Does Math actually create or is it simply an attribute?
post by Insomnimatic · 2020-12-10T22:01:53.717Z · LW · GW · No commentsThis is a question post.
Contents
Answers 10 AnthonyC None No comments
Many times in my life I, and I am sure many of you, have heard some variation of "Without Math, nothing could exist."
Something I've always been curious about is if this statement is true or if Math is simply a defining feature of everything that exists within an object along side Color, Smell, Texture, etc... I have been a programmer for many years and this is where I first had the thought that Math could simply just be an attribute to objects in the real and virtual world. In a programming sense, Math can be used to assist in creating an object however, usually there is more than Math working behind the scenes to create the object.
If Math IS an attribute, does Math create the object or does the object create the attributing Math necessary for itself to take shape and/or exist?
My apologies if this question is sort of out there or just doesn't make much sense. I am new to this website and I figured "Why not ask?".
Answers
When I was a kid I had a teacher ask a class to write down the definition of math. He went on to define math as the formal study of patterns. I've rarely seen that kind of definition anywhere else, and it's certainly not easy to formalize, but I think it has a kind of meta-rational integrity that has kept it at the forefront of my understanding of math ever since.
If a thing has patterns associated with it in any way, then there is math associated with it through those patterns. If a thing is random, then there is math about what randomness looks like and does. Because of that, to say a thing could exist "without math" feels like a confusion to me. But that doesn't mean the math is some attribute of a thing, it's more like implicit structure that's part of every aspect of the thing, or maybe implicit in the category boundary you drew to define the thing.
We could have the same conversation about all the "defining features" you list, too. I could show how the color and texture of, say, steel, arise from imperfect crystalline arrangements of iron and carbon atoms, which exist because of how subatomic particles behave, and so on (I have physics and materials science degrees, so to a significant extent I actually can do this). If I knew enough about biology and how minds work, I could show how smell arises from interactions between me and small molecules evaporating from the surface of a thing. These kinds of attributes are not ontologically fundamental, they arise (inexorably) from processes that can be understood, aka from patterns, and when we abstract those patterns away from their instantiation in a specific context we call those patterns math.
There are quite a lot of articles on this site that carry bits and pieces of additional information relevant to what I'm trying to point to. A few that immediately come to mind are Trust in Math [LW · GW], How to Convince Me That 2+2=3 [LW · GW], Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions [LW · GW], and Reductionism [LW · GW].
No comments
Comments sorted by top scores.