Mathematics wasn't discovered or invented.
Mathematics is an adaptation that increases organisms fitness (ability to grow+survive+reproduce).
It formed randomly due to sequence of mutations in organisms DNA, and remained due to natural selection because it was useful.
Any knowledge humans have is just arrangement of molecules in nervous system that formed randomly and was supported by natural selection.
I WANT TO GAS YOU OUT OF EXISTANCE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I completely agree with you though.
Praise Kek.
>Any knowledge humans have is just arrangement of molecules in nervous system that formed randomly and was supported by natural selection.
Naive reductionism is naive.
Any non-commutative statement of form "X is Y" where X and Y both refer to 0-dimensional object can't express any new information.
For example
>Naive reductionism is naive
Except it does, just like 'war is war' does. Language is more than semantics, it's also pragmatics.
>Appealing to pragmatics
Nu-sophist detected.
Pragmatics is actually a very interesting field of linguistics, I don't know where you get the idea that it has anything to do with the sophists.
Wrong. There is no question to where the answer "War is war" provides more information. Obvious exception is where the same words (war) don't refer to same object or event.
For example
>A: "Dog" is the name of my pet.
>B: What species is "Dog"?
>A: Dog is dog.
>Pragmatics is actually a very interesting field of linguistics
Interesting to who?
You?
Very sloppy power of expression do you have there.
>I don't know where you get the idea
>The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence.
No wonder you might consider it interesting, you are probably studying it so you can work of your awful pragmatic incompetence.
To clarify further,
statements where X and Y are inequal can't provide any information either.
For example:
There is no question to where "War is hell" provides more information.
If we are very clear, the statement "war is hell and pain" doesn't directly provide any more information either, but with the assumption that there is an unnamed event between 'hell' and 'pain', the statement can provide new information.
For example
>Atom is electrons, neutrons, and protons
This statement is false.
>Atom is electrons, neutrons, protons, and virtual particle exchanges.
This statement is true.
Why?
Because electron, proton, or neutron can exist as themselves without virtual particle exchanges.
Atom cannot exist without constantly exchanging countless amount of virtual particles with nearly the speed of light.
While electron can exist as object, atom refers to an objectified event.
>There is no question to where "War is hell" provides more information.
Is war hell?
Does that question not qualify?
Knowing whether the statement "is war hell" true or false has no consequences on the evolution or behavior of the individual.
The question can be asked, of course, and the answer can be stated, but neither will have any consequences.
Question: Why are these times so awful?
Answer: War is war.
Any competent speaker of English understands that this is an answer to the question, despite the tautological semantics of 'war is war'.
>Very sloppy power of expression do you have there.
Quite ironic coming from a barely coherent rambling of an answer. Don't speak of things you don't understand.
>and remained due to natural selection because it was useful.
but why is the set of random mutations collectively known as math useful? The entire basis of science is that we are not special in the universe, ie. the same laws of physics apply no matter where you are. And as far as we can observe this assumption is true. Since the language of physics is mathematics, it follows that no matter where you are in the universe, math will be useful. Even if math were randomly generated, the reason that we find it so useful is because it is universal. This "universal usefulness" implies that math is more of a fundamental thing in the universe, ie. it is discovered not invented or "randomly generated" as all inventions technically speaking are.
>tautological semantics of 'war is war'.
>Tautology - the saying of the same thing twice over in different words
>'war is war
>saying of the same thing twice over in different words
You are severely mentally deficient.
You do not belong in this thread.
A tautology is a proposition that is true in all possible world you mongoloid. Keep thinking you're smart while you study at your shit tier university, you don't impress anyone.
> Keep thinking you're smart while you study at your shit tier university, you don't impress anyone
Fantastic projection right there.
Also tautology has different meanings depending on the context.
In this context, in which we discussed language, it has the meaning previously asserted.
The meaning you propose is limited to logic.
Way to fail at pragmatics again.
When you discuss semantics, tautology means exactly what it means in logic. Also, I got to MIT so fuck off brainlet.
>Also, I got to MIT
Got to it?
So you did not graduate from it?
Also post proof.
Mathematics explains to humans how humans perceive the universe and how humans behave in human language.
Space and time are human concepts that don't exist outside human mind. Spacetime is a collection of relations compared to your own position.
Energy doesn't exist either outside human mind. Energy is collection of changes you experience.
>Spacetime is a collection of relations compared to your own position.
Spacetime is more so a collection of relations comparing two different positions in the universe, it has nothing to do with my own position. Of course in order to talk about another position, we have to imagine ourselves in that position. But this does not necessarily mean that other positions don't "exist".
>Energy doesn't exist either outside human mind. Energy is collection of changes you experience.
Maybe it will be better to ask what your definition of "exist" is? Do the changes not exist if there is no experience of them?
>Space and time are human concepts that don't exist outside human mind.
Does anything "exist" outside the human mind? How do you characterize existence without using characterization? And whatever your criteria is for existing outside the human mind, I'd argue that mathematics fits that criteria.
or it was the logical thinking and complex brains that was the thing supported by natural selection and mathematics is a byproduct of our brains being so complex