Einstein and Time: The \"reality\" of math (Humans)

by David Turell , Sunday, April 29, 2012, 07:43 (4590 days ago) @ xeno6696


> It goes back to the basic discussion we had regarding panentheism/pantheism and the universe. Existence/nonexistence. 
> 
> If God is part of the universe, then God IS the universe. If God is separate from the universe, than God is not part of the universe. These are the only two possible distinctions. -I agree that God is the universe, as you interpret it.
> 
> It really comes down to, do you take the western notion of a completely transcendent God (Abrahamic) or the all-inclusive God is "in everything." -Yes, God is everything, the way you state it.
> 
> As for the reality of math, you need to go back to an ancient post I had. You're conflating Physics with Mathematics. 
> 
> Mathematics is language only. Mathematics, is ultimately "made up." We use it to describe the world in physics. As I've asked before, should we be surprised that the most precise language ever invented can precisely describe the world? -I'm not surprised. But I understand that math is conceptual, to be found. The concepts always exist and we discover them because we have consciousness can can conceptualize.
> 
> If you push deep enough into the structure of mathematics, you will ultimately ascertain that the foundation or bedrock of mathematics itself is based on tautologies... Not on observation. As a computer scientist I have to be intimately aware of the "nature of numbers." The superstructure of mathematics is ultimately based on pure, raw logic. The corollary of this is that if math has a "real" and "independent" existence, then a mathematical "theory of everything" isn't just plausible--it necessarily exists!
> 
> However, Godel's incompleteness theorem forever shut the door on the Platonic view that there was a "mathematical reality." This contradicts the notion that a "theory of everything" exists. Well. In mathematical terms. Enter Physics: the counter-claim to my position is that physics isn't an axiomatic system. Therefore, a theory of everything can exist. But Godel still constrains this view, because if you ditch axioms, then you have to have inconsistencies and holes in your understanding. -Understood. 
> 
> This property of "twoness" is however abstract, a relationship that doesn't really exist outside of the realm of the observer's mind. -That makes perfect sense.-> 
> All of that is really a fancy way of saying this: I think your real point is that you're amazed that we can predict events in our universe. But even if you study malformed universes--they still all behave predictably. In short, predictability is a necessary property of existence itself, and I don't think we should be amazed at that.-I am amazed at predictability, but math viewed the way you point out makes perfect sense. It fits my idea that the universe is really mind and consciousness. I don't believe that inorganic material can become alive and invent consciousness, unless consciousness already exists. Thank you for this post!