy term. Ideas shape matter and matter shapes ideas and the principle of causality is falsified by this logic. So it is the other way around as well. The metaphysics of physics are ineffable to us in our current form.
@@bradmodd7856 Okay. Reality is a "cloudy" term, and ideas shape matter. Fine. Walk through a wall, and I am very interested in the rest of your ideas on this subject.
@@edzejandehaan9265 In "reality", there is no "wall", it's just a bunch of elementary particles which form a mosaic you are trained to call "wall". "Walls" usually meet at "right angles" and form something we like to call a "rectangle". "Rectanlges" are nice, because their two main "directions" form an "orthogonal basis" of "2D space".
@@tpog1 Oh, I am just "trained" to see a wall. Same goes for you as for our friend Brad, show me the subjectivity of cloudy notions as solidity, and walk through the wall. Should be an easy feat for one as enlightened as you....🤣
Until then I am not too impressed by your opinion.
A bit more serious, in that'reality' of yours there is no 'bunch of elementary particles' either, or a 'mosaic', there is no 'training', and there is certainly no 'you', (or 'I' for that matter).
Every term becomes devoid of any meaning.
@@edzejandehaan9265 I didn't want to express any opinion but to give you an example of how your ontology (the things you have names for and can talk about) is informed by mathematics. "Walls" of caves are never flat or at right angles, but those which humans make are, because mathematics informed our ontology about things like "2d space", "right angles", "flat surfaces", and "rectangles". That's why we build things like that, because mathematics shapes our reality. It made us give names to things (and thus acknoledge them) which have no basis in reality per se, like the (probably) rectangular living room you're (probably) sitting in right now.
Edit: And yes, you are "trained" by evolution to "see" a wall. In fact you are trained to "see" in the first place. In this way our senses shape our reality. Our dominant sense is the visual one which is why our racism is defined by skin color. Bat racists probably hate conspecifics that have a high-pitched voice. Just like our senses shape our reality, mathematics (our sense for logics) does too.
I don,t know what to say about this ?
Our reality at the deepest level is pure math...in quran in Eljin sura is written " i know everything through numbers "so gods knowledge is math and its digital
mathematical axioms presuppose Aristotelian logic and other forms of reasoning. Epistemology/ philosophy and metaphysics have a higher level of purity.
@@alleyway lol