Max's assumptions from the film "Pi"

>>8719871
Not really, 3. sounds more like a physics approach. Mathematical discoveries aren't made by graphing numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMi2kNDtQI

>>8719939
Certainly many discoveries have been made by first looking at data, then guessing a pattern, then providing a theoretical basis for that pattern.

>>8719871
>jew finds magic number

Surprise

>>8719939
>Not really, 3. sounds more like a physics approach.
Actually it's physics that has a mathematical approach.

>>8719871
>1. Mathematics is the language of nature.
Maybe. This is not obvious, but a reasonable assumption.
I don't like this formulation though, I think "Mathematics is the language of all possible natures" is a lot more fitting because mathematics itself can never make any claim about our reality.
>2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.
No. Very little can be represented though numbers.
Numbers alone are nearly useless to represent reality.
Far more sophisticated models are needed to represent reality. (e.g. sets, functions, vectors)
>3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge.
No. What does graphing numbers mean?
Why would patterns emerge?

>Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.
Unreasonable conclusion.
Math can describe realty. But that doesn't mean that math causes reality.

>Are these good assumptions? Are they correct?
No,No.

>>8719871
mathematics is something humans project over nature.

humans are also nature, so it's technically correct. But if we pretend humans are distinct from nature then no. If there were no humans nature wouldn't be communicating in numbers.

in other news, people that are really smart about one thing are often retarded about others.

The whole point of the film was that he was bad at Math, that Math doesn't matter, and that both the Mental and the Material world are irrational.

...and you can build this machine with the 3- or 4- point correlation function. True story.

>>8720986
>Far more sophisticated models are needed to represent reality. e.g. sets
Did you just said sets are more sophisticated than numbers ?

>>8719871
no but cool movie

File: pi_battlestation.jpg (59KB, 639x388px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 639x388px

>>8719871
muh nigger, I've tried shitposting about this film here before, but never got any (You)'s.

It's a film with a lot of potential that it flushed down the toilet. Few interesting parts though. Some of Max's monologues were tight, and those jews and wallstreet brokers were a nice part of the plot. Going so far into the "muh patterns in pi" bs was stupid, and also alot of the psychosis sequences were just way too try-hard. The "tortured genius" meme is ofcourse overdone to death, and this film offered nothing new in terms of it.

>>8721428
>Did you just said sets are more sophisticated than numbers ?
Yes.
You can do a lot more with sets then with numbers. (This should be obvious as the standard definition of numbers arises from set theory)
Try defining what a sphere or even a manifold is just by using numbers.

>>8719871
Movie is about obsession, not about math.

File: Roberts-KurtGodel-798.jpg (160KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 798x1200px

>>8719871
Wrong.

>>8721438
pi is just a shitty thriller with a pseudo mathematical theme
emphasis on the pseudo

>>8722565
This

>>8719871
>1. Mathematics is the language of nature.
No.
Maybe a collection of constructed languages but definitely not a language in singular.

Also in order for nature to "have" a language it would have to be conscious as a whole which is rather unlikely, no? And if you assume it to be a metaphor then why ask these things here?