#1

[I realise this may be a bit heavy for the pit, but we (kind of) managed to pull off a really quantum discussion last night]

#2

I can't claim to know much about this, but using various statistical analysis/spatial analysis/whatever it's possible to find patterns in almost any data set. So....uh,yeah.

#3

I think maths imitates nature. Maths is a purely human invention, even without humans, the phenomena in nature would still exist.

#4

Math imitates nature, for it was there first. Unless you want to get technical and say that they both co-existed, but one was not understood till later.

#5

Pulled off a cheeky post removal there rabidguitarist

#6

I think maths imitates nature. Maths is a purely human invention, even without humans, the phenomena in nature would still exist.

+1, Math, like Time, is purely a human invention. Nature however is a phenomenon.

#7

I think maths imitates nature. Maths is a purely human invention, even without humans, the phenomena in nature would still exist.

Mathematics were never invented, they were just discovered and developed.

Patters and sequences can be observed in even random sets of data, so yes, math can be observed in nature. Can math be considered the building blocks for everything? Yeah, I suppose so. I see it the same way as computer programming.

#8

I think maths is purely human. We invented it- we invented the numerical system, what is equal to what, and all the millions of functions, we've made it imitate natural phenomena. I don't think maths can help us understand more about the world, we have to make physical discoveries first, before we can make the leap in maths.

#9

I think maths is purely human. We invented it- we invented the numerical system, what is equal to what, and all the millions of functions, we've made it imitate natural phenomena. I don't think maths can help us understand more about the world, we have to make physical discoveries first, before we can make the leap in maths.

Okay, so we've created the numerical aspects, but the functions of mathematics have always remained the same. One and one will always make two.

#10

I think maths is purely human.

-One banana is less than two bananas (1 + 1 > 1), a monkey should be able to calculate this and thus indicate that math isn't necessarily a human invention.

#11

I think the best way to say it is that math DESCRIBES nature, or the patterns in it. Math itself is a abstract concept invented by humans to find relationships between things in nature.

#12

Okay, so we've created the numerical aspects, but the functions of mathematics have always remained the same. One and one will always make two.

Only because we wanted it to.

If the person that invented the decimal system said one and one makes three, then one and one makes three. These are only words, and they are not the same thing as using physical counters. Maths is just a way of describing what we can see.

#13

*Enters thread

*reads

*dos not understand

*DCL Error Type 673900000xxx0xxx at reference code 548290

*Head explodes

*reads

*dos not understand

*DCL Error Type 673900000xxx0xxx at reference code 548290

*Head explodes

#14

Only because we wanted it to.

If the person that invented the decimal system said one and one makes three, then one and one makes three. These are only words, and they are not the same thing as using physical counters. Maths is just a way of describing what we can see.

Man, you're MAKING it words. Forget the words.

o + o = o o

That's it. That's how it's always going to be. One and one make two. Sure, you can SAY one and one make three, but it isn't true. You're just playing with words.

#15

My brain hurts already and it's still only page 1 Maths is a human invention, as even as a monkey can distinguish 1 banana from 2 bananas as has been mentioned, it is the human that has said that 2 - 1 = 1. It is a human invention for humans :P

#16

Maths? Plural?

The plural of Math is Math.

I can't believe nobody pointed this out yet.

The plural of Math is Math.

I can't believe nobody pointed this out yet.

#17

Maths is purely an invention by humans, but it can be used to explain,model,and even imitate nature.

One important thing is that a mathematician does not think of his field of study as something that will become part of technology. He simply does it because he loves his job and he wants to push the limits of science( math) a bit further.

One important thing is that a mathematician does not think of his field of study as something that will become part of technology. He simply does it because he loves his job and he wants to push the limits of science( math) a bit further.

#18

I don't think maths can help us understand more about the world, we have to make physical discoveries first, before we can make the leap in maths.

Well what about Lasers? They were thought of and proved my maths before we had the technology to actually create one.

I totally agree on you that maths is man made, but i think of it as more of a "tool" to help us solve and analyse things in the real world.

We come to a problem we cant solve, we create a new "tool" ie. new method, to help us solve it.

#19

Nature bases itself around maths. Things like the golden ratio are like standards set by maths that physical or natural processes and laws gradually equate too.

#20

Nature bases itself around maths. Things like the golden ratio are like standards set by maths that physical or natural processes and laws gradually equate too.

How can that work? Nature hasn't evolved itself around human perceptions of patterns, they were always there, but humans have noticed them and based maths around them.

#21

Mathematics is descriptive. It was not "invented" in any real sense, and the concepts that it describes exist independent of Human observation.

#22

Mathematics is descriptive. It was not "invented" in any real sense, and the concepts that it describes exist independent of Human observation.

At first it was descriptive, but now it has nothing to do with reality, I mean where **** could you use this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture

#23

At first it was descriptive, but now it has nothing to do with reality, I mean where **** could you use this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture

True, most the things im learning in my degree i see no practical use for....YET!

But i love it so its all cool.

But things like mechanics and applied maths especially has so many applications!!

#24

At first it was descriptive, but now it has nothing to do with reality, I mean where **** could you use this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture

Something doesn't have to be practical or pragmatic to be descriptive.

#25

-Then there's the fact that TS's question may be somewhat ambiguos to some, but humans determined the frase math, which it self is based around logic that nature probably had since its beginning.

#26

Maths? Plural?

The plural of Math is Math.

I can't believe nobody pointed this out yet.

Fu

*cking Brits say everything weird*

#27

Fucking Brits say everything weird

That's because it's true name is Mathematics, Mathmatic would imply a singular area, whereas Mathematics gives a sense of multiple areas being covered.

#28

What Maths describes (or attempts to describe) is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

Maths itself is a science and is therefore just the human attempt to understand what occurs in nature.

It's wierd to think about it, but there was a time when people didn't really know how to describe the fact that 1+1=2. Bu the fact that there are two objects is naturally occuring. It's hard to get your head around

Maths itself is a science and is therefore just the human attempt to understand what occurs in nature.

It's wierd to think about it, but there was a time when people didn't really know how to describe the fact that 1+1=2. Bu the fact that there are two objects is naturally occuring. It's hard to get your head around

*Last edited by rizo299 at Feb 28, 2008,*

#29

I think math is a tool for human interpretation of the world around us. that wont stop me from hating it though.

#30

Fucking Brits say everything weird

Well its short for Mathematic

__s__which is "plural" so the shortened version math

__should have the "s"__

**s**
#31

That's because it's true name is Mathematics, Mathmatic would imply a singular area, whereas Mathematics gives a sense of multiple areas being covered.

I know it's Mathematics, but, being American, I find "maths" to sound weird, foreign, and therefore irritating. Math is the study of Mathematics as Science is the study of Sciences, and so on.

As for the point of the thread: What we know as math(s ) is a man made invention based on discoveries of nature. Once we realized that o and o = o o (simply because I don't want people to bitch about the words), we started thinking further about it. We developed property theories and axioms by observation and testing, and found that they (at least, the ones still around) are never wrong by themselves (the wrong only resulting from human error).

#32

I think that math, being created by humans, can help explain the phenomena found in nature through formulas and sequences and series that we have made up.

If there was no "math" nature would still exist, and the complex patterns found in nature would still exist but we would have a more difficult time describing them and explaining them.

I probably repeated what a bunch of people have already said, haven't I?

If there was no "math" nature would still exist, and the complex patterns found in nature would still exist but we would have a more difficult time describing them and explaining them.

I probably repeated what a bunch of people have already said, haven't I?

#33

Math is nothing more than a tool. Numbers do not really exist. You have to take that on faith, just like what an inch or a foot really is. It is not defined by the universe we made it up, to help us accomplish things. Math is the same principal. Nature does work in patterns though, everything does. Look at music, weather, and the skies.

#34

some of you are trying extremely hard to sound as smart as you think you are. saying that one is based on the other isnt a logical comparison, and at the very least, "based" is a bad choice of wordage as the main comparative function--hell just by trying to make sense of nature all of you are using mathematical (read: logical) deductions, and then your saying 'oh one's based on the other cause this and that'. well OF COURSE there will be connections between the two, because one is a way for humans to describe the other. NO god didnt one day go 'hm i like this maths thing humans have pulled out of their ass, hey why dont i tweak the laws of nature to very interestingly coincide with their stupid ****?', NO humans didnt one day take a look at the patterns in seashells or sunflower seeds or what have you and go 'hm, now how can i think up a flawless logical system with unwavering laws whose sole purpose is to culminate in an explanation for this pattern in nature?'

neither was based on the other, because there is no conscientious decision behind either to conform itself to the other (convoluted sentence im sorry, dunno how to make it better). how can you say things like "Nature bases itself around maths. Things like the golden ratio are like standards set by maths that physical or natural processes and laws gradually equate too." and not stop a second and go 'wait a minute, thats the dumbest thing i have ever typed up why don't i erase that real quick and go back to playing guitar'.

neither was based on the other, because there is no conscientious decision behind either to conform itself to the other (convoluted sentence im sorry, dunno how to make it better). how can you say things like "Nature bases itself around maths. Things like the golden ratio are like standards set by maths that physical or natural processes and laws gradually equate too." and not stop a second and go 'wait a minute, thats the dumbest thing i have ever typed up why don't i erase that real quick and go back to playing guitar'.