Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

Cato Publius
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 42
Location: Ames

08 May 2015, 10:53 am

We live in a world in which all that we experience and observe is math. Once we realize this, we can appreciate the world to a higher degree.

Math and Phenomena
The central question posed here is whether math, at its foundation, can be considered phenomenon in any sense. This begs the question of what is phenomenon? To this I will describe it as a “mystical” interworking of the fabric of everyday life: something we depend on, yet cannot fully understand in our primitive knowledge, as the hunter-gatherers had no reasons to; to be phenomenon requires that it be discovered through higher education. What is discovered is the means of the phenomenon, yet what we observe can be described as the ends of phenomenon. Phenomenon seems to be hidden to the naked eye, yet at the same time we can observe it: An example of this being gravity; we can observe the apple falling from the tree—the ends of phenomenon—yet the true interworkings of such are entirely hidden—the means of the phenomenon. Therefore, to be phenomenon requires that there be observable ends to a seemingly unexplainable occurrence.

So, now with phenomenon being defined, where does math stand? Math can not be observed, so it must not be phenomenon, as it does not meet one of the criteria to be considered so. Math just seems to be a set of concrete rules and laws which at its foundation can not be observed in the world; but is saying this too premature? What is “math”? Most would answer this as numbers mixed with numbers based on certain criterion; but this can not be the case, as then there would be no reason to study math. To figure out what math is, we have to look back at phenomenon.

We have defined the ends of phenomenon, the observable outcome, but what allows the outcome to be manifest? What are the means? Looking at anything that would be explained as phenomenal, it appears that math is the means! Math is what drives phenomenon. What is observable in day-to-day life is the manifestation of math: if what we observe is the manifestation of math, then math, at its foundation, must be phenomenon:


Deleted:Phenomenon dictates our every day life, and math dictates the phenomenon, therefore math rules our day-to-day life.



Cato Publius
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 42
Location: Ames

08 May 2015, 10:58 am

What we experience and observe every day is the visualization of math.



Cato Publius
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 42
Location: Ames

08 May 2015, 11:26 am

Everything you witness in life is simply how the human mind perceives math?



Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

10 May 2015, 7:26 am

Hi Cato, what do you think of John Wheeler and Roger Penrose, both mathematicians as a I understand it. How do you see thought having to do with phenomenon.



RhodyStruggle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 508

10 May 2015, 9:56 am

I tend to model the universe and the various subsets thereof which I apprehend as topologies and/or algebraic structures.

I think your meaning might be clearer if you add a treatment differentiating between noumenon and phenomenon.


_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste


Cato Publius
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 42
Location: Ames

16 May 2015, 1:05 pm

Grebels wrote:
Hi Cato, what do you think of John Wheeler and Roger Penrose, both mathematicians as a I understand it. How do you see thought having to do with phenomenon.


Thought and Phenomenon
This section describes a phenomenon which is not based on any guiding principle, like the laws of math or physics, however, cannot fully be explained by pure physicalities. This is the “phenomenon” of thought, because there are no laws that currently prove what will be proposed, the challenge will be a harder one.

Thought, on its surface level, is the synapses between brain neurons which allow a flow of information. This cannot be the end-all-be-all definition of thought, however, as it fails to truly explain what thought—namely reflective thought—can conjure up. Some connections made by this physical thought process are completely explainable by physicalities; namely, how the brain groups certain categories of information. However, nothing physical can explain the seemingly other-worldly connections that a genius’ mind can see: Some of the most profound thoughts in history can leave others in perplexity; and probably because these are unexplainable physically. A broad example of this is when a new breakthrough is made in theoretical physics; these breakthroughs require loosely made connections between math, other phenomenon—what has been discovered before them—however, the categories that the brain naturally makes, which can account for other connections, can not account for this.

Two specific examples that come to mind are: Newton’s invention—rather discovery—of calculus, and Einstein’s theory of relativity.
In both of these cases, the genius’ immaterial thought process—or thought that is not explainable by physical categorization of the mind—gave insight to what immaterialities were guiding the physical observations or insight they had. In the case of Newton, calculus was “discovered” in order to explain what he observed in gravity—the physical world of gravity. What allowed him to see this other worldly insight was not physical thought—as if synapses could account for such a profundity, then there would be a “genius-pill” on the market. Furthermore, the physical grouping of knowledge within the brain cannot account for this immaterial insight, as, logically, there seems to be no physical connection between the observable and the guiding: There is no logical that materialist’s could give. Newton did not get hit with an apple and then set out to find what physically made it break from the twig—no—Newton set out to find the immaterial guidance of what made it fall—what was under the surface level; and to find such he first needed mystical, immaterial, genius insight—connections his mind made beyond physical synapses.

Most likely unconsciously, Newton knew that to figure out the mystifying, gap closing, heavenly body, immaterial force, he had to turn to the immaterial world of mathematics.


This one builds off of previous sections, and kind of deviates from the point of the section, but it is what I have written so far on the topic.



Last edited by Cato Publius on 16 May 2015, 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cato Publius
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 42
Location: Ames

16 May 2015, 1:07 pm

RhodyStruggle wrote:
I tend to model the universe and the various subsets thereof which I apprehend as topologies and/or algebraic structures.

I think your meaning might be clearer if you add a treatment differentiating between noumenon and phenomenon.


Thank you for the input! I will have to ponder on this.



Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

16 May 2015, 2:59 pm

Cato, please understand I am a creative. I paint portraits. My mind works well on an intuitive level. What you describe as the mind working for genius, works in a similar way for us lesser mortals. Have you heard of the anesthesist and academic Stuart Hameroff.



Cato Publius
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2015
Posts: 42
Location: Ames

16 May 2015, 3:19 pm

Grebels wrote:
Cato, please understand I am a creative. I paint portraits. My mind works well on an intuitive level. What you describe as the mind working for genius, works in a similar way for us lesser mortals. Have you heard of the anesthesist and academic Stuart Hameroff.


I have thought how it works for non-geniuses, I sort of use it as an extreme example to better show what I am meaning; but yes, I would agree that by this definition we all have immaterial thought.

And I have not heard of him, I'll look it up.