Does math exist?

[Brian37]

I hate questions like this. This is like saying "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?"

Yes and no.

Physically speaking air is moved and the energy released by the objects hitting each other will move air which makes sound, even if it is not heard by others.

Math is a language, like speed is to a car. Speed is not physical, but you use the word "speed" to describe the observed.

1 orange, 1 house, 1 girl, 1 insect, 1 planet. Math exists as an abstraction like speed is to a car. You can have a bike going 20mph and a car going 20mph.

[Seabear]

So again, a major problem with this entire line of argument is that it can be applied equally to any number of other concepts to declare them "non-existent".

Music is a perfect example. It's just sound, and we apply a symbolic notation in order to describe it. However, if you try to argue that music doesn't really exist, people will think you are an imbecile.

Language is another example. I guess we can conclude that it doesn't really exist either, since we use symbols to notate and describe it. And, it follows therefore that literature doesn't exist, either.

I suppose Chemistry isn't really real, either, since elements aren't actually floating around with the alphabetical symbols we use to describe them, and *gasp*, MATH is used to balance the equations!

It's a bit fucking absurd, really.

[GurrenLagann]

So again, a major problem with this entire line of argument is that it can be applied equally to any number of other concepts to declare them "non-existent".

Music is a perfect example. It's just sound, and we apply a symbolic notation in order to describe it. However, if you try to argue that music doesn't really exist, people will think you are an imbecile.

Language is another example. I guess we can conclude that it doesn't really exist either, since we use symbols to notate and describe it. And, it follows therefore that literature doesn't exist, either.

I suppose Chemistry isn't really real, either, since elements aren't actually floating around with the alphabetical symbols we use to describe them, and *gasp*, MATH is used to balance the equations!

It's a bit fucking absurd, really.

I think you're missing a bit about what people mean when they ask this. The thrust behind it isn't exactly like asking if music or language exist, since they clearly do as they are our rooted in sounds and symbols. However, when it's asked whether or not mathematics exist, what is meant is what makes reality so amenable to consistent descriptions by mathematics. In other words, is it because there is something that inherently roots reality to that description?

That, I think, is what people mean in this case.

[Plu]

However, if you try to argue that music doesn't really exist, people will think you are an imbecile.

While really, they are the imbiciles for not even listening to a perfectly understandable justification for why you think it doesn't exist while still being a useful thing to talk about at the same time.

[josephpalazzo]

So again, a major problem with this entire line of argument is that it can be applied equally to any number of other concepts to declare them "non-existent".

Music is a perfect example. It's just sound, and we apply a symbolic notation in order to describe it. However, if you try to argue that music doesn't really exist, people will think you are an imbecile.

Language is another example. I guess we can conclude that it doesn't really exist either, since we use symbols to notate and describe it. And, it follows therefore that literature doesn't exist, either.

I suppose Chemistry isn't really real, either, since elements aren't actually floating around with the alphabetical symbols we use to describe them, and *gasp*, MATH is used to balance the equations!

It's a bit fucking absurd, really.

You're conflating two different ideas: one is about existence ( what is real), the other is about knowing if something is real. Take the sentence, "this is a tree". Am I talking about something real? Well, we can find out. Find a tree. Point to it. Find fossils of trees, etc. And so we can establish that a tree does exist. But what about the sentence itself, "this is a tree," is that real? We can say that it exists as scribbles on a piece of paper, or pixels on your screen, or some configuration of your neurons in your brain so that you can think about it when you read it. But if humans didn't exist, the sentence would never have been uttered or written down in the first place. It's not that trees wouldn't exist, but the sentence itself, "this is a tree" wouldn't. This applies to language as a whole. Without humans our language - alphabet, words, sentences, etc - wouldn't exist. Math is also a language, and without humans, it has no existence. The universe doesn't go around calculating the value of pi = 3.14159625... or that if you fall, it must be at 9.80 m/s[sup:3birdy7v]2[/sup:3birdy7v], etc. Those are mental constructs that have only meaning to us, humans.

[missingnocchi]

If the earth exploded, no one would know about the tree.

But moving on to the actual issue, I think we're getting to the root of it (no pun intended.) People who say that math is real are generally not saying that numbers exist as an observable substance, but that the numbers are descriptions of the observable rules we see nature following. And in that sense, yes, math does exist.

It exists as a mental construct, just like our alphabet.

That doesn't address any points that I brought up.

Because even if the earth exploded, the same descriptions would be valid for as long as the universe continued to work in the same way.

The universe would exist. Its human description would not, since the humans upholding those mental construct don't exist anymore. Where would those human thoughts exist???

The descriptions would not exist, but the features that they describe would.

I think the original video draws a false line between "what a study is" and "what it studies." Sure, the laws of physics as we describe them exist, but does Physics exist?

Physics is a human description of the universe, a model that we have refined over the years with constant observations, experiments and hypothesis. Therefore it is a mental construct produced by our minds.

It's only produced by our minds if you stop right there, close your ears and shout, and ignore the obedience of the universe to certain laws (for lack of a better word) which Physics the study tries to describe. When someone says that Physics is independent of the human mind, they are not talking about the study, they are talking about the real universe as it pertains to what is described in the study.

Can you touch a momentum? What about chemistry? Are little PV = nRT's floating around in the void? That's the kind of question being asked about math here, and it's really somewhat silly. If gathering one thing and another thing together made three things, that's how our formal, written math system would work. We didn't make it up, we observed it. Just like any other science.

I believe you are conflating two things: the mental constructs - ideas, theories, thoughts, beliefs, theories, physics, math etc - exist as long as they are hold by human brains. And the things these mental construct describe - particles, stars, the universe, etc. which exist independently of our thoughts.

I believe I went out of my way to make a distinction between those things, and that you have spent this entire thread ignoring everyone who does so, and insisting on seeing an imaginary conflation.

[josephpalazzo]

It exists as a mental construct, just like our alphabet.

That doesn't address any points that I brought up.

You said,  "math does exist, I responded, "It exists as a mental construct". In what way did I fail to address that point?

The descriptions would not exist, but the features that they describe would.

If humans don't exist then those features are perceived by whom? Who is there to describe them, God?

It's only produced by our minds if you stop right there, close your ears and shout, and ignore the obedience of the universe to certain laws (for lack of a better word) which Physics the study tries to describe. When someone says that Physics is independent of the human mind, they are not talking about the study, they are talking about the real universe as it pertains to what is described in the study.

Physics is not an object that can do the describing. It is people using physics as a very efficient tool to describe the universe. As such, it is a mental construct, unless physics has a mind of its own?!?

I believe I went out of my way to make a distinction between those things, and that you have spent this entire thread ignoring everyone who does so, and insisting on seeing an imaginary conflation.

I believe you're confused, and you are too childish to recognize where your thoughts aren't very clear.

[Plu]

However, if you try to argue that music doesn't really exist, people will think you are an imbecile.

Come to think of it, I think it is the very fact that someone once thought to himself "music doesn't exist, it's just ripples in the air of moving molecules" that gave us the ability to record and play back "music".

The difference between the classical idea of "music" and the way a computer generates it is incredibly large, and it is only by realising that describing something as "music" is just that; describing a physical effect; that allows for the idea of capturing it on a recording device.

At no point in its mechanical design does a microphone or speaker ever do anything with what we call "music".

[missingnocchi]

You said,  "math does exist, I responded, "It exists as a mental construct". In what way did I fail to address that point?

When you stated a contrary position with no elaboration or reference to my argument. It would be like if I replied to this part of your post with "You failed to address the point."

If humans don't exist then those features are perceived by whom? Who is there to describe them, God?

Does someone need to be there to describe them? If you believe so, make an argument for it. That's not even close to being a given, but it seems to be at the heart of your argument.

Physics is not an object that can do the describing. It is people using physics as a very efficient tool to describe the universe. As such, it is a mental construct, unless physics has a mind of its own?!?

Physics, as a study, and as an idea, is what you say it is. But the laws and patterns we see in nature and use physics to describe are really there, independent of us. And it is in this way that I use the word physics. They are independent of the concept of "pattern" and "law", those are just imperfect descriptive terms.

I believe you're confused, and you are too childish to recognize where your thoughts aren't very clear.

Worse than being childish is being willfully obtuse. And when you refuse to acknowledge a clearly explained difference between the idea of a term used to describe something and the actual object being described, that is what you are doing. When I say that something has a "feature", I'm not referring to some metaphysical quality that exists independent of our minds, I'm saying that the real thing exists in the way that the feature describes. Not only in that way, or separately in that way, or whatever other human ideas you insist on telling me I am projecting onto the thing. Just in that way.

All this poking and playing at linguistics without actually addressing the issue in communication is drowning what could have been an interesting debate.

[aitm]

You said,  "math does exist, I responded, "It exists as a mental construct". In what way did I fail to address that point?

When you stated a contrary position with no elaboration or reference to my argument. It would be like if I replied to this part of your post with "You failed to address the point."

If humans don't exist then those features are perceived by whom? Who is there to describe them, God?

Does someone need to be there to describe them? If you believe so, make an argument for it. That's not even close to being a given, but it seems to be at the heart of your argument.

Physics is not an object that can do the describing. It is people using physics as a very efficient tool to describe the universe. As such, it is a mental construct, unless physics has a mind of its own?!?

Physics, as a study, and as an idea, is what you say it is. But the laws and patterns we see in nature and use physics to describe are really there, independent of us. And it is in this way that I use the word physics. They are independent of the concept of "pattern" and "law", those are just imperfect descriptive terms.

I believe you're confused, and you are too childish to recognize where your thoughts aren't very clear.

Worse than being childish is being willfully obtuse. And when you refuse to acknowledge a clearly explained difference between the idea of a term used to describe something and the actual object being described, that is what you are doing. When I say that something has a "feature", I'm not referring to some metaphysical quality that exists independent of our minds, I'm saying that the real thing exists in the way that the feature describes. Not only in that way, or separately in that way, or whatever other human ideas you insist on telling me I am projecting onto the thing. Just in that way.

All this poking and playing at linguistics without actually addressing the issue in communication is drowning what could have been an interesting debate.

Now this is what happens when we start down that slippery slope of philosophical bullshittery...its all fun and games until someone pokes someone in the eye...

[josephpalazzo]

You said,  "math does exist, I responded, "It exists as a mental construct". In what way did I fail to address that point?

When you stated a contrary position with no elaboration or reference to my argument. It would be like if I replied to this part of your post with "You failed to address the point."

To my question, "In what way did I fail to address that point?" Yes, you have failed to address that question. My answer was clear as it could be. Which part of, "It (math) exists as a mental construct", don't you understand?

If humans don't exist then those features are perceived by whom? Who is there to describe them, God?

Does someone need to be there to describe them? If you believe so, make an argument for it. That's not even close to being a given, but it seems to be at the heart of your argument.

Exactly, to describe anything implies the existence of someone doing the describing. Learn how to use words properly, instead of being wishy-washy.

Physics is not an object that can do the describing. It is people using physics as a very efficient tool to describe the universe. As such, it is a mental construct, unless physics has a mind of its own?!?

Physics, as a study, and as an idea, is what you say it is. But the laws and patterns we see in nature and use physics to describe are really there, independent of us. And it is in this way that I use the word physics. They are independent of the concept of "pattern" and "law", those are just imperfect descriptive terms.

Again you fall into the same trap: you're confusing between the thing that exist, in this case the universe, and knowing about that thing, which is in this case, physics which by your own words, is a "the laws and patterns we see in nature", which again implies our existence to do the studying and the seeing. The fact that you had to add,  "those are just imperfect descriptive terms", more than anything support my claim: those are description done by someone, humans. Try harder next time to understand the differences between (1)  when we talk about the existence of a thing, which BTW pertains to the realm of metaphysics, and (2) when we talk about knowing about things, which pertains to the realm of epistemology.  

I believe you're confused, and you are too childish to recognize where your thoughts aren't very clear.

Worse than being childish is being willfully obtuse. And when you refuse to acknowledge a clearly explained difference between the idea of a term used to describe something and the actual object being described, that is what you are doing. When I say that something has a "feature", I'm not referring to some metaphysical quality that exists independent of our minds, I'm saying that the real thing exists in the way that the feature describes. Not only in that way, or separately in that way, or whatever other human ideas you insist on telling me I am projecting onto the thing. Just in that way.

All this poking and playing at linguistics without actually addressing the issue in communication is drowning what could have been an interesting debate.

Well so far, you have demonstrated you're not so quick in grasping simple concepts. Your learning abilities are dysmal. But perhaps you will surprise me with a better understanding if only you would get rid of your misplaced bad attitude and focus on where you can improve yourself.

[josephpalazzo]

You said,  "math does exist, I responded, "It exists as a mental construct". In what way did I fail to address that point?

When you stated a contrary position with no elaboration or reference to my argument. It would be like if I replied to this part of your post with "You failed to address the point."

If humans don't exist then those features are perceived by whom? Who is there to describe them, God?

Does someone need to be there to describe them? If you believe so, make an argument for it. That's not even close to being a given, but it seems to be at the heart of your argument.

Physics is not an object that can do the describing. It is people using physics as a very efficient tool to describe the universe. As such, it is a mental construct, unless physics has a mind of its own?!?

Physics, as a study, and as an idea, is what you say it is. But the laws and patterns we see in nature and use physics to describe are really there, independent of us. And it is in this way that I use the word physics. They are independent of the concept of "pattern" and "law", those are just imperfect descriptive terms.

I believe you're confused, and you are too childish to recognize where your thoughts aren't very clear.

Worse than being childish is being willfully obtuse. And when you refuse to acknowledge a clearly explained difference between the idea of a term used to describe something and the actual object being described, that is what you are doing. When I say that something has a "feature", I'm not referring to some metaphysical quality that exists independent of our minds, I'm saying that the real thing exists in the way that the feature describes. Not only in that way, or separately in that way, or whatever other human ideas you insist on telling me I am projecting onto the thing. Just in that way.

All this poking and playing at linguistics without actually addressing the issue in communication is drowning what could have been an interesting debate.

Now this is what happens when we start down that slippery slope of philosophical bullshittery...its all fun and games until someone pokes someone in the eye...

You can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into the paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, one saying to the other: "You don't know what you're talking about!" The second one says: "What do you mean by 'talking'? What do you mean by 'you'? What do you mean by 'know'?"
 
-- Richard Feynman

[WitchSabrina]

You said,  "math does exist, I responded, "It exists as a mental construct". In what way did I fail to address that point?

When you stated a contrary position with no elaboration or reference to my argument. It would be like if I replied to this part of your post with "You failed to address the point."

If humans don't exist then those features are perceived by whom? Who is there to describe them, God?

Does someone need to be there to describe them? If you believe so, make an argument for it. That's not even close to being a given, but it seems to be at the heart of your argument.

Physics is not an object that can do the describing. It is people using physics as a very efficient tool to describe the universe. As such, it is a mental construct, unless physics has a mind of its own?!?

Physics, as a study, and as an idea, is what you say it is. But the laws and patterns we see in nature and use physics to describe are really there, independent of us. And it is in this way that I use the word physics. They are independent of the concept of "pattern" and "law", those are just imperfect descriptive terms.

I believe you're confused, and you are too childish to recognize where your thoughts aren't very clear.

Worse than being childish is being willfully obtuse. And when you refuse to acknowledge a clearly explained difference between the idea of a term used to describe something and the actual object being described, that is what you are doing. When I say that something has a "feature", I'm not referring to some metaphysical quality that exists independent of our minds, I'm saying that the real thing exists in the way that the feature describes. Not only in that way, or separately in that way, or whatever other human ideas you insist on telling me I am projecting onto the thing. Just in that way.

All this poking and playing at linguistics without actually addressing the issue in communication is drowning what could have been an interesting debate.

Now this is what happens when we start down that slippery slope of philosophical bullshittery...its all fun and games until someone pokes someone in the eye...

I think you should send "philosophical bullshittery" into urban dictionary.
yep

[missingnocchi]

To my question, "In what way did I fail to address that point?" Yes, you have failed to address that question. My answer was clear as it could be. Which part of, "It (math) exists as a mental construct", don't you understand?

I understand what you SAID perfectly. I just don't think it addresses my argument in a meaningful way. My argument was worded to specifically draw a line between the mental construct of math and the real relationships it describes. Your argument was basically "No u."

Exactly, to describe anything implies the existence of someone doing the describing. Learn how to use words properly, instead of being wishy-washy.

True, I could have been clearer. What I meant was "Does someone need to be there to describe them in order for them to exist?"

Again you fall into the same trap: you're confusing between the thing that exist, in this case the universe, and knowing about that thing, which is in this case, physics which by your own words, is a "the laws and patterns we see in nature", which again implies our existence to do the studying and the seeing. The fact that you had to add,  "those are just imperfect descriptive terms", more than anything support my claim: those are description done by someone, humans. Try harder next time to understand the differences between (1)  when we talk about the existence of a thing, which BTW pertains to the realm of metaphysics, and (2) when we talk about knowing about things, which pertains to the realm of epistemology.  

No, I'm specifically differentiating between the two things, and you are continuing to imagine conflation. What I am saying is that the various relationships that constitute the real world, the universe, exist as the real counterparts to our descriptions of them, independent of the descriptions themselves, and that this is just as true for math as it is for physics, chemistry and biology. That just because math doesn't have a physical component to study, doesn't mean that the relationships it describes are any less a real part of our universe.

Well so far, you have demonstrated you're not so quick in grasping simple concepts. Your learning abilities are dysmal. But perhaps you will surprise me with a better understanding if only you would get rid of your misplaced bad attitude and focus on where you can improve yourself.

Boy but do we think highly of ourselves. Aren't you afraid of the fall?

[josephpalazzo]

Again you fall into the same trap: you're confusing between the thing that exist, in this case the universe, and knowing about that thing, which is in this case, physics which by your own words, is a "the laws and patterns we see in nature", which again implies our existence to do the studying and the seeing. The fact that you had to add,  "those are just imperfect descriptive terms", more than anything support my claim: those are description done by someone, humans. Try harder next time to understand the differences between (1)  when we talk about the existence of a thing, which BTW pertains to the realm of metaphysics, and (2) when we talk about knowing about things, which pertains to the realm of epistemology.  

No, I'm specifically differentiating between the two things, and you are continuing to imagine conflation. What I am saying is that the various relationships that constitute the real world, the universe, exist as the real counterparts to our descriptions of them, independent of the descriptions themselves,

Fine, that's a little bit better expressed than your previous post.

and that this is just as true for math as it is for physics, chemistry and biology.

Math doesn't describe anything in the real world. It is an abstraction based on the identity law and the law of substitution. Instead of saying, "there's a sheep there, and a sheep next to it", I can substitute, "there are two sheep over there". It's the same reality, just a different description.  

Well so far, you have demonstrated you're not so quick in grasping simple concepts. Your learning abilities are dysmal. But perhaps you will surprise me with a better understanding if only you would get rid of your misplaced bad attitude and focus on where you can improve yourself.

Boy but do we think highly of ourselves. Aren't you afraid of the fall?

I'm a university professor, teaching physics for the last 25 years, and I'm very demanding. Don't ever get into my class. You have no chance of passing.

I also run this blog:

http://soi.blogspot.ca/