Ontological Mathematics

Simple minded people – including all scientists – find it impossible to conceive of mathematics as real. In fact, a simple test of true intelligence would be to ask people if mathematics is real or not. Only the smartest people in the world can grasp that mathematics is real. Yet it’s not difficult to work out. If you removed mathematics from science, science would collapse … a 100% collapse. Science conducted with 100% experimental success would be 100% useless without mathematics to make sense of the results and turn them into formulae. The most obvious description of science without mathematics is alchemy …

define "real"

The people who define it as a human social construct are, in my view, woefully mistaken. It very clearly exists objectively as some kind of Platonic form. Any sufficiently intelligent agents can derive it, and they would derive essentially the same mathematics with different symbols and naming conventions, and different emphasis on certain topics. But the subgraph it's a part of would still be the same one ours is a part of.

Humanity has failed to grasp that it inhabits a collective, holographic dream, and it has erroneously labeled this dreamworld a “real” world made of some bizarre thing called “matter” which no one has ever encountered in itself (i.e. independently of minds and of the thoughts in minds concerning “matter”).

There is no such thing as “matter” in the scientific sense. There is no such thing as “reality” in the scientific sense. All that exists are minds and their thoughts. Minds think individually or collectively. Collective thoughts have a special quality which humans misidentify as “matter”.

The task is to explain how thoughts are made, how they are organized, how they interact, what laws apply to them, and how they produce something – “matter” – which appears to be non-thought.

Humans operate in two modes: 1) when they are asleep, they inhabit their private dreamworld, created by their own minds; 2) when they are awake, they inhabit the public dreamworld, created by all minds (including their own).

define "real", otherwise "to ask people if mathematics is real or not" is meaningless

It is a social construct. No people = no platonism i.e. the abstract existence is "real" but only in our minds.

It's possible that platonism extends to other intelligent life, but there's no way to know at this point.

If the existence of math isn't independent of its being discovered, why does it work and why can it make predictions of events before they actually occur in the universe?

“What is most rational is most real (has most actuality); what is least rational is least real (has most potential and least actuality).”

The extraordinary feature of mathematics – which baffles so many people – is that it is both syntax and semantics.

What does the theorem for PSR look like?

For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.

Mathematics is the only substance that automatically obeys the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). Indeed, mathematics is the ontological expression and manifestation of the PSR.

That is a rather weak form. I don't mean because it uses words. A sufficient explanation does not make X exist. A SR would.

(cont'd)
Any hypothetical incomprehensible substance posited as the foundational substance would give rise to an incomprehensible universe, or no universe at all since an incomprehensible substance could have no sufficient reason for its existence, would be cataclysmically unstable, and have zero chance of existing in the first place.

Your definition of real just got passed to the vague terms of "actuality" and "potential" and "rational".
>Only the smartest people in the world can grasp that mathematics is real
Let me correct this.
Only the smartest people in the world will ask you what you mean by "real".
When presented with a definition of one abstract concept in terms of other abstract concepts it will be readily realized that such an inquiry is futile.
Your word "real" is of type: Noun->{Yes,No}.
Perhaps the best way to arrive at a specification for your definition "real" would be to provide you with a diverse list of nouns so that you can return a list of yeses and nos. From this list, an approximation of your definition of "real" can be made and then extrapolated to include the argument in question.
But then why should I go through the work of approximating then extrapolating when I could simply ask you if mathematics is "real" by your definition of "real"? If were to do so, I would be presented with the statement: Mathematics is real.
To me, this would simply mean by your definition of "mathematics" and your definition of "real", that mathematics is real.
Although this statement seems to be conveying information it is actually vacuous.
It is equivalent to the statement: noun is adjective.

If your criterion of selection is reason then you will ask what are the semantics and syntax of real. Only mathematics gives you a clear answer.
We find semantics in semantics all day long.

Agreed. People, being a product of reality itself, don't even have the capacity to really construct anything at all.

That answer is: nothing is real, that's how you define it.
Without mathematics, there would be no reality in any possibilities. Not only would nothing exist, but nothing would even be possible. Eternal truths must be grounded in something existent and actual, and consequently in the existence of something necessary, something in which its essence includes its existence. The possibility of mathematics is sufficient for it to be actual. This is true of nothing else. Only mathematics, if it is possible, must exist.Since nothing can prevent the possibility of that which includes no limits, no negation and hence no contradictions, and which has no requirements because it is “nothing” – an immaterial singularity whose values are always set exactly to a net zero – this alone is enough for us to know a priori that mathematics exists. Mathematics is structured nothingness. It is nothing and needs nothing. Nothing has no requirements, and nothing can prevent nothing from existing. The surest fact of all is that nothing exists.

The real question is that "is math real, independent of the existance of intelligent beings". Well, the only evidence there is for it is that it appears the universe behaves with mathematical reasoning, but it's never clear if we adopt mathematics to study the universe or math itself is true so the universe must be behave acording to it's law, i.e., you will never find a plane trianglr such that the sum of their interior angles is something else than pi radians. It's a virtuous cycle, but it has no definite answer and you have to assume a lot of other shit to give a concrete answer. That's why it is still a debated topic.

Empiricism is more or less the claim that absence of observable evidence is evidence of absolute absence (that unobservables are non-existent). This is equivalent to saying that absence of observable syntax is evidence that syntax does not exist at all – an insane conclusion.

Just so everybody know, these are all quotes from the book, except for :

For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.

If your criterion of selection is reason then you will ask what are the semantics and syntax of real. Only mathematics gives you a clear answer.
We find semantics in semantics all day long.

That answer is: nothing is real, that's how you define it.


Just read the book and be smarter.

Is it possible for mathematics to not exist? I might be a brainlet but I just can't imagine that possibility - then again my imagination is a computational process grounded in -this- reality so of course it doesn't make sense. Maybe there's a random noise universe where mathematics is actually completely irrelevant, but even in that case the existence of OUR universe, or rather than universe I'm observing right now, requires mathematics for sure to exist in some way

Scientists cannot prove that mathematics does not exist, have no evidence that mathematics does not exist, and cannot do without mathematics.
Scientists are so irrational that they imagine they can deny the reality of mathematics while being 100% dependent on it for every claim they make about reality.
Mathematics is energy in itself. Energy is the source of everything, the motor of everything, the Prime Mover, the essence of movement. Mathematics is also “knowledge in itself” – knowledge of Truth, knowledge of eternity, knowledge of necessity, knowledge of Nature (if we consider Nature in purely spacetime terms) and also knowledge of Supernature (if we consider the aspect of Nature outside space and time, the Nature of immaterial singularities, of Fourier frequency domains), knowledge of the material and the mental, knowledge of reality, knowledge of existence.
The universe is mathematics, the language of existence. Nothing exists outside the universe. Mathematics does not exist in space and time. Mathematics produces space and time. It does so at the Big Bang, and it does so mathematically, of course. Space and time are part of the language of mathematics. They are the preconditions for the secondary, derived language of Nature to come into existence: science.

Also an irrational universe could not exist because there is no sufficient reason for it to exist. It would be like a failed fecondation.

it's an arbitrary construct, kill yourself delusional retard

Yeah because taking one rock and then putting it with another rock doesn't always give you two rocks, it can sometimes give three

The easy answer is that the events occur whether or not we have the language to describe it. But the relationship between the event and the math doesnt exist until we define it.

Math is both arbitrary and convenient.

anti-realists are full of shit. everyone knows that calculus is a model. it's much more difficult to believe that the counting numbers, or the physical categories of reality, are just an arbitrary human perspective.

>Mathematics is energy in itself

>It is a social construct.

Back to tumblr, moron.

>The forms are real because plato said so
There's ultimately no definite answer.

It's as real as anything else we interpret, such as these words or the trees in the forest.
The only thing that brings these phenomenon into existence is our interpretation of them, without the meaning making powers of life possessing it material is empty of meaning. This makes it not real, at least in the world we occupy. Material unoccupied by meaning is an absence, so it exists, but only as an empty space.