Reconciliation of the debate as to whether math is discovered or invented

[roydop]

If my theory is correct, and 0 123456789... is a message that has yet to be correctly interpreted, this state would be a condition of being both discovered and invented.

A message is sent out or implanted with the intent for it to be discovered. A message that has been correctly interpreted and acted upon, is no longer required. A message that has not been correctly interpreted and acted upon will continue to express the message.

The integers are the message. The message (basically "Samsara", and where the species is in relation to it) has, until now, gone misinterpreted or uninterpreted. This misinterpretation or misuse, is mathematics. The 360 pages of esoteric symbolism required in Principia Mathematica, to "prove" that 1+1=2 is the way in which humanity has been convinced/programmed to accept that 1 and 2 are relating to quantity, when it is instead relating to an evolutionary quantum jump into a higher level of Self-Awareness.

So the message (the number system) has been discovered, and the ongoing attempt to correctly interpret (what the numbers mean) the message, is the invention. The numbers are a map of the evolution of consciousness. They are showing us that a MASSIVE cycle of what we take to be Reality is concluding and a new one is imminent.

This is the meaning of numbers.

Addition (counting) is the original misinterpretation and was invented via the 360 page "proof". That misinterpretation was declared an axiom and all of mathematics was built upon it. It works, yes. It works to divert consciousness onto a path of inquiry that will never reveal the meaning of the message.

The continued misuse of the information has created technology and technology has led to climate change and humanity's helpless addiction to the screen and page.

In conclusion,

The state of a message that is being misinterpreted, is a state of having been discovered, and is also a state that would generate invention. If the message isn't getting through, the attempt to properly interpret the message will generate invention; different manipulation of the information in an attempt to find the answer.

The number system has been discovered and mathematics has been invented.

This fits. This works. Do you recognize what a special phenomenon it is indeed, to satisfy the condition of being both in a state of having been discovered and created, simultaneously? How is it that my model could possibly provide insight about that incredibly specific aspect of mathematics?


How does this not reconcile the philosophical question as to whether mathematics is discovered or created?

[Agent Smith]

Numbers are a message, the message is samsara.

Ergo,

[wtf]

The 360 pages of esoteric symbolism required in Principia Mathematica, to "prove" that 1+1=2 ...

I wanted to place this remark in context. You are referring to Russell and Whitehead's tome in which they attempted to found all of mathematics, purely on logic. They developed some kind of elaborate and/or obscure system, that is completely forgotten today and whose only interest is historical. And out of this you've fact-mined one single factoid, that the proof that 1 + 1 = 2 appears on page 360; and out of that single factoid, you spin elaborate fantasies of what you think math is about.

However, first, I don't know that Principia Mathematica had any significant intellectual effect on mathematics and mathematicians at the time, other than a few logicians and philosophers. It's said jokingly that only three people ever read the PM: Russell, Whitehead, and Gödel. And today, NOBODY uses or remembers or cares about this work. It has absolutely zero relevance in the world of mathematics. It's a historical artifact that even in its own time was largely irrelevant to the world of mathematics.

You asked me in another thread to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. This is easily done in the modern framework of Peano arithmetic. It's a three- or four-liner. 0 is a number. The successor of a number is a number. This gives us the sequence 0, S0, SS0, and so forth, to which we assign the symbolic names, or shorthands 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

We can use the rules of Peano arithmetic to define addition, and then show that 1 + 1 = 2. It's simple and very short.

Just wanted to share that with you.

I wonder if I understand what you mean saying that 0 1 2 3 ... is a message. Here is my attempt to understand your meaning.

The sequence of counting numbers is an intuition of the infinite. Yet we finite creatures have this in our minds. What does that mean? How does our finite pile of brain-goo create a concept of the infinite? Is it perhaps a message from a higher level of existence?

If this is what you mean, then I agree with you.

And if it's not what you mean, feel free to help me understand.

[Skepdick]

0 is a number. The successor of a number is a number. This gives us the sequence 0, S0, SS0, and so forth, to which we assign the symbolic names, or shorthands 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

And? Where does that get you? You haven't even defined what "+" means. Why isn't 0 + 0 = 1 ? Why are you indexing from nothing instead of something?

So lets try this again with English subtitles.

0 is a number.

English translation: Nothing is a number.

The successor of a number is a number.

English translation: The successor to a number is a number; and it trivially follows that the successor to nothing is a number.

to which we assign the symbolic names, or shorthands 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

LOLWUT? That's a fucking type error, mate!

0 is nothing, but 1,2,3,... are NOT nothing (e.g something!)

Fucking mathematicians! Don't even understand the Maybe monad/option type.

[wtf]

You haven't even defined what "+" means.

It's all explained quite clearly on the Wiki page I linked.

The rest of what you wrote was your usual garbage.

[Skepdick]

It's all explained quite clearly on the Wiki page I linked.

The rest of what you wrote was your usual garbage.

My "usual garbage" is also explained quite clearly on the option type Wiki page, but you really don't need any of the technical mumbo jumbo to understand what I am saying. Even a child's intuition will suffice.

3 eggs () is some eggs, so 3 is something.
2 eggs () is some eggs, so 2 is is something.
1 egg () is some eggs, so 1 is something.
0 eggs is NO eggs, so 0 is nothing!!!

So, acording to your "reasoning" the successor to Nothing (with shorthand 0) is Something (with shorthand 1)

Every religion needs a First Miracle, and Mathematics is no exception.

[Agent Smith]

Doesn't math answer the question is math an invention?

[Skepdick]

blah blah blah

If you index startihg with Something instead of Nothing then the "shorthands" are like this

0 ->
S0 ->
S00 ->

0+0=1

Whereas your indexing schema is like this:

0 -> ???
S0 ->
S00 ->

Indexing (quite literally!) nothing and referencing it using the pointer 0 results in a Null pointer - it's a perfect example of the reification fallacy.

Perhaps you aren't educated enough to know what happens when you de-reference a null-pointer? Do you need somebody with a technical know-how (me) to explain it to you?

[alan1000]

RIP mathematical philosophy.

[roydop]

The 360 pages of esoteric symbolism required in Principia Mathematica, to "prove" that 1+1=2 ...

I wanted to place this remark in context. You are referring to Russell and Whitehead's tome in which they attempted to found all of mathematics, purely on logic. They developed some kind of elaborate and/or obscure system, that is completely forgotten today and whose only interest is historical. And out of this you've fact-mined one single factoid, that the proof that 1 + 1 = 2 appears on page 360; and out of that single factoid, you spin elaborate fantasies of what you think math is about.

However, first, I don't know that Principia Mathematica had any significant intellectual effect on mathematics and mathematicians at the time, other than a few logicians and philosophers. It's said jokingly that only three people ever read the PM: Russell, Whitehead, and Gödel. And today, NOBODY uses or remembers or cares about this work. It has absolutely zero relevance in the world of mathematics. It's a historical artifact that even in its own time was largely irrelevant to the world of mathematics.

You asked me in another thread to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. This is easily done in the modern framework of Peano arithmetic. It's a three- or four-liner. 0 is a number. The successor of a number is a number. This gives us the sequence 0, S0, SS0, and so forth, to which we assign the symbolic names, or shorthands 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

We can use the rules of Peano arithmetic to define addition, and then show that 1 + 1 = 2. It's simple and very short.

Just wanted to share that with you.

I wonder if I understand what you mean saying that 0 1 2 3 ... is a message. Here is my attempt to understand your meaning.

The sequence of counting numbers is an intuition of the infinite. Yet we finite creatures have this in our minds. What does that mean? How does our finite pile of brain-goo create a concept of the infinite? Is it perhaps a message from a higher level of existence?

If this is what you mean, then I agree with you.

And if it's not what you mean, feel free to help me understand.

I mean that the information 0 123456789... is relating to SERIES as expressed as evolution, not expressed as quantity. Essentially the relationship between 1 and 2 is that of an expression of change. The change that is being represented is how the state "1" evolves into the state of "2". This is genuine, natural change/evolution. Each step of the series is expressing a QUALITY of reality and that quality is evolution. The "quantity" "2" is a representative of the change that occurred within "1" that changed it into "2". But since the "1" sticks around after the change into "2", this is expressed linearly as "counting"/"addition". A linear model is not capable of expressing the evolutionary system! There is no need for the creation of "quantity" to grok the meaning of the information that is 0 123456789... .

The meaning is that the number system is a holographic expression of "Samsara". Samsara is the infinitely redundant cycle of birth-death-birth-death... . The number system is a one-dimensional, linear expression of a cyclical system. Imagine a clock with 1-9 instead of 1-12 on it. The linear expression of a hand going around and around is the number system. Numbers have meaning.

So if humans are the "10" (because we have evolved to the highest level of Self-Awareness) then we are at the end of a huge cycle and are in the transitionary period, moving into the next redundant iteration. "11" is the point of redundancy and the digital realm is exactly this redundancy. The act of recording 4-D (events) or 3-D phenomena(objects) to re-experience them in a lesser-dimension (a 2-D screen or page) later on, is the redundancy being expressed by "11..." Humanity is making the shift into accepting the digital real to be fundamental reality, rather than the physical realm. This includes the extinction of the species. So the message is that the physical realm is coming to conclusion and human consciousness is being led (by Maya/the ignoring of self) into the next iteration of Samsara, because this is the game. Humanity is presently being played by Maya. She's got the whole species under her spell, but we don't want to admit it.

Humanity has the potential to fully realize Self (Enlightenment and the conclusion of suffering), but we took a left (the invention of mathematics/ "quantity") when the natural path was the right-hand path (the path that leads to the transcendence of thought/the illusion).

Thanks for engaging in a reasonable discussion about this.

[roydop]

"A message is sent out or implanted with the intent for it to be discovered. A message that has been correctly interpreted and acted upon, is no longer required. A message that has not been correctly interpreted and acted upon will continue to express the message.

So the message (the number system) has been discovered, and the ongoing attempt to correctly interpret (what the numbers mean) the message, is the invention."

No one has answered the question:

"Does the state of "message" that is being incorrectly interpreted, fulfill the criteria of being both discovered and invented, simultaneously?"

If it does, then HELLO?! I have presented PROOF that that the number system is a message that has been, and continues to be, incorrectly interpreted.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

[roydop]

"A message is sent out or implanted with the intent for it to be discovered. A message that has been correctly interpreted and acted upon, is no longer required. A message that has not been correctly interpreted and acted upon will continue to express the message.

So the message (the number system) has been discovered, and the ongoing attempt to correctly interpret (what the numbers mean) the message, is the invention."

No one has answered the question:

Does the state of "message" that is being incorrectly interpreted, fulfill the criteria of being both discovered and invented, simultaneously?

If it does, then HELLO?! I have presented PROOF that that the number system is a message that has been, and continues to be, incorrectly interpreted.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

[roydop]

blah blah blah

If you index startihg with Something instead of Nothing then the "shorthands" are like this

0 ->
S0 ->
S00 ->

0+0=1

Whereas your indexing schema is like this:

0 -> ???
S0 ->
S00 ->

Indexing (quite literally!) nothing and referencing it using the pointer 0 results in a Null pointer - it's a perfect example of the reification fallacy.

Perhaps you aren't educated enough to know what happens when you de-reference a null-pointer? Do you need somebody with a technical know-how (me) to explain it to you?

The dualistic, materialistic and antagonistic "thing"/"nothing" model presented by the English language IS INCORRECT

Reality is triune in nature. My "Fundamental Model of Reality" adapts the language so that it fits the triune model

https://www.nonconceptuality.org/1-fund ... of-reality

[Skepdick]

The dualistic, materialistic and antagonistic "thing"/"nothing" model presented by the English language IS INCORRECT

Which is the entire point I am making. All dualistic ontologies are confused at the very onset.

Reality is triune in nature. My "Fundamental Model of Reality" adapts the language so that it fits the triune model

That's why "falsehood" also goes by the name of Empty type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_type

In type theory, the empty type or absurd type, typically denoted 0 is a type with no terms.

0 is the "original sin".

[Agent Smith]

Math must be unique; why else the question?
There are n number of reasons why something is unique and the catch is not all of 'em beg the question invented/discovered?