The Student Room Group

Mathematics is a Natural Science

THE most common criticism against mathematics not being a natural science is that it does not describe the physical universe. If this were true, then it would admit that there is no property of number, space, change and time in the universe that existed independently of the mind, which is an absurd position.

THE second criticism is that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, however the existence of different geometries proves that under certain circumstances it is possible to show that certain postulates do not apply, as in the case of Euclid's fourth postulate which was shown to be false. Furthermore while mathematics might not be entirely experimental, the results of the natural sciences show that it is indispensible in explaining phenomena, suggesting it does actually exist.

Scroll to see replies

Whatever. Math is apparently a tool used to explain the relationships between various things in the universe.

Math is also a manmade abstract system. So it's not perfect. It can't apply to the supernatural.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by skunkboy
Whatever. Math is apparently a tool used to explain the relationships between various things in the universe.

Math is also a manmade abstract system. So it's not perfect. It can't apply to the supernatural.

Posted from TSR Mobile


How many times do you need to be told? Mathematics is not man made... the numbers are, but the concept is not.
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
How many times do you need to be told? Mathematics is not man made... the numbers are, but the concept is not.


Math or the concept is not manmade? So who or what created math? God? Aliens?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by skunkboy
Math or the concept is not manmade? So who or what created math? God? Aliens?

Posted from TSR Mobile


The concept of mathematics was born with the universe.

Apple and Apple is AppleApple no matter where you are in the universe.

The numbers we use are man made but the mathematics is naturalistic.

1+1=2 wherever you are in the universe. the numbers and symbols are man made but the concept is not.

One way you know if something is man made is to ask yourself "Does this apply wherever you are in the universe?" If it does then it's not man made. Man simply discovered it.

A washing machine is man made.

The english language is man made.

A computer is man made.

Quantum mechanics is naturalistic.

Gravity is naturalistic.

Get it yet? Google the difference between discovery and invention
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 5
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
The concept of mathematics was born with the universe.

Apple and Apple is AppleApple no matter where you are in the universe.

The numbers we use are man made but the mathematics is naturalistic.

1+1=2 wherever you are in the universe. the numbers and symbols are man made but the concept is not.

One way you know if something is man made is to ask yourself "Does this apply wherever you are in the universe?" If it does then it's not man made. Man simply discovered it.

A washing machine is man made.

The english language is man made.

A computer is man made.

Quantum mechanics is naturalistic.

Gravity is naturalistic.

Get it yet? Google the difference between discovery and invention


So would you endorse my view? Also I just ignored the other guy because he said it doesn't explain the supernatural, and I have it on good authority the supernatural is probably just a load of bs.
Original post by jakeel1
So would you endorse my view? Also I just ignored the other guy because he said it doesn't explain the supernatural, and I have it on good authority the supernatural is probably just a load of bs.


I'm not really sure what it is you're actually asking. I think you're asking if mathematics exists as an actual thing. The answer is no it doesn't.

Love exists but it's not materialistic.

Mathematics doesn't exist as you're describing it... not that I know what it is you're trying to describe exactly.
Reply 7
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
I'm not really sure what it is you're actually asking. I think you're asking if mathematics exists as an actual thing. The answer is no it doesn't.

Love exists but it's not materialistic.

Mathematics doesn't exist as you're describing it... not that I know what it is you're trying to describe exactly.


As in the things we describe by mathematics have an actual existence independent of human existence, like the laws of gravity. They are not invented but discovered.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jakeel1
As in the things we describe by mathematics have an actual existence independent of human existence, like the laws of gravity. They are not invented but discovered.



We use nature to describe nature. It's not uncommon.

It would be quiet extraordinary if we invented a device that could describe the natural world. We invent computers to help us process and analyse the information but without mathematics or physics the universe simply cannot be understood.
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
The concept of mathematics was born with the universe.

Apple and Apple is AppleApple no matter where you are in the universe.

The numbers we use are man made but the mathematics is naturalistic.

1+1=2 wherever you are in the universe. the numbers and symbols are man made but the concept is not.

One way you know if something is man made is to ask yourself "Does this apply wherever you are in the universe?" If it does then it's not man made. Man simply discovered it.

A washing machine is man made.

The english language is man made.

A computer is man made.

Quantum mechanics is naturalistic.

Gravity is naturalistic.

Get it yet? Google the difference between discovery and invention


This.

The number 1 is man-made and represents a certain quantity, in other parts, they may use different symbols but the quantities are essentially the same, they're predefined.
Reply 10
Original post by RhymeAsylumForever
This.

The number 1 is man-made and represents a certain quantity, in other parts, they may use different symbols but the quantities are essentially the same, they're predefined.


Does the universal existence of the number one not show it is a physical property not an invention of the mind?
Original post by jakeel1
Does the universal existence of the number one not show it is a physical property not an invention of the mind?


The concept of the number one, yes. Not 1 itself. (This is hard to phrase)
Original post by jakeel1
Does the universal existence of the number one not show it is a physical property not an invention of the mind?


This is the point, the number 1 doesn't exist in the same way that love doesn't exist.

The number 1 is just a quantitative name we've assigned to keep track of how many of that item we might have.

Just because a non-existent thing can represent a physical thing that exists doesn't make that the non-existing thing suddenly start existing.
Reply 13
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
This is the point, the number 1 doesn't exist in the same way that love doesn't exist.

The number 1 is just a quantitative name we've assigned to keep track of how many of that item we might have.

Just because a non-existent thing can represent a physical thing that exists doesn't make that the non-existing thing suddenly start existing.


So in your view it is an invention. What about atoms for example, are those just convenient concepts we use to describe physical properties or are they actually as real as we describe them? I'm trying to avoid the subjective trap that this comes with, since based on this you could argue anything is a human invention. We don't experience reality directly, but through concepts. But does mathematics and physics exist beyond our concepts? In physics we would say so, so why not maths?

Are all objects not in some relative position in space and time? Why can we so elegantly describe these relations if they don't actually exist.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jakeel1
So in your view it is an invention. What about atoms for example, are those just convenient concepts we use to describe physical properties or are they actually as real as we describe them? I'm trying to avoid the subjective trap that this comes with, since based on this you could argue anything is a human invention. We don't experience reality directly, but through concepts. But does mathematics and physics exist beyond our concepts? In physics we would say so, so why not maths?

Are all objects not in some relative position in space and time? Why can we so elegantly describe these relations if they don't actually exist.


I think you've completely misunderstood what I wrote.

I didn't say mathematics was an invention, only the numbers are.

You can look through an electron microscope and see atoms. Yes they are physical objects.

For something to exist it has to have at least one physical property or some dimensions. Numbers have 0 physical properties or dimensions.

Love has 0 physical properties or dimensions. Gravity has 0 physical properties or dimensions.

And in physics I can assure you no physicist in their right mind would suggest that physics is a materialistic framework. Mathematics and physics are a non-materialistic frameworks that describes the way objects are related.

The object is physical, the descriptive relationship is not.

It's literally like asking me to give you a cup of emotion or give you a cup of velocity.
I think that mathematics describes only itself, and that we can make maths describe the universe by defining its parametres to apply to our reality.

In another universe, perhaps if I put 3 objects together instead of having three objects, some absurd (to our minds) physical laws are invoked and I end up with four objects.

To describe this the mathematicians of that universe (if such intelligent life existed) would come up with different axioms to derive the theorems which would be necessary to "prove" that 1+1-1=4. Maybe they would come to the same conclusions as you and decide that they had "discovered" a mathematical fact of the universe. Instead, they had formally defined as system to describe a physical fact of the universe.
Also I'm fairly sure that love is materialistic. It is a chemical reaction that can be measured. Not sure why you had to bring that soppy crap into this.

This is the philosophy of mathematics. Neck beards are appropriate here; post valentines day soppyness is not.
Original post by KingStannis
Also I'm fairly sure that love is materialistic. It is a chemical reaction that can be measured. Not sure why you had to bring that soppy crap into this.

This is the philosophy of mathematics. Neck beards are appropriate here; post valentines day soppyness is not.



I was using it as an example. I'll use emotion in general then.

Emotion has of course a chemical process but when you get angry your body doesn't generate "angry" atoms. The anger inside your mind is not materialist, it has no substance.
Original post by KeepYourChinUp
I was using it as an example. I'll use emotion in general then.

Emotion has of course a chemical process but when you get angry your body doesn't generate "angry" atoms. The anger inside your mind is not materialist, it has no substance.


Your view consigns us to the belief that the self is separate from the physical plane and interacts with out bodies, rather than being some part of our bodies.

I mean, surely our emotions are generated by our experience of chemical reactions??
Original post by KingStannis
Your view consigns us to the belief that the self is separate from the physical plane and interacts with out bodies, rather than being some part of our bodies.

I mean, surely our emotions are generated by our experience of chemical reactions??


Yes of course they are but an emotion is not a physical object. The chemistry in your brain changes so you become angry or whatever but the emotion itself doesn't have a substance or a dimension or anything.

When you drive in a car, you feel the velocity of yourself moving but velocity, like emotion has no substance... It's like mathematics... What is the temperature of the number 7? How much does it weigh? What colour is it?

For something to physically exist it needs to have, as I said previously, at least 1 physical property or some dimensions.

Quick Reply

Latest