Is Math immaterial?

And if yes, how can something immaterial define everything about the material world?

because autists can't recognized that the whole universe is designed, the whole freaking thing is a THOUGHT. God = Logos, the WORD then became FLESH. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Mathematics are the abstraction of multiplicity and its consequences.
When you notice there's something in common between two rocks, two days, and two wolf howls, you can abstract out that thing they all have in common, label it "two," and begin deducing truths about it.

No, math exists as patterns in human brains. There are no "immaterial" things, the concept isn't even coherent.

Listen. Math is a lot more than counting rocks and imaginary patterns humans see. The fact that we can accurately describe everything from the movement of stars to the probability of things so small they don't even take space being somewhere with this language that is Math tells a lot about the Universe. If Math is just a human observed pattern or just something that logically derives from counting rocks, then we should have already found out that this mechanism doesn't work to describe reality at a fundamental level. But as it turns out the same human observed pattern that can be used to count rocks can be used to describe both biggest and smallest, everything of all colors, shapes, sizes and origins. Math is everywhere. It's the digits I'm typing, the binary code of the software you're running, the quadrilateral shape of this reply's box. It's obviously something material. But at the same time, Math can be said to be immaterial. Numbers and Pure Math formulas don't need space-time and/or energy-matter to exist. Numbers and formulas, Math in general, is something immaterial. It's what gives material things its materiality in the first place. So I think Math is something completely immaterial but at the same time it defines this material reality (if it can be said to be material at all).

>Math is a lot more than counting rocks
I already wrote "and its consequences."
>as it turns out the same human observed pattern that can be used to count rocks can be used to describe both biggest and smallest, everything of all colors, shapes, sizes and origins
How could it be any other way? If mathematics didn't apply in different situations it would mean we lived in a retarded inconsistent dream-like world where logic and causality don't apply.

I think we're getting a little off topic here. Look, what I'm trying to say is that Math is immaterial. Here's an argument for that idea. Numbers don't exist. Try to think of a number. Any number. From 0 to 10. Got one? You're probably thinking of the numeral, for example, if you thought of three, you're thinking of that drawing of a horizontally inverted E. Numbers, formulas, they don't need on the existence of spacetime or energymatter to be real. So, Math is immaterial. But at the same time it has many material implications. Like every single thing about the Universe. How come? How can something immaterial give birth to something immaterial? Does that mean we're really just living a dream and none of this is real, at all? I think Math is the greatest mystery of mankind. I like to think of Math as god itself. Not a humanoid god, but certainly an omnipresent creator. I can understand how you might think I'm crazy, but it makes a lot of logical sense to me.

Is anyone arguing numbers are material? Abstractions aren't material.
>So, Math is immaterial. But at the same time it has many material implications. Like every single thing about the Universe. How come? How can something immaterial give birth to something immaterial?
Because you have the cause and effect backwards. Abstractions are derived from specifics, specifics aren't created by abstractions. Because physical reality is consistent and quantities don't magically increase or decrease in the absence of a cause for increase or a cause for decrease, we can trace out the consequences of numbers abstracted away from the specific material details that play out in the real world.
Abstraction lets you focus on one aspect of real world things while intentionally ignoring everything else so you can work more intensely with that one aspect on its own.

Read "Where Mathematics Comes Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being" by George Lakoff.

Math is an intricate and minimalist system of conceptual metaphors for describing and predicting our everyday experiences. What makes them interesting and so successful at describing external phenomena is the fact that the framework their based on automatically constructs a rich theory of implications that would not have been obvious or even conceivable if stated in a nonformal language.

Think of math as a toolbox for collating information about the external world, and each branch of math as a device calibrated for certain types of information.

Sorry but numbers are material objects.

Why does the "material" world have only properties that can be described with immaterial mathematics?

That's what I'm asking but in another words.

ITT : philosophags and religionerds discuss Math
as though they know anything about it.

Math is immaterial. As a freshman I was taught the Peano axioms and that redpilled me. Numbers don't actually exist, numbers come from the Peano axioms and then they are enhanced by set theory to make integers, rationals and reals.

That is why I laugh at faggots who say reals do not exist. Reals do not exist? The fucking number 1 does not exist. There is an axiom that says 1 exists, that is why it "exists". There is no intrinsic "one-ness" in the universe, just the Peano axioms.

>math exists as patterns in human brains
yeah, like patterns they realize exist in the real world, right?

>Peano axioms
just glorified counting chickens

Is language immaterial?
And if yes, how can something immaterial define everything about the material world?

So basically a closed(?) language system. we work in various language systems. O

No such thing as "immaterial", but it's an abstraction encoded into storage (like text and the brain), so it doesn't appear in nature and requires learned interpretation.

/thread and circular argument ad infinitum. Discussions like this are pointless

language doesn't determine facts about the world, math does

this system we developed to describe the world has somehow described things. wowee.

>this system we developed to describe the world has
and why do you think that regular human language only exists to describe the reality? regular human language is expressive, signaling, descriptive and argumentative. also there's no contradiction in using language to express false information. math does not apply to all of these categories, so only a brainlet would say that math and regular human language are ultimately the same kind of activity like you did

>tfw glorified chicken counting accurately predicts reality to a frightening degree
dude its so mindblowing when I count 5 theoretical chickens and then I also count 5 real chickens.

really gets the noggin a-joggin

You see the sun rising day after day for 20 years. An applied mathematician would say that the probability of the sun rising the next day is very high.

A pure mathematician would say that you cannot prove it from these observation alone and will go on to create models with multiple suns to prove his point.

I had similar thoughts.
But then I thought about where did Peano axioms come from. The only answer is "from out brains".
But how are they connected with reality then? Because our breaain is the product of thousands of years of evolution, we evolved pretty accurate intuitions about the world. And we also evolved logic, so we are able to derive something from axis and verify proofs.

> implying math isnt phylosophy