Idiots on facebook

>HE FUCKING TAGS POPSCI
There comes a point, where you [math]have[/math] to ask yourself the grand question: is he right?

Literally every mathematician ever knows AND CAN PROVE that mathematics is just a game of symbol manipulation.

>philosophy
>disproving

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Tbh this is the only wrong part about his post. Is math a property of the universe or a human invention? That's the oldest debate in the books and everyone thinks about it at least once. But the fact that he thinks that his rhetoric can prove or disprove anything is pretty fucking retarded.

Remember philosotards, you can only argue... with words. You will collect no data, you will not experiment with a testable hypothesis, and you will not come up with reproducible results. You will basically write a bunch of feely arguments about why something is or isn't a way. Don't pretend you do anything more than that. Leave the real work to real men. Remember, no one can know nuffin, specially you. Fucking retards.

It'a not that he's right (it was bound to happen eventually) it's that he's acting like he' some incredible genius for figuring this out when he could have asked literally any mathematician and had this explained to him in a minute.

tl;dr- philosopher thinks he's smart for figuring out the obvious.

>philosopher thinks he's smart for figuring out the obvious.

Sounds like he'll make an excellent philosopher

Reads like a minor case of schizophrenia. A stream of consciousness connected by puns.

>THE STANDARDS FOR CORRECTNESS ARE HIGHER IN THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT THAN THE MATH DEPARTMENT
Philosophy fags actually believe this.

mathematics is more of a tool or a "translator" to understand how the universe work.

anything from science magazines and websites that don't actually link to real peer-reviewed articles

>"I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE"

Seems like someone pointed out your bullshit idiocy and you conveniently changed your argument.

I know a few people like that on some forums i go to. A few examples of threads created by them :
>the number 0 doesn't exist
>possibility of a bridge between 2 dimensions
>i have found the formula to recreate a magnetosphere on mars
>proof of afterlife
All of these threads are complete gibberish and math using signs that don't exist and the guys creating them answer to
>every
>single
>post
even the unrelated ones and the ones created by Ads bots by pooping a 2 pages long essay of the same nonsense.
It's now a game to report them and ban them to make them lose their shit so they create a new accounts and elaborate conspiracy theories on how our forum mods are totally hunting them.
These guys are funny but just on the internet.

>is he right?
I dont think there is any actual in meaning in the writing.
Nothing in there indicates that the person has any idea what he is talking about (what is a "dimensionality set" ?) or that anything even relates to each other.

>no one can know nuffin, specially you. Fucking retards.
I lol'd

Disproving the existence of mathematics in the natural world? Congratulations, you have done absolutely nothing of note
Disproving the existence of numbers in the natural world? Good luck

Also, for all the others like while this guy is obviously some retarded pseud, don't let his autism get in the way of you actually exploring philosophy. Epistemology, especially, is worth taking a look at.

t. math major

>Black holes are stabilized fundamental particles
>Black holes are particles
>t. someone who hasn't studied GR

where are you finding this?

prove math exists outside of your own head

can't? then how is she in the wrong?

I have a theologian as a roomate, and every time I try to talk science or mathematics, she trys to force it into this tiny pinhole. Almost every argument ends in "ah ha, thier are things you can't explain (yet) with science, and my skydaddy can!!! Arguing with these people is pointless

The study of formal systems.

What do you think of the 'cavitation theory of matter' ?

Some crazy guy in california made a video that I find oddly compelling.

>how is she in the wrong
She claims to have proof for something for which no proof exists.

Whatever pretentious bullshit she writes will always be her own opinion. Not an undeniable proof of the "non-existence" of mathematics.

They're posts from an old friend of mine on facebook.

If you feel like burning a few more braincells, just check out NASA's facebook. All pictures and posts have hundreds of people raving on like in your OP, along with religious dumplings screaming in all caps how space is fake because Allah or whatever told them.

>NASA's facebook
I don't even get why they've liked the page if they're gonna just go on about how it's an evil conspiracy. Do they want to disappear?

he's wrong because isomorphisms are a core part of current mathematical theory

1 + 1 = 2

is also rock and identical rock makes you have another rock; this exists in the real world

therefore mathematics exist in the real world

QED

what's wrong with taking a well organized stance against a platonist view of the world ?

I guess its the same as every crazy, paranoid conspiracy tard. They get some kind of kick out of "knowing the truth" or whatever, as well as seeing any counter-arguments as some kind of confirmation and validation that there is something to hide

>Music is a dynamic bosonic system.
The idiot might be onto something.

How is he gonna give me change after I order my burger if he doesn't believe in math?

Negative numbers and Infinity don't exist in the real world though

>negative numbers dont exist
my bank account says otherwise.

Could you talk to my bank please?

If you can philosophically prove it then they are obligated to fix that

very interesting.

Although I doubt that such a thing as "philosophical proof".

you just have a positive amount of debt

And if there werent so many negative charges on my account I would have a negative amount of debt.

4/7
>i cringed

Negative charges are just positive numbers but with a direction

>im bad at math
>society's to blame, not me
t. liberal

think he's just trying to find his place in life
and maybe minor psychosis
is this like a high school sophomore or something?

This shit reads like he got really high and thinks hes a scientist now. How can one be so confident in something they clearly know nothing about?

>math is a human made concept
>implying humans have even once, ever, generated natural laws of physics rather than observing existing relationships

Post more pics please c:

I don't think that's what most liberals mean. They just mean that the way that mathematics os taught it pushes a lot of people away, and that's true. Hell, I'm a living prove of this. I started enjoying mathematics at 18, because before then I didn't really understand what it was actually for, so I thought it was boring (I mean, I knew it was useful to know how to handle money and other quantities, but I didn't really understand that there was more to it).

only thing that pushed me away as a kid with mathematics was cultural marxism
taught me to the lowest common denominator
and no it is what they mean, he genuinely thinks math is just a human construct
math is a logical representation of rules the universe follows
did we make the representation? yes
does that make it any less real? no

math is made by man in the same way language is made by man.
just because it can describe something real, that doesn't mean it's tangible.

>golden spiral describes center of motion of black hole
Whats with retards and trying to connect phi to black holes?

like Nassim Haramein who claimed an object falling into a black hole travels in a golden spiral, which pic relates shows isnt the case.

>math is made by man in the same way language is made by man.
No.
That definitely is wrong.

The way we express math is very much like the language, but the groundwork definitely isnt.

It is ridiculous to assume that something which can describe nature so incredibly well, like nothing else, is not part of nature itself.

There is also one very important distinctions between math and language. There is exactly ONE mathematics, but multiple languages exists and are easily created.
Creating a new mathematics is beyond human comprehension.

He's right, you know.

Show me the people who think math exists in nature. It sure isn't any actual mathematicians, that's for sure. Who the fuck is she trying to persuade? What's next? Proving the English language doesn't exist in nature? Moronic.

>is also rock and identical rock

No such thing as two identical rocks. Also, "two" isn't a thing, it's an adjective. "big rocks", "shiny rocks", "two rocks". There's no such thing in nature as "big" and there's no such thing as "two".

There is no "negative money" dummy. What does it mean to say your account has -$10 in it? It means you've borrowed ten dollars from the bank.

>How can one be so confident in something they clearly know nothing about?

Duning-Kruger

Not that faggot but YES, that is a perfect analogy. Math is a game of symbol manipulation, just as language is a game of noise manipulation. We can use language to convey meaning not because language "really" means anything, but because other humans have agreed to "play" by the same rules (the grammar of the language). Likewise with math, an equation doesn't "mean" anything, but humans can use them to convey meaning because they agree to a common (and ultimately arbitrary) set of rules to interpret and create mathematical utterances.

>It is ridiculous to assume that something which can describe nature so incredibly well, like nothing else, is not part of nature itself.

What a profoundly stupid thing to say. If I say "OP is a faggot", that's a perfect and complete description of OP.Does that mean English is "part of nature"?

>Math is a game of symbol manipulation
Wrong. I doubt you have done much math in your life.

I also think you havent read what I actually said.
Of course the symbolic expressions that make up mathematics are very much comparable to a language and can be arbitrarily replaced.

But consider that the symbols that describe mathematics are not mathematics itself.

Language can describe the world around us but there are many, sometimes completely incompatible ways to represent the world using language.

And there is also another significant difference, math does not describe the appearance of nature (like language can), it describes the inner workings and allows conclusions about nature itself.

There is a vast difference between something which can reflect and express appearance and something which can describe something about nature itself.

>What a profoundly stupid thing to say. If I say "OP is a faggot", that's a perfect and complete description of OP.Does that mean English is "part of nature"?
With "describe" I mean creating a model with predictive qualities. Language can not do that.
What are you even trying to say with that?

>But consider that the symbols that describe mathematics are not mathematics itself.

Just as the noises that make up speech aren't the language itself?

>Language can describe the world around us but there are many, sometimes completely incompatible ways to represent the world using language.

Just like there are many different "mathematics" which can each prove things the others can't?

>And there is also another significant difference, math does not describe the appearance of nature (like language can), it describes the inner workings and allows conclusions about nature itself.

Just like language can? Or do you think philosophy and it's ilk are "mathematics" because they discuss deep,non-physical concepts?

>With "describe" I mean creating a model with predictive qualities. Language can not do that.

What are you babbling about? "OP is a faggot" DOES make predictions, with regard to the likelihood that OP will choose to suck cocks.

ANYTHING you can express in mathematics, you can express in language. It might take a lot more words than it does mathematical symbols, but that's really why we created math in the first place, as a shorthand for language.

Why the fuck are there so many faggots in this thread thinking we 'discovered' mathematics? that its somehow inherent in the universe?

ill spell it out for you guys
mathematics can be devided into 3 things
>axioms
>theorems
>mappings

we invent axioms, it can be anything we want it has nothing to do with the universe.

we then discover theorems by working in the system of these axioms, these discoveries still have nothing to do with the universe but you can argue that we are discovering pure truth from platos world or some philisofical bullshit.

lastly we have mappings from some mathematical structure to the physical world, this is the only connection math has with the universe, we find a mapping between for example natural numbers and apples, or real numbers mod 360 and rotating objects. this is basically phisics, not math

while this is technically correct, it is a very shortsighted view of what math is. it's not just a game of manipulating symbols based on rules and axioms we simply chose. the axioms are chosen to fit the intuition and the "mathematical universe" and not the other way around.

>blames "cultural Marxism" for being a brainlet
>was educated by a state-capitalist system, corporate media in a consumer culture
>wasn't even taught what Marxism is
>thinks it is the boogieman destroying his perfect system with secret liberal agendas
Literally more autistic than Marx(ists)

No, the axioms are chosen for any or no reason at all. If you want to explore the mathematics of "1+1=3" then you can simply include that as an axiom and see where you end up.

again not technically wrong, but shortsighted.

the axioms are chosen very carefully. a historical view of mathematics enriches the way you can see it: ZFC was not set in stone as truth, but emerged as the "correct" axiom set from many others and as the culmination of many attempts to make sense of what the rules mathematicians see as "true" are.

you could of course pick random axioms, but you won't be doing math.

Yes you absolutely would be doing math you dunce. What you're getting hung up on is the distinction between "useful maths" and "all math", yes of course math that has some valuable application is going to be more sought after and praised than math that is pure abstract symbol play, but they are BOTH math.

math doesn't need to have any application. the usefulness of a set of axioms is not in how many applications they give to the "real world" whatever that is. I'm not talking about that.

I'm saying that not any symbolic game is math. math is about working with the right intuitions, the fact that it has been formalized in our time doesn't mean that all similar formalizations are also math and that anything that doesn't follow the formalization isn't math. people have done maths for many years since before the idea of axioms-conclusions was even put in place.

Then you're just being facetious. Yes humans exist in nature and so "technically" everything humans do is "natural", but that's clearly not what the thread is about and you know it.

I don't know what you're saying now. let me be clear: we definitely discover mathematics in the usual sense of the word. it's something that is "there" and that we get closer to understanding.

honestly all this scientifically illiterate behaviour was the scientific field prior to the scientific method.
Thanks to the www, any retard or schizophrenic can espouse unsupported shit about anything and believe they are right. I have confronted retards like that on g+ and been banned for "harassment".

then don't harrass people? you don't need to correct everyone that's wrong, especially if not invited or not acquainted to them.

>Epistemology
From the description it's indeed the part of philosophy I would gladly read. Thanks

but hes right

>when the green hits you too much

>I have confronted retards like that on g+ and been banned for "harassment".

>No such thing as two identical rocks.
which is why you also have the real number system or you just identify rocks as just rock so 1+2 could be two differently sized rocks it still would equal a rock composed of the 1 and 2 rock

>Also, "two" isn't a thing, it's an adjective. "big rocks", "shiny rocks", "two rocks". There's no such thing in nature as "big" and there's no such thing as "two".
language is manmade so your argument is invalid

I'm a mathematician. What does it mean for "mathematics to exist in nature?" Without defining anything, we can say whatever we want. I would say mathematics doesn't exist in nature, however it's clearly useful. I would also say existence is overrated as it pertains to usefulness.

> Mathematics is a human-made concept..
right :^)

>.. and isn't possible to exist in natural world.

The letter "A" isn't found in nature either. Now is the whole alphabet is invalid?

>those triangles
>that poorly drawn fibbonacci sequence

kek

>duh liberals always blame society!
>I don't, I just blame cultural marxism which is totally the defining force of our society!

jews invented negative numbers

Because retards don't calculate, they just want to see "meaning" in everything and so they start claiming bogus which pleases them.
Some plants just have an exact phi spiral on how they grow some parts (but obviously not all the plants and not all the parts) and there's always a faggot who will go "LOOK, GOD" or some shit.

>what is scaling

thank you
i need to prepare some popcorn brb

something not applicable to my post?

>Just like there are many different "mathematics" which can each prove things the others can't?
That is wrong.
All of mathematics is interconnected, no area of mathematics is alone.

>Just like language can?
Language has absolutely no predictive qualities.

>Or do you think philosophy and it's ilk are "mathematics" because they discuss deep,non-physical concepts?
Philosophy is not concerned with an accurate description of the real world.
It provides a meta-framework in which things can be explained that are not directly related to observable nature.

>DOES make predictions
No it absolutely does not.

>likelihood
And here you are using mathematical concepts. Dont you think that is hypocritical?
The only way you can express the predictions you make are through mathematics.

>ANYTHING you can express in mathematics, you can express in language.
No.
Not only that, but language does not allow you to come to any conclusions.
Try describing a vector space WITHOUT using mathematics. It is a completely futile attempt.
And then come to conclusions about it.

You can translate vague Ideas about mathematics into language, but as I stated the expressions that make up mathematics are irrelevant to mathematics itself.

I can write down.
[math]exp\neq0\forall x\mathbb R[/math]
or say:
the exponential function will never be 0.

You can translate mathematics into language but it will stay mathematics. I dont really understand how you think that mathematics and language are the same thing. Mathematics is NEVER about the symbolic expressions but about the underlying Ideas, which of course can (and mostly are) be expressed though language.
But language on its own CAN NOT replace mathematics.

I always suspected that.

Have you guys ever heard of Jason Padgett? He made a fortune in the art world spewing nonsensical bullshit just like this. If you google him you'll find plenty of news articles and videos documenting his amazing enlightenment- after falling on his head in a clumsy accident, he instantly became a math and science genius. It's downright inspiring.

You do realize that what connects all areas of mathematics is "numbers" and "same base" right ?
Take math, use a formula, use base 10 .. then try to connect it again to another formula but in base 16 and oops, here comes chaos.

Mathematics is just a common language ENTIRELY CREATED for the sole purpose of scientific accurate depiction and understanding of our natural surroundings, the smallest of things up to entire galaxies.

Math is not fucking black voodoo language from the gods, it's an interpretation tool created by minds more developed than yours who wanted to know how much does a x*y*z rock was worth to not get scammed by their fellow sandniggers.

>You do realize that what connects all areas of mathematics is "numbers" and "same base" right ?
Completely wrong.
I dont think you know much about mathematics.
I was talking about thinks like measure theory and integrals, which are ideas from analysis but are used in a wide variety of different subjects like probability theory.

>Take math, use a formula, use base 10 .. then try to connect it again to another formula but in base 16 and oops, here comes chaos.
Again.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Baseless assumptions about the nature of the topic you are talking about dont make an argument.

>Mathematics is just a common language ENTIRELY CREATED for the sole purpose of scientific accurate depiction and understanding of our natural surroundings, the smallest of things up to entire galaxies.
Unlike language there is ONLY ONE mathematics. Explain that please.

>Math is not fucking black voodoo language from the gods, it's an interpretation tool created by minds more developed than yours who wanted to know how much does a x*y*z rock was worth to not get scammed by their fellow sandniggers.
?????

>Unlike language there is ONLY ONE mathematics. Explain that please.
different languages just use different symbols/sounds to say the same thing.
with math we just have one dialect

>a pefrect sphere exists
>In a place without space

What am i looking at

>different languages just use different symbols/sounds to say the same thing.
>with math we just have one dialect
Have you even read what I said?

>x*y*z rock was worth to not get scammed by their fellow sandniggers
How do I do this in two dimension vector space?

help