It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Numbers Conspiracy

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Often scientist, mathematicians, engineers and all manner of other quantitative individuals refer to math as the only true universal language. We treat concepts such as physical and mathematical formulas as undeniable proof of the testament. We forget that the formulas we've created to explain our world are nothing more than guesses applied to a series of experiments. We take math to be a universal truth, that anything from as simple as 1+1 =2 to complicated matters such as infinite series and the overused E=mc^2.

My point is that numbers are human constructed phenomenon used to describe our world. They only have the truth and precise logic prescribed to them because we have ourselves invented the concept. It is easy to make 8x8=64 all the time when by definition you deem it do so.

The true question is, are numbers an actual universal language or nothing more than an analysis created by humans to gain further understanding. Is the logic of numbers truly perfect or do we just make it so?




posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Numbers are the result of counting. It is universal because we can all understand if you have 1 item, and then you add another item you get 2 items.

The numbers themselves can by any symbol or variable you want to make them. That part is what you are referring to, but to add and subtract is universal. And that is math.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Vagabond33
 


That is why it is called axiomatic. The analogue to logical space in metaphysical philosophy is number and set theory for mathematicians.

Plus, if you are getting into referents and the such, there is no need. It is obvious that we humans have created symbols to symbolize such quantities.

EDIT: I actually wrote a paper on this but is not ready for anyone to view.


[edit on 11-10-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Numbers aren't very factual.

In fact, sometimes they can even be wrong.

You know about the e=MC^2 theory? That's partially wrong. Given the facts that we've learned about anti-matter we now know that the theory is only partially correct, the equation is correct if it is written as e=+-mc^2 to account for the negative energy in the Universe too.

You should read about Dirac... he corrected Einstein's theory and he basically discovered quantum theory.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Yes, numbers aren't always correct, and usually, when numbers aren't correct there is something missing in the equation to make it correct.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Not for the sake of argument here, but I wanted to point this out so you can see a possible flaw in the thinking here.

"Formulas" absolutely can be incorrect. That's completely true, we might be off on various ideas, which we correct as we learn. However, numbers themselves are not wrong.

Think of it like this. Math is a universal language that explains certain ideas, we just might not have the entire vocabulary down yet.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


You took the words right out of my mouth.

Well said.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SimpleAnswers
 


Not really. Numbers can make us believe an equation works when something needs to be added to it or numbers can make us believe an equation is wrong.

I'm not really wrong with my thinking here.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by SimpleAnswers
 


Not really. Numbers can make us believe an equation works when something needs to be added to it or numbers can make us believe an equation is wrong.

I'm not really wrong with my thinking here.


I whole-heartedly disagree. Listen to what SimpleAnswers said,


"Formulas" absolutely can be incorrect. That's completely true, we might be off on various ideas, which we correct as we learn. However, numbers themselves are not wrong.


Numbers themselves are not incorrect. Formulas, equations, etc, can be incorrect. The way I view it, and I am sure many mathematicians view it as a function. Its an input and an output. That simple.

If I said, "y=5x" represents the path of a particular particle (letting "x" denote time and "y" the resulting position, the "5" itself is not what is incorrect. Its is "y=5x" as a whole that has the potential for error. That is why we have an infinite amount of numbers and variables at our disposal to describe our universe, so we can hopefully describe anything.


[edit on 12-10-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Unlimitedpossibilities
 


Numbers can express something that isn't there. Numbers can also express something that is there... but we don't know about.

Mathematics are incomplete. I read somewhere that arithmetical statements cannot be proven.

Statements that numbers give us are wrong sometimes, only to be later, proven right with some other instance.

Mathematics can lead a physicist to not completely understand something that is there. A physicist may not understand something that a mathematical equation provides and may so dismiss it... mathematics may allow the possibility of something that doesn't exist or that isn't testable... not yet at least within a scientific equation.

Mathematics isn't perfect.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
people didn't invent numbers. people just gave names to something that already exists, ie. quantity.

humans can be wrong about what values they assign, but the values themselves are absolutes.

it doesn't matter what you name a unit. it is a unit.

one earth.

there are not three earths that we are calling 'one'. there is one.

one person can only be one person.

one is not two.

this is logic, and it is infallible and absolute.

that said, nothing is absolute in human experience, and logic should always be viewed through fuzzy glasses. siamese twins, for example. is it one person, or two, or one and a half people?
one earth, but what about the atmosphere that keeps changing as some material from space bombards the earth, changing it, while other things leave the earth. regardless of the exact definition of earth, there is only one. 'the earth' is constantly morphing, and cannot be considered an absolute, but, all of it's incarnations fall under the category, 'earth', and there is only one. that is an absolute value, describing a dynamic object.

once again, we did not 'invent' numbers. numbers existed before man incarnated on this one earth.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I have to disagree, I think we invented numbers for the very reason we invented language; to describe our surroundings. Mathematics are special simply due to the fact that they are agreed upon because they are governed by a very strict set of rules. They have no universal feature beyond what we as a society have given to them, much the same as language.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Vagabond33
 


so, if a human does not observe something, then it is infinite or non-existant?

quantity does not exist until observed by humans?

you know that is what you are saying, right.

you can count frogs whether you are a human or a computer. we didn't convince computers to work. they work because they count. it is possible to count because 'things' have distinct properties which define them. a definite unit is something that is there already, whether you have 'numbers' or not. we didn't 'make up' numbers.

math is discovered, not invented.

there ARE 'invented' numbers that are called imaginary numbers by mathematicians, and 'we' DID invent them(perhaps), but actual determination of quantity by defining units and tallying them is NOT an invention. it is a MEASUREMENT.

some units are invented. kilos, grams, parsecs, centimetres, bushels, cords, acres....

however, two acres is not smaller or larger or more whether there is a human there to call it two acres or not.

you're welcome to disagree, but you're WRONG, lol!

[edit on 14-10-2008 by billybob]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join