/facepalmWanderingLands wrote:So the idea that "numerology" is just "patterns without casual meaning" is just complete nonsense, because mathematics is found in everything that's orderly.

Mathematics is not the same as numerology. And vice versa. Mathematics is the study of patterns of patterns... in the sense that it's not just about patterns... not patterns you find out there in the real world, but how those patterns are in turn patterned in the way of our thoughts.

3 apples is a pattern. The pattern of that pattern is the act of counting, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. The logic going on in your brain (in this case algebra plays a significant role). Numerology sees patterns and think they have meaning, including shallow looks at mathematics thinking those patterns have special meaning attached to the outside world. But they only have meaning within their environment, which is the logic rule system in the case of mathematics. Take it outside the environment, like numerology does by blending numbers with all kinds of stuff, and it stops having meaning (take for instance somebody who reads bird signs and says that 6 geez heading north means it'll be a hot summer... now, besides the total lack accuracy... let's entertain it was a full-fledged study. What is lacking is an environment in which this can be true, a set of rules which describes why this is true and which can predict other truths from it... the rules would explain the causal nature, and that's why in turn numerology does not have any meaningful causal nature to it).

What must be understood is that in the case of for instance physics and the mathematics used there... the mathematics in physics works because you extract only the patterns of the real world, that is, the numbers, and then you divorce it from its place in physics and treat it purely as maths, no longer connected with physics. THEN you can play around with it inside the mathematical environment. You cannot keep the link however, because then you pollute mathematics and you get pseudo-mathematics (or numerology, in your context you can speak of those two terms interchangeably). The same way goes the other way, you can take a number, extract it from mathematics, and give it to physics, and say to physics "do something with this", and physics finds a place for it (an assigned value to a property for instance, like momentum), but you can't keep the link! Truths in mathematics are not truths in physics! Extracting an important number from an equation usually leaves the number completely unimportant to physics, because it's just a random thing, it's not part of the same environment, the importance of the number is not transferred, only the pure fact of being a number remains (in an assignment to a random property in physics), in that case, you'd need physics to figure out what the number means, and in the case of momentum, a very large number, coupled with physics providing a medium sized physical object and a measurement unit that doesn't require a big number for big effect, would lead to a huge visible effect. However, take a huge object, and suddenly it seems totally normal or even abnormally low effect...

Summarizing to the fact that in mathematics... mathematics decides the importance of any number. In physics... physics decides the importance of any number... you can't combine them without totally switching from the one to the other, completely divorcing the reference each time you switch it, and then totally committing again to the new environment...

Damn, I should've written this explanation out to a philosophical journal x) I'm pretty good.