This clearly answers the question: "Why does mathematics appear to have both discovered and invented qualities?"

[roydop]

This is a deeper resolution to the question: "Is mathematics discovered or invented?" as it describes a state that exhibits both discovered and invented qualities in superposition. If this phenomenal state, that emerges from my theorys description of mathematics, exhibits both discovered and invented qualities simultaneously, how is it that mathematics ISN'T the state described?

It isn't a resolution to those who refuse to accept the conclusion, no matter how obvious it is.

https://youtu.be/8QNybKSrDLk?si=YZMoic6ViwxEgWYg

This is the conclusion of mathematics, for those who allow themselves to SEE.

[Harbal]

This is a deeper resolution to the question: "Is mathematics discovered or invented?" as it describes a state that exhibits both discovered and invented qualities in superposition. If this phenomenal state, that emerges from my theorys description of mathematics, exhibits both discovered and invented qualities simultaneously, how is it that mathematics ISN'T the state described?

It isn't a resolution to those who refuse to accept the conclusion, no matter how obvious it is.

https://youtu.be/8QNybKSrDLk?si=YZMoic6ViwxEgWYg

This is the conclusion of mathematics, for those who allow themselves to SEE.

So what, who cares?

[roydop]

So you're not saying that it's wrong, you're saying that you don't see value in the revelation that the entirety mathematics is incorrect.

You are unable to see how the resolution to the question: "Why does mathematics exhibit both discovered and invented qualities?" has importance or application.

Is not the solving of these problems and paradoxes, the very purpose of philosophy? Your response indicates that your brand of philosophy isn't interested in truth, but is all about chit chat that reinforces your world view.

Any one else care to comment on this very obvious resolution to the greatest philosophical question about mathematics?

Or is everyone going double down on the narrative that the empire is not naked?

[Harbal]

So you're not saying that it's wrong, you're saying that you don't see value in the revelation that the entirety mathematics is incorrect.

You are unable to see how the resolution to the question: "Why does mathematics exhibit both discovered and invented qualities?" has importance or application.

Is not the solving of these problems and paradoxes, the very purpose of philosophy? Your response indicates that your brand of philosophy isn't interested in truth, but is all about chit chat that reinforces your world view.

Actually, my response indicates that I don't think of you as someone worth listening to.

[roydop]

Right. What I say, even though it follows reason and makes more sense than the conventional narrative, and shows clearly WHY mathematics exhibits both discovered and invented qualities, because I said it, it has no value.

You refuse to even try to understand because it reveals your, indeed all of humanity's, state of delusion

[Harbal]

Right. What I say, even though it follows reason and makes more sense than the conventional narrative, and shows clearly WHY mathematics exhibits both discovered and invented qualities, because I said it, it has no value.

You refuse to even try to understand because it reveals your, indeed all of humanity's, state of delusion

But not deluded enough to take any notice of you.

[roydop]

Why don't you try to disprove what I say? Tell me how the model that I am presenting in the video, is incorrect. Show me how this theory doesn't clearly show WHY mathematics exhibits both discovered and invented qualities.

[roydop]

Anyone?

Someone show me how my theorys description of mathematics doesn't clearly show WHY MATHEMATICS EXHIBITS BOTH DISCOVERED AND INVENTED QUALITIES.

Is anyone at this 'philosophy forum', capable of recognizing the resolution to the greatest philosophical question about mathematics?

[roydop]

A resolution to the question: "Why does mathematics possess both discovered and invented qualities?" naturally emerges from the description of mathematics presented by my theory.

And it's sitting right here in the middle of a philosophy forum, being ignored. It's being ignored not because it doesn't make sense, it's ignored because it reveals all of mathematics as INCORRECT and people (sheep/cult members) are unable to see that the entire empire has no clothes

The final Truth reveals all that has been incorrect and taken to be correct, to those who are willing to SEE

[Atla]

A resolution to the question: "Why does mathematics possess both discovered and invented qualities?" naturally emerges from the description of mathematics presented by my theory.

And it's sitting right here in the middle of a philosophy forum, being ignored. It's being ignored not because it doesn't make sense, it's ignored because it reveals all of mathematics as INCORRECT and people (sheep/cult members) are unable to see that the entire empire has no clothes

The final Truth reveals all that has been incorrect and taken to be correct, to those who are willing to SEE

Unfortunately you don't own the "theory of enlightenment". Some others can say that enlightenment is real, but has nothing to do with a cyclical process, as there is probably no such thing.

Even if we grant that there is this cyclical process, why would the "number system" be some kind of message based on it? I don't see a necessary connection at all.

For the record, my preferred conjecture is that our mathemathics is probably a reflection of the laws/regularities/structure of our universe. Mathemathics may be different in other universes. So mathemathics is basically discovered. But mathemathics is done using the "unit", where a unit may the primordial abstract object. The unit is the 1. It's an abstract concept, there are no units in nature. We build the number line by taking the unit several times: 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. In this sense mathemathics is invented, the abstract unit is the langauge of mathemathics.

[roydop]

My theory states that the number system is another expression of the cycle of Samsara; a message. It states that mathematics is an incorrect interpretation of the message.

This explanation that my theory presents, SHOWS WHY MATHEMATICS EXHIBITS BOTH DISCOVERED AND INVENTED QUALITIES.

This resolves the deepest philosophical question about mathematics.

So that's why the number system is a message and why 'addition', and therefore all of mathematics, is the incorrect interpretation. Because this is the very specific state that exhibits both discovered and invented qualities

This is the meaning of numbers

[Atla]

My theory states that the number system is another expression of the cycle of Samsara; a message. It states that mathematics is an incorrect interpretation of the message.

This explanation that my theory presents, SHOWS WHY MATHEMATICS EXHIBITS BOTH DISCOVERED AND INVENTED QUALITIES.

This resolves the deepest philosophical question about mathematics.

So that's why the number system is a message and why 'addition', and therefore all of mathematics, is the incorrect interpretation. Because this is the very specific state that exhibits both discovered and invented qualities

This is the meaning of numbers

Yes and what reason is there to think that this cyclical process even exists?

And even if there really is this cyclical Samsara, what reason is there to think that the number system is an expression of it?

Sounds like a simple but rather arbitrary answer given to a difficult problem?

[roydop]

Every interview I have seen with a mathematician, the interviewer asks the question: "Is mathematics discovered or invented?" and the mathematician never has an answer, other than a guess or an intuition.

The description of mathematics that my theory presents, naturally produces an actual state that fulfills the criteria of exhibiting both discovered and invented qualities. So, if that interviewer asked me "Is mathematics discovered or invented?" I would respond that it is both, because it is the incorrect interpretation of a message. A discovered message that is going through the interpretation process EXHIBITS BOTH DISCOVERED AND INVENTED QUALITIES!!

THIS ANSWERS WHY MATHEMATICS APPEARS TO HAVE BOTH DISCOVERED AND INVENTED QUALITIES! This is a deeper level of resolution than the conventional question: "Is math discovered or invented?"

No one in all of history has provided a state/condition that fulfills the incredibly specific state of discovery and invention, in superposition. The condition of a message that is going through misinterpretation, is the only condition that exhibits this incredibly specific state.

Therefore, it has to be correct. If the description that a theory puts forth, reconciles the deepest philosophical question about mathematics, at a deeper level than people have even considered,

HOW CAN IT BE WRONG?

If you SEE how the state of a message that has been DISCOVERED and going through interpretation, exhibits both DISCOVERED and INVENTED qualities, then how can you not SEE how this resolves the deepest philosophical question about mathematics?

Only people who don't want the theory to be correct, will find something that will keep them blind. Humanity has been brainwashed into completely accepting that mathematics is a path of Truth, when it is actually the path of delusion. Our helpless addiction to the technology that mathematics produces is evidence to this fact.

If mathematics is the incorrect interpretation of the message, just as the theory presents, THIS RESOLVES THE DEEPEST PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION ABOUT MATHEMATICS.

Why couldn't it be a message that is being misinterpreted? Someone needs to prove to me how it couldn't be so. Just because someone doesn't agree that it is as my theory presents, doesn't make it wrong. The fact that it produces a description about math that reconciles the deepest philosophical question about it, PROVES THAT IT IS CORRECT

A person not believing the theory doesn't change the fact that it's description of math reconciles the deepest problem about it. And this is why it's correct.

It's obvious, but everyone is so completely brainwashed into accepting the status quo that they can't see what is glaring them right in the face

[Age]

A resolution to the question: "Why does mathematics possess both discovered and invented qualities?" naturally emerges from the description of mathematics presented by my theory.

And it's sitting right here in the middle of a philosophy forum, being ignored. It's being ignored not because it doesn't make sense, it's ignored because it reveals all of mathematics as INCORRECT and people (sheep/cult members) are unable to see that the entire empire has no clothes

The final Truth reveals all that has been incorrect and taken to be correct, to those who are willing to SEE

Unfortunately you don't own the "theory of enlightenment". Some others can say that enlightenment is real, but has nothing to do with a cyclical process, as there is probably no such thing.

Even if we grant that there is this cyclical process, why would the "number system" be some kind of message based on it? I don't see a necessary connection at all.

For the record, my preferred conjecture is that our mathemathics is probably a reflection of the laws/regularities/structure of our universe. Mathemathics may be different in other universes.

Do 'you' think or believe that there are other universes "atla"?

So mathemathics is basically discovered. But mathemathics is done using the "unit", where a unit may the primordial abstract object. The unit is the 1. It's an abstract concept, there are no units in nature. We build the number line by taking the unit several times: 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. In this sense mathemathics is invented, the abstract unit is the langauge of mathemathics.

[Age]

Every interview I have seen with a mathematician, the interviewer asks the question: "Is mathematics discovered or invented?" and the mathematician never has an answer, other than a guess or an intuition.

The description of mathematics that my theory presents, naturally produces an actual state that fulfills the criteria of exhibiting both discovered and invented qualities.

How do 'you' define 'invented' and 'discovered' "roydop"?

So, if that interviewer asked me "Is mathematics discovered or invented?" I would respond that it is both, because it is the incorrect interpretation of a message. A discovered message that is going through the interpretation process EXHIBITS BOTH DISCOVERED AND INVENTED QUALITIES!!

THIS ANSWERS WHY MATHEMATICS APPEARS TO HAVE BOTH DISCOVERED AND INVENTED QUALITIES! This is a deeper level of resolution than the conventional question: "Is math discovered or invented?"

No one in all of history has provided a state/condition that fulfills the incredibly specific state of discovery and invention, in superposition. The condition of a message that is going through misinterpretation, is the only condition that exhibits this incredibly specific state.

Therefore, it has to be correct. If the description that a theory puts forth, reconciles the deepest philosophical question about mathematics, at a deeper level than people have even considered,

HOW CAN IT BE WRONG?

If you SEE how the state of a message that has been DISCOVERED and going through interpretation, exhibits both DISCOVERED and INVENTED qualities, then how can you not SEE how this resolves the deepest philosophical question about mathematics?

Only people who don't want the theory to be correct, will find something that will keep them blind. Humanity has been brainwashed into completely accepting that mathematics is a path of Truth, when it is actually the path of delusion. Our helpless addiction to the technology that mathematics produces is evidence to this fact.

If mathematics is the incorrect interpretation of the message, just as the theory presents, THIS RESOLVES THE DEEPEST PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION ABOUT MATHEMATICS.

Why couldn't it be a message that is being misinterpreted? Someone needs to prove to me how it couldn't be so. Just because someone doesn't agree that it is as my theory presents, doesn't make it wrong. The fact that it produces a description about math that reconciles the deepest philosophical question about it, PROVES THAT IT IS CORRECT

A person not believing the theory doesn't change the fact that it's description of math reconciles the deepest problem about it. And this is why it's correct.

It's obvious, but everyone is so completely brainwashed into accepting the status quo that they can't see what is glaring them right in the face