/sci/ - Science & Math

It can't have been invented since the universe is based on math and there were no intelligent species at the time close to the big bang.

>>14606060
Maths is made up abstract trash, so It is an "invention" that exists only in the mind of brainwashed people.
There is no discovery to be made in science since everything in science comes from the mind of men and not reality.

>>14606060
Depends entirely on your definition of what math is

neither. it's a form of 'language' your mind takes. basically it doesn't exist without the mind behind it, but it wasn't invented either.

>>14606060
It was discovered. It pre-exists the physical world and it was used to determine the ruleset of the reality.

>>14606060
shouldn't you be high school, kid?

>>14606060
Math is a man-model of the world. It describes the natural phenomena in a pretty good way. This model is not really accurate, it has it's flaws, but it works great so far.
Proof ? Look around you. We can fly, we can sail, we can even reach other planets.
So, to answer your question, maths were invented .

>>14606146
KEK

Nothing is invented. Potential exists, people discover potential. Right now everything that will be invented "exists as potential". Natures existence determines the limits and the unlimits as to what can be done.

>>14606060
Shut up retarded fucking faggot frogtranny

>>14606060
Mathesis in greek means learning, so it is sort of a question of what learning is.

One simple thought experiment:

Before there is any counting or "math" (whether this was ever the case, who knows) a guy has some sheep that he keeps in a sheepfold.

He has a bag of pebbles. Every morning, he watches the sheep leave the sheepfold and puts 1 pebble into a pile for each sheep. Every evening, he puts a pebble back into the bag when a sheep enters the sheepfold.

Is he doing math? Or is math a way that was developed to model what he is doing? He has, for sake of argument, no sense of "one sheep" "two sheep" etc. he doesn't count the pebbles, he just knwos that if the pebbles are not all in the bag, he has to go look for a sheep.

Another way to address this is to use 20th century metalogic/metamathematics, which will address the problems of developing a language in which you attempt to prove or disprove the sentence "was math invented or was it discovered?" If you follow Goedel, etc. you will find that there are certain metatheoretic problems with the language in which you would attempt to prove such a thing.

>>14606773
>"one sheep" "two sheep" etc.
Sry.. keep falling asleep everytime this sentence comes and cannot complete the text, what does it say after that?

>>14606060
The symbols we use to describe math were invented. The mechanics themselves were discovered.

>>14606060
invented because mathematics is a man made system used to describe phenomena

Math is an SCSPL. Read CTMU, it's all explained there implicitly. But I already know your IQ is too low to understand.

>>14606060
Mathematical formulas are discoveries.
Mathematical axioms are inventions

Formulas are dependent upon axioms.

>>14606060
I dunno, are inventions discovered or invented?

>>14606773
>Is he doing math?
Yes.
Even if he is not counting (so he is not using arithmetic) he has nonetheless established a bijection between the sets of sheep and the sets of pebbles, therefore he is doing mathematics. (In particular, he is doing naive set theory.)

>>14608109
"Discover" and "invent" have Latin roots which used to be synonyms anyway.
It's a pointless difference.

>>14606573
nice....absolute cringe answer that doesnt even begin to grasp the question

Yes

Reality is a language in a sense. Physical laws are derived through a higher set of laws which describe it like a language. With this acknowledged, you could say both.
>>14607090
This.

>>14606060
Invented.

>>14606134
You're describing physics

>>14606060

Both.

Math was invented by God. Discovered by humans.

neither it just is

>>14609567
physics is mathematics model + explanatory descriptions

>>14606060
was human nature invented or discovered?

If anyone here plays RPGs, mathematics is "sun magic", the ultimate spells include "Moon landing", "Intercontinental ballistic missile" and "climate modelling".

>>14607220
Abstractions are discoveries, silly tranny

>>14606062
>It can't have been invented since the universe is based on math
Our models of parts of the universe are based on maths, which is different. You're confusing the map with the territory like the typical brainlet.

>>14606060
definitely invented

math is a tool that only exists in the mind, the universe does not calculate itself, the universe merely exists

Why do the regards on this board always sperg out over pointless questions with no meaningful answer?

>>14606062
>universe is based on something that looks like it requiresintelligence
>no intelligent "species" close to the big bang
Atheism is not a serious philosophy

>>14611628
because that's exactly what we come here to discuss

>>14606060
>the universe does not calculate itself, the universe merely exists
False

integers discovered
"reals" invented

>>14606092
>neither

>define math
>define invented
>define discovered
You can get various answers for various definitions and none of them will be interesting.

>>14611815
all of them will still be more interesting than this post however

>>14611793
>t. kroenecker

>>14606060
The language was invented, the content was discovered

>>14606146
Saved. Thanks for the chuckle anon.

>>14606060
Literally every mathematical constant is a human construct there is no such thing as ei or rulers number or avogadros number or phi or whatever they are just human concepts trying to make sense of this greater existence. Even numbers are a human concept if you somehow got into the code of the universe you wouldnt see numbers you wouldnt see anything at all because the code wouldnt be affected by light rays since it creates light rays when you think about it.

>>14608109
Excellent point! We tend to think of inventions as being created by people (the act of invention), but presumably the potential to invent them pre-exists the invention, along with the physical laws that allow it or result in the invention being some kind of local optimum in the solution space.

The whole problem is a lot less mysterious once you realize that it's much more general and isn't specifically some inscrutable property of numbers, formal systems, abstract objects or reasoning.

5 star post

>>14609567
lol, are you doing non-mathematical physics? what does that entail?

>>14606060
My 2 cents is this.
When we classify the different sciences into a hierarchy, we often have the following :
Maths -> physics -> chemistry -> biology -> human
I think this is bullshit. I think physics is really at the bottom, and that maths is not even in the picture.
What I mean is that you, thermodynamics (for example) is not the derivation of some mathematical axioms. It may be the consequence of statistical mechanics, but it basically just is.
Logic is in some ways (for certain people), the foundation of maths. Well, it's ridiculous to say that physics is derived from logic. It doesn't make any sense.
Some areas of physics are really abstract and theoretical, and I think, whatever hides in physics, we should not lose sight that the real purpose (in the human quest of understanding the world through science) is to provide a foundation for both classical physics that is affecting us direcly, and more importantly, to biology and life itself.
And one thing I know for sure is that thermodynamics is absololutely primordial in several fundamental ways to understand what life is.
The problem of logic is that it is completely devoid of information about the real physical world. About mater, energy, space and time. The only way to logically derive the laws of themodynamics is to start with some set of axioms as a sort of input. And those hypothetical axioms would contain a sufficient amount of physical information to be able to derive the law of thermodyamics. This axioms/information is not part of logic.
I think that information is a really important concept, even in physics, but information is not created and always comes from a quantifiable property of the physical world.
Logic is a little like chemistry. There is a combinatorial aspect to it. Chemistry can tell you what are the building blocks of matter, and how those blocks are combined with each other and how they can be combined with each other. But it also tells us how the matter evolve through time, 1/?

is what you see with your eyes discovered or invented

>>14615547
with reactions happening. It can tell us how matter evolve though time, but it can not tell use what was the initial state. And this also analog to logic.
Chemistry and logic have a combinatorial aspect to them and have each a set of rules to describe what is possible, how things evolove or are derived. But this is only about transformation. Transformation from what? Chemistry is meaningless without some statistics about physical quantities of the real world, from which we can infer a state of matter at a given time. Logic works the same way.

I don't know how to finish this. Physics works the same way as what I described previously. It's about evolution and transformation. But nothing is external to physics, and certainly not logic or maths, that's my point.

>>14615605
I know how to finish this. Models of computation to the rescue.
The universe is one giant state machine, and we are in it.
The knowledge that we have in physics (physcal laws and forces), chemistry are just like lambda calculus. It's just a bunch of functions transforming some input into some output. Logic works the same.
Physics is just a bunch of equations. They are meaningless alone. What makes them relevant are the constants in it, and the initial conditions and boundary conditions. And those are obtained directly or indirectly from physical instruments.
We, as humans and entities of the universe, and constantly IN the state machine, surrounded and composed of its state/information. And this information, it is not invented/created but discovered/measured. What I am trying to say is that we don't think about the information required to make physics, chemistry and logic work, because information is so prevalent.
It's like variables in C. Even if you don't put anything in it, it will have a value.
So yeah. The universe is a big state machine. It is made of information, and can't be derived by any amount of pure function we conceive. Therefore, "physics" is the absolute base of it all. Not maths or logic.
We can discover the state transition rules, for sure. But let's not forget state itself.

>>14615551
based

>>14606060
Doesn't matter really.

>>14615711
Kill yourself pseud faggot

>>14615551
sensory experience is discovery

creating a model based on experience is invention

>>14606060
Some anon once said that invention is the discovery of possibility, and I think that's true.
There are no true distinction between discovery and invention, but languages (at least the ones i know), makes it appear as if they are quite different.

>>14606060
Mathematics was conjured through the sacrifice of many Aztec to Quetzalcoatl on top of the great sun temple in mexico's valleys.
Linguistics was conjured through sacrifice to his black canine brother/waifu (male) Xolotl on the great moon temple.

This is scientifically proven.

>>14615711
Even if possible to sim a universe using computers that in no way means our universe was created the same way.

>>14617550
I wish our universe was a simulation, I really do.
It's more an orgasm really.
A slow self rape and sacrifice.

I mean it's kinda spooky how metaphorically accurate Jesus is to representing the perpetually self tormenting nature of the universe.
But that, too me, is the problem. I don't understand why people merely accept it when Jesus himself detested it.

>>14606060
Invented
Numbers arent real
Theyre just an abstract concept to organize objects

>>14617858
>Theyre just an abstract concept to organize objects
Or objects are an abstract concept to organise numbers

This is why we differentiated linguistics from mathematics and how they never quite seem to meet logically. There's a quality if one that is missing from the other.
This is probably why our AI is struggling right now to make things "human" in a soulful sense.

>>14618030
An apple exists
The number 3 is a concept to describe apples

>>14617539
based

>>14606060
i think the same thing can be asked about language, or any code or pattern. are patterns invented or discovered/recognized? the concepts break down due to subjectivity, hence the debate. some patterns are so widely recognized (by human minds) that it seems natural to say they they are universally observable and therefore discovered. however, because it requires a specific type of consciousness to observe, it could be said to be a phantom of the machine processing it.

>>14606102
this sounds theistic, but if you believed in a god with less intelligence than yourself.

>>14606773
the act of abstracting the sheep with the symbol of a pebble is perhaps the type of thing which is the foundation of both mathematics and language. the human capacity to simultaneously work with abstraction and reality is what makes mathematics both practical and theoretical.

>>14606920
but you could symbolize mathematics with pebbles, as >>14606773
points out.

furthermore, the mental act of doing so is not an invention, as it comes natural to us.

>>14608137
this gets at the root of the debate here, i think linguistically there are some limitations. the concept of inventing something tends to apply to the realm of applied sciences. for instance, the internal combustion engine is considered to have been invented, but it's primary mover, fire, is a discovery. the wheel is considered an invention, but it's because something round was applied in a specific way. there were always things that rolled such as logs or boulders.

>>14606060
Inscovered.
In that it was discovered within the self.

Frogfag I will murder you.

it's all made up bullshit that has no relationship to reality
it's basically the astrology of our time

>>14618312
If mathematics has no relationship to reality how do you explain mathematical models being successfully employed to predict and control parts of reality?

>>14608137
They are not synonymous. Discoveries are not necessarily invented.