Why Is Math So Precise?

[Scholar]

I've been contemplating why math is so good at what it's doing, and why physics seems to be able to predict and describe all motion so precisely.

I've come across two possibilities:

One is that math somehow reflects a property of the universe, or is a conversion of unknowable "principles" that we then symbolize into something that we can understand.

And two is that it's a property of the mind. Instead of us existing in a universe that is truly mathematical, the mind simply creates math as a tool to create abstracted reality. I tend to compare this to aritificial intelligence. The creation of an artificial intelligence requires a system that is able to convert basic 0s and 1s into something more complex, into a system that can use the raw information efficiently to be able to manipulate it.

So, in this case, dimensionality and motion itself would be the creation of the mind, these creations require a mathimatical way of abstracting and transforming raw information into another system. That would be why every motion that is percieved by the mind is inherently mathematical. It cannot be otherwise, simply because the entire simulation is mathematical. But just as the artificial intelligence, the mind cannot really grasp what the information was before it was transfered. The artificial intelligence cannot use the mathematical system to "understand" 0s and 1s, it can simply transfer them into something that fits into the existing programming. Because everything in the simulation is created with the mathematical principles, everything will be precisely predictable by these principles. Thus, the mind created a tool to simulate reality, and then discovered the tool to inspect it's own simulated reality.

The raw information, the information that goes through the mathematical "filter", will never be able to be grasped with mathematical properties. This, in the case of the human mind, would mean that understanding something means altering it in a way to be able to manipulate it. Ironically though everything is made of information, whatever it is, just as in the AI everything is made of 0s and 1s.

In other words, the mind itself is information, and the AI is 0s and 1s. Understanding information, thus, makes absolutely no sense, because information itself is what is creating understanding. Information, in this case, is another word for consciousness. You cannot understand consciousness, simply because the system that creates understanding is made out of consciousness. Infact, everything is made out of consciousness. This means, consciousness interacted with itself, and created a way to alter itself into a different "form".

Information would be the raw reality. The inspection of information itself would then lead to insight into reality. This would be equivalent to the AI being able to simply be 0s and 1s, realizing that everything in existence is 0s and 1s. Thus, 0s and 1s are the source of reality, and the source of any interpretation of reality. One cannot know what 0s and 1s are, only can simply be them, and one is them at all times.

 

This is why we fail at simple tasks like describing the colour red or any other phenomena in the mind that is not form and motion. The colour red simply is the colour red, there is no description to be made. If you want to describe the 0, you can only use a 0 to do so. It is raw reality, completely outside of abstraction and conversion.

 

I'm not sure if this makes any sense, maybe the mathematical "filter" that is used in the mind is linked to certain properties of consciousness? The filter is consciousness, after all.

Anyways, does anyone have thoughts on this?

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scholar

[jse]

8 hours ago, Scholar said:

Why Is Math So Precise?

1)  Start Windows calculator;
2)  enter [4]  (=4);
3)  then click on [√] (square root) key  (=2);
4)  now deduct [-2]  (=0).

Answer should be back to zero, but is  -8.1648465955514287168521180122928 e-39  instead (rounding error).
So much for math precision.

[Scholar]

15 hours ago, jse said:

1)  Start Windows calculator;
2)  enter [4]  (=4);
3)  then click on [√] (square root) key  (=2);
4)  now deduct [-2]  (=0).

Answer should be back to zero, but is  -8.1648465955514287168521180122928 e-39  instead (rounding error).
So much for math precision.

With precision I mean the capability to use it as a tool to perfectly predict and describe phenomena in the "outer world".

[Nahm]

@Scholar If math or anything could perfectly predict anything, there would be no stock market, etc. Giving consciousness properties that you don't have.

[Loreena]

@Nahm What is it that has perfectly predicted everything ?

[Scholar]

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Scholar If math or anything could perfectly predict anything, there would be no stock market, etc. Giving consciousness properties that you don't have.

Just because you can predict one thing perfectly, doesn't mean you can predict everything. I am curious why math can predict anything at all.

[Just Do Nothing]

On 4/14/2017 at 1:29 PM, Scholar said:

I've been contemplating why math is so good at what it's doing, and why physics seems to be able to predict and describe all motion so precisely.

I've come across two possibilities:

One is that math somehow reflects a property of the universe, or is a conversion of unknowable "principles" that we then symbolize into something that we can understand.

And two is that it's a property of the mind. Instead of us existing in a universe that is truly mathematical, the mind simply creates math as a tool to create abstracted reality. I tend to compare this to aritificial intelligence. The creation of an artificial intelligence requires a system that is able to convert basic 0s and 1s into something more complex, into a system that can use the raw information efficiently to be able to manipulate it.

So, in this case, dimensionality and motion itself would be the creation of the mind, these creations require a mathimatical way of abstracting and transforming raw information into another system. That would be why every motion that is percieved by the mind is inherently mathematical. It cannot be otherwise, simply because the entire simulation is mathematical. But just as the artificial intelligence, the mind cannot really grasp what the information was before it was transfered. The artificial intelligence cannot use the mathematical system to "understand" 0s and 1s, it can simply transfer them into something that fits into the existing programming. Because everything in the simulation is created with the mathematical principles, everything will be precisely predictable by these principles. Thus, the mind created a tool to simulate reality, and then discovered the tool to inspect it's own simulated reality.

The raw information, the information that goes through the mathematical "filter", will never be able to be grasped with mathematical properties. This, in the case of the human mind, would mean that understanding something means altering it in a way to be able to manipulate it. Ironically though everything is made of information, whatever it is, just as in the AI everything is made of 0s and 1s.

In other words, the mind itself is information, and the AI is 0s and 1s. Understanding information, thus, makes absolutely no sense, because information itself is what is creating understanding. Information, in this case, is another word for consciousness. You cannot understand consciousness, simply because the system that creates understanding is made out of consciousness. Infact, everything is made out of consciousness. This means, consciousness interacted with itself, and created a way to alter itself into a different "form".

Information would be the raw reality. The inspection of information itself would then lead to insight into reality. This would be equivalent to the AI being able to simply be 0s and 1s, realizing that everything in existence is 0s and 1s. Thus, 0s and 1s are the source of reality, and the source of any interpretation of reality. One cannot know what 0s and 1s are, only can simply be them, and one is them at all times.

 

This is why we fail at simple tasks like describing the colour red or any other phenomena in the mind that is not form and motion. The colour red simply is the colour red, there is no description to be made. If you want to describe the 0, you can only use a 0 to do so. It is raw reality, completely outside of abstraction and conversion.

 

I'm not sure if this makes any sense, maybe the mathematical "filter" that is used in the mind is linked to certain properties of consciousness? The filter is consciousness, after all.

Anyways, does anyone have thoughts on this?

Absolutely brilliant piece of writing and I often ponder on this thought, I also believe that The Matrix trilogy was founded upon this idea.  

Sounds crazy but when I think about this I often think of god as an administrator/developer and people who are enlightened are 'game masters' 

 

[Visitor]

On 4/15/2017 at 6:45 AM, jse said:

... So much for math precision.

So much for Windows calculator.

[Nahm]

@Scholar because that's how we made it

[WaveInTheOcean]

"One is that math somehow reflects a property of the universe, or is a conversion of unknowable "principles" that we then symbolize into something that we can understand.

And two is that it's a property of the mind. Instead of us existing in a universe that is truly mathematical, the mind simply creates math as a tool to create abstracted reality. I tend to compare this to aritificial intelligence. The creation of an artificial intelligence requires a system that is able to convert basic 0s and 1s into something more complex, into a system that can use the raw information efficiently to be able to manipulate it."

Why can't it be both? I mean I think it's both.

I mean of course math is a property of the mind, i.e. math is created by the mind.

But mind is also a property of the universe, i.e. the mind is created by the universe. Or should I say that the universe is a property of the mind, i.e. the universe is created by the mind?  

The "outside universe" is after all a "concept" and is a creation within mind/consciousness/You/Me.

We wanted to understand this external universe, and so we created math, which is the language that can quantify and describe it in a way everyone can agree about, and by using that language we can even manipulate it, i.e. create technology that will benefit us (or harm us).

Edited May 16, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[Scholar]

17 hours ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

"One is that math somehow reflects a property of the universe, or is a conversion of unknowable "principles" that we then symbolize into something that we can understand.

And two is that it's a property of the mind. Instead of us existing in a universe that is truly mathematical, the mind simply creates math as a tool to create abstracted reality. I tend to compare this to aritificial intelligence. The creation of an artificial intelligence requires a system that is able to convert basic 0s and 1s into something more complex, into a system that can use the raw information efficiently to be able to manipulate it."

Why can't it be both? I mean I think it's both.

I mean of course math is a property of the mind, i.e. math is created by the mind.

But mind is also a property of the universe, i.e. the mind is created by the universe. Or should I say that the universe is a property of the mind, i.e. the universe is created by the mind?  

The "outside universe" is after all a "concept" and is a creation within mind/consciousness/You/Me.

We wanted to understand this external universe, and so we created math, which is the language that can quantify and describe it in a way everyone can agree about, and by using that language we can even manipulate it, i.e. create technology that will benefit us (or harm us).

I'm not seeing math as a creation, I see it more of as a symbolism for what is going on in the mind. Mind is not creating math, math is part of mind. 

We see dimensionality without formulated math. A dog has just as much math running in his mind as a human. He has a sense of time, of casuality, or dimensionality and movement. 

I don't think it's as simple as "we created math and that's why it can precisely predict all movement in the universe". What I am questioning here is whether what our mind is seeing as movement is a mathematical creation itself.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Scholar

[abrakamowse]

 

On 4/14/2017 at 4:45 PM, jse said:

So much for math precision.

On 5/14/2017 at 4:53 AM, Visitor said:

So much for Windows calculator.

Try on a Mac next time

[Visitor]

@abrakamowse I will.

@Scholar Math can also be a means to explaining things which common language becomes inefficient to do. Complexities of certain physics rely on mathematics, as a language, to explain what is observed and imagined (theoretical physics). So in this regard math is a language, when learnt, used for making sense where words fail to do so.

Here is a slight diversion. Math can also reveal certain irrationals of the physical world. For example the circle. Pi is an irrational number (containing an infinite fraction). In theory, a perfect circle would contain an infinite circumference with a set diameter, or a set circumference with an infinite diameter. In other words, the math proves that the components which make a circle is quasi (or not necessarily so). Many square roots are also irrational and points to many 2D and 3D measurements being quasi.

Many years ago I played with a calculator (No, not from Windows) for over a year in my spare time. I logged all sorts of math results in numerical order. My goal was to get a feel for the numerical world. I started to notice certain similarities and patterns. I tried to marry them, or find the bridge between them, but failed to do so. It was then that it occurred to me that the observed world is, because it is quasi (out of balance). If it were to become balanced, or in harmonized, everything would cancel out and collapse into itself.

This I cannot prove by a math equation as such. It is a revelation I had after the above experimental search for meaning in the measured world.

 

[abrakamowse]

God is a God of laws!!!!

 

And that includes law of physics, mathematics, quantum mechanics and more...

[Electron]

@Scholar I think math is just our linguistic projection on the raw reality. Its designed in a way to avoid any ambiguities in quantitatively describing the world we live in. We only follow a very narrow rational path which ensures least possibility of any discrepancies so that we don't fool ourselves along the way in trying to tell our story about the reality. We keep our facts aligned with reality. This is why our descriptions seem accurate. We are not revealing the truth, we are merely describing it. Its like if I say the sun rises in the east is accurate and start wondering how we became so accurate in our understanding of  that truth. But if you look closer sun rising in the east is just a description of the way things already are. No wonder its accurate. We see reality then try to make a story about it using our language. We label every aspect of reality then connect those labels. Then we use reality again to confirm our story, if it works we say we understand the reality, if it doesn't we change our story. 

[Rocky]

Well, typically maths is used to measure precision so the two go hand in hand.

[Dragallur]

On 17. 5. 2017 at 9:56 PM, Visitor said:

In theory, a perfect circle would contain an infinite circumference with a set diameter

What, no! Where did you come up with that? If the diamater of circle is 1 then the circumference is exactly pi, but pi is not infinite number, it only has infinite many of digits after decimal point.

[Visitor]

3 hours ago, Dragallur said:

What, no! Where did you come up with that? If the diamater of circle is 1 then the circumference is exactly pi, but pi is not infinite number, it only has infinite many of digits after decimal point.

Is not 1 x pi = 3.14159....... a circumference that never meets its beginning?

[Dragallur]

@VisitorJust because there is infinite digits does not mean anything weird has to happen in real world. How would it not meet its beginning? If you draw a perfect circle Universe does not care about how you write down its circumference, it will simply be a circle. 1 x pi = pi .. thats it there is nothing really special about that.

[Visitor]

On 5/18/2017 at 5:56 AM, Visitor said:

...In theory, a perfect circle would contain an infinite circumference with a set diameter, or a set circumference with an infinite diameter. In other words, the math proves that the components which make a circle is quasi (or not necessarily so). ...

5 hours ago, Dragallur said:

Just because there is infinite digits does not mean anything weird has to happen in real world. How would it not meet its beginning? If you draw a perfect circle Universe does not care about how you write down its circumference, it will simply be a circle. 1 x pi = pi .. thats it there is nothing really special about that.

@Dragallur To recall, I said "In theory..." Of course in the practical world one can draw and cut a complete circle because things overlap and nothing is perfect. But in the practical world the infinite is finite. After all who is going to worry about the closing gap of a circumference at atomic level. Yet the gap keeps closing between one atomic nodal point of energy (atom) to the next.