Does the existence of very advanced math mean that it describes

>>9025718
No

The evolving nature of language implies that there are things in the universe we have yet to encounter. The word "computer" and all it implied did not exist a thousand years ago. Mathematics is just a language. Sometimes entire dialects of mathematics are created in order to describe new categories of concepts.
But I'm aware that you're asking "does math imply god exists" and the answer is certainly no. Also, you're an idiot.

No. Heisenberg was making a metaphor. As for what 'God' is a metaphor for, that's something you can only discover for yourself once you get very, very, very deep into science.

>>9025738
>But I'm aware that you're asking

But he wasn't asking that, you nerdling faggot. God is living in your head rent-free, apparently.

>>9025738
>>9025741
yea i wasnt alluding to god. that was the first picture i saw in my folder to upload.

Isnt it weird how a deeper understanding of things can lead to inverse thoughts and conclusions from where you started? Like in almost every skill-focused thing a super advanced move is usually something youre told is bad or stupid at the beginning

We don't know. We'll know once we make a theory that needs those maths.

Actually, that drives the question; does mathematics have anything to do with the real world? What differences 2+2 from any well formed formula from any other formal system?

>>9025850
There wouldn't be much advancement if the initial thing was satisfactory now would there

Of course father of quanmeme would say that

File: Alan-Watts.jpg (1MB, 2267x1588px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2267x1588px

The universe is an ever-growing and complexifying entity of entities, we are points of the system that have become complex to the point of being able to realize that we are something and that something is happening. You are the universe just as it is you, you as you find yourself is merely where this constant force has created a fractal of enough depth that it can become aware of being alive. Everything lives, it is just a matter of many 'things' make up a thing to how alive we see it, everything is acting and reacting in a motion in which everything is built on by everything. It's all, we're all, one big thing that is and does for the sake of it.

>>9025738
>But I'm aware that you're asking "does math imply god exists" and the answer is certainly no

Then tell me, why does 1+1 always have to equal 2? Why can't it be 3 sometimes?

>>9026160
What do you mean by "1" and "2" and "3" and "+" and "equal"?

File: 1499060299779.gif (256KB, 600x631px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 600x631px

>>9026160
1+1=2 because that's the way it fucking is. Why can't things just be the way they are? Why do the rules of our language have to be determined by the properties of some supernatural being? Why can't 1 + 1 = 2 because we have decided what 1 is, what + means, what = means, and what 2 is?
Keep in mind there's nothing stopping you from developing a written system of mathematics where 1+1=3. But perhaps you'd find that in your "new" system 3*3=4 and 3+1 = [math]\omega[/math] where [math]\omega[/math] is the integer between 3 and 4.
Stop being a fucking retard. Your imagined connection between the order of mathematics and the musings of a pandimensional superbeing are O'Reilly-tier. Mathematics is invented by mankind, period. The things mathematics usually describes, however, are a permanent feature of the universe.

>>9026221
Mathematics is not invented. It is a discovery of the objects which exist in reality beyond interpreted nature.

File: 1494241267052.jpg (20KB, 600x348px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x348px

>>9026287
>objects which exist in reality beyond interpreted nature
Fuck off, Plato.

Even if your presupposition that extra-physical "objects" "exist" in some "reality" super-ordinate to the one we live in, mathematics as we experience it was invented, the same way that the words you're reading right now were invented. Mathematics is a tool by which we interpret nature, and these extra-real objects that you claim "exist" were created by humans for the explicit purpose of describing real objects, the way the word "cat" describes all cats, but there is no hypothetical ideal cat.

>>9026293
You are not talking about mathematics but the ymbols and notation used to encapsulate it. A number is not just a numeral. There things we create to describe objects but those things are not mathematics. They are the tools of the trade called logic.

>>9026294
The symbols and notations and syntax of mathematics ARE mathematics. There's nothing else to it. You can use different symbols and syntax but it will be the same mathematics, provided you use it to answer the same sorts of meta-mathematical questions like "what is the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle"?

>>9026298
Those are not the same if the axioms are replaced with theorems or the theorems replaced with axioms. The logic you model changes but the math is rediscovered not rebuilt. You are saying it right there its not changing. Thats because it wasnt something that was made to begin with. The algebra and geomtry behind questions is not math. Its the question themselves. That ratio is not just a numbe or numeral; its an object that goes beyond even the circle itself.

>>9026305
>its an object that goes beyond even the circle itself.
and the circle isn't an idea that originates in mathematics. It originates in shapes, which are understood by the human brain, which subsequently created mathematics for the purpose of describing the shapes.

Questions dealing with quantity and ratio were answered by math, not created by it. They are features of our modes of thinking and not the language we use to describe it.

>>9026160
We invented math boyo. 1+1=2 isn't a law of nature, it's a rule. It's always true because we set it up that way.

>>9026287
This belief is inexplicable to me except by the fact that you people must just not know dick about math.

>>9026343
>>9026321
You both conflate a proposition with the model that reprsents its consistency.

>>9026287
I want you to explain p-adic numbers to me without clearly demonstrating that the entire concept is invented 100%.

>>9026399
The model is invented not the concept. Otherwise youre saying primes were invented too.

>>9026408
>concept
>not invented
K.

>>9025741
Thanks for that clarification, Todd. We would've been misled by that quote if it wasn't for your insight into what a metaphor is.