Math

>>1692450
I'm pretty sure 2+2=4 everywhere.

Unless you're talking about higher math, in which case all I have to say is I dunno, maybe.

I am sure that for less visual creatures their math would be less geometrical so who knows exactly how different it could be. Some concepts of math are pretty arbitrary.

>>1692450
Much of math is derived from logically-derived axioms which are created by men, so much could be quite different in an alien civilization.

>>1692450
I think it's universal, problem is however that if we ever did discover alien math we would of course have to decipher the symbols and also take into account that they probably are not using the same base number system. Remember that we only use ten because of the amount of fingers we have. At least that's what most math majors tell me.

>>1692453
It's probably the weakest point since it's somewhat an axiom. A contrario, if we share our (obvious) axioms with another civilization, our higher maths should be the same, because it's just consequences of our base axioms.

I guess.

>>1692484
The alien language could even not be symbolic on its base. Math is the instrument of mind and mind different from ours could operate in other ways, as math isn't that much different from language. In its core it is just a complex and useful syntax.

>>1692450
The question is essentially settled at this point, and the answer is, "If so, we have no way of knowing it." It is very, very possible that it is just one of the ways humans have evolved to process information, and not even as unique of one as it appears to be. A lot of mathematicians remain ignorant of research into these matters out of cognitive science, and romantically insist on an objective and external reality to the world of numbers. They could well be right, but it is certain that we have no good reason yet to suppose they are.

A good book written from a cognitive science perspective I can recommend detailing this is:

George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez, "Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being" (2001)

And since we're on /his/ and all, I'll also recommend to anyone wanting to explore these matters:

Georges Ifrah, David Bello (tr.), E. F. Harding (tr.), Sophie Wood (tr.), and Ian Monk (tr.), "The Universal History of Numbers: From Prehistory to the Invention of the Computer" (1994)

Uta C. Merzbach and Carl B. Boyer, "A History of Mathematics (Third Edition)" (2011)

Roger L. Cooke, "The History of Mathematics: A Brief Course (Third Edition)" (2012)

Victor J. Katz (ed.), "The Mathematics of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, and Islam: A Sourcebook" (2007)

In the first volume of "The Decline of the West", Spengler devoted a whole chapter early on (entirely "The Meaning of Numbers") to attempting to show how differently the world of numbers has appeared in the eyes of different civilizations, which I've known even people who regard Spengler coolly to have enjoyed and appreciated.

>>1692524
*entitled "The Meaning of Numbers"

>>1692524
And actually would add:

Peter S. Rudman, "How Mathematics Happened: The First 50,000 Years" (2006) — This is actually the best and most accessible introduction to the mathematics of the earliest primary civilizations in the Old and New Worlds (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Mesoamerican) that I am aware of, despite seeming to have suffered mostly mediocre reviews. I could not recommend it enough to anyone completely new to mathematical history.

Keith Devlin, "The Math Gene: How Mathematical Thinking Evolved and Why Numbers are Like Gossip" (2000) — Does not actually posit the existence of a math gene (it was deliberately ironically titled in an age where the scandal of the press's unscientific reporting of the discovery of a "the grammar gene" was still fresh in memory, although the joke was basically lost on most people), but a decent and more "pop" cog-sci window into mathematics, more accessible and with less bold conclusions that Lakoff and Núñez.

>>1692524
>>1692559
How many of these are written by mathematicians?

at the most basic levels maths really looks necessary, if you go up to calculus you can still have geometrical proof.I don't know about higher levels, but i guess it's the same. A race that thinks maths differently would probably force us to doubt our most basic senses.

>>1693204
All except the following:
• Rudman (solid state physicist)
• Boyer (historian of the sciences and mathematics)
• Ifrah (was teaching sixth grade math before leaving to go on a decade-long research pilgrimage for his first book; not sure about the backgrounds of his translators)
• Lakoff (cognitive scientist specializing in cognitive linguistics)
• Núñez (cognitive scientist)

>>1693265
And Spengler. Forgot to throw him in there, but most folks around here know that already, I'd assume.

>>1692450

They'd share a lot of math with us but there would be lots of things we've proven that they haven't and vice versa.

Mathematics doesn't exist outside of our Symbols. You literally cannot know or speak of Mathematics without Symbol, so it would still be a subjective human construct through and through even if it did exist as a thing freely operating outside the human mind.

>>1693329
How would my professor take it if I put this as the answer to every quiz?

>>1693427
He would point you to your nearest philosophy department so you can fuck off.

>>1693440
Maybe I'll get cheeky with one of my tutors and do this then, far better than doing this shit

>>1692450
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKyth_yoJBc

>>1692524
Thanks for mentioning Spengler. Im always glad to see him mentioned more for his cultural insights which are generally as interesting as his cyclical stuff.

>>1692450
Yes its universal. But they wouldn't have the same language as us.

For example they might have another numbers in groupings of 8 instead of 10 so it would go.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20
but in reality their 13 would just be a name for 11.

>>1692450
I see it as universal. Look around your current setting. Literally every physical thing could theoretically be measured, in some way. The only things I can think of that escape math are emotions and ideas, but even then, you could calculate whatever brings those sorts of things to fruition. As far as math developing differently in another realm, it's possible, but is it practical to consider? I say no.

File: 1420989230030.jpg (186KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 500x376px

I think the majority opinion among philosophers of mathematics is that mathematical tools are constructed and developed, while mathematical truths are discovered. So totally alien civilizations and cultures may use what, to us, are unorthodox or unfamiliar mathematical procedures but the results they uncover with cohere with or be the same with the results we uncover.

>>1693427

He'd probably take YOU.

>>1694779
>George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez, "Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being" (2001)
This
they might have different notation system like mayan or roman or something totally different, they might use only rational numbers or be able to express more irrational number than we can, but in the end the maths would be the same.
There's no way that they can have the solution for a Diferential ecuation that we have proven unsolvable or have a theorem that contradicts our understanding of math if that's the case then one theorem must be wrong