Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q38,59: Difference between revisions
m number - we're free of Q618, the "John Doe" of Item numbers |
Mathematics, formal logic, and language are all ultimately the same thing ; created today |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=materialist inversion & math|User=RD|E=Q38,59|Contents=y}} | {{NextNineThousand|PPPA=materialist inversion & math|User=RD|E=Q38,59|Contents=y}} | ||
== Main entry == | == Main entry == | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean | {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"> | ||
{{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=38,59|Q2=3859|rem=Q59 mathematics}}[[E:MaterialistInversionAndMath|materialist inversion and math]] | {{li|start=y|I=S1/MX|Q=38,59|Q2=3859|rem=Q59 mathematics}}[[E:MaterialistInversionAndMath|materialist inversion and math]] -> gosh my rants on this topic got so long I think they need their own page just for them. | ||
</li></ol> | |||
== From Idealism to math == | |||
<ol class="hue clean field_ML"> | |||
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Language is logic is math }} / Mathematics, formal logic, and language are all ultimately the same thing -> they're all steps in the process from basic signal-response instincts to [[EC:9k/RD/Q87|Idealism]] to Materialist models of reality. I know this sounds crazy at first but really, this proposition puts to bed the whole question of whether math is some sort of special thing inherently connected to the universe or the universe 'runs on math'. I've heard versions of that so many times and it's silly every time. when you realize that language is basically math but less efficient, you start to realize that it would be ridiculous (for somebody whose sense of irony hasn't been killed by the Bible talking about "the word") to say that physics and English are connected, or physics and German are connected, or physics and Japanese are connected. because, like, all languages contain ontological objects consisting of a word or phrase and a model of something that goes under it, and some ontological models can be more objectively accurate to a particular phenomenon, so if language was inherently connected to reality, then some languages would be inherently superior to others and there would be languages it would be worth getting rid of. you think about that idea for even five seconds and it's very difficult to imagine any particular language actually being the superior language everyone should have to use; which language would it even be when there are hundreds or thousands of languages and each language contains so {{em|many}} models of things? but there is no such thing as a language, literally referring to a language made of speech and words, which is universal and is not particular and is not connected to a culture, because even international auxiliary languages are spoken by particular groups of people who would become the "Esperanto culture". no human language can be generic, and no human language can be the most superior language, so no human language at all, by virtue of being a language, can be the inherent way that physics functions. but all natural languages are actually made of math, because all languages are made of a sort of crude second-order logic they use to express ontological models, and formal logic is a form of math which can actually be modified into many forms, conceivably even one broad enough to cover all the basic things language does. this does imply something people don't usually think about: that there is not just one continuous math, and that maths start out as separate plural bodies of math. however, math is different from natural languages in that {{em|the way things are defined is not subjective}}, and comes with objective rules; 1 + 1 = 2 for particular sets of reasons. plural bodies of math can be combined into larger bodies of math or even into a single large but technically countable body of math. this is how math can become the only "language" that is universal — because subjective cultural understandings that are arbitrary but required in a particular region cannot be mandatory, or at least cannot remain mandatory, in the process of how bodies of math are combined. so human beings start with calls or words associated with objects and then create language and then create Idealism as a bad explanation of how complex processes work and then create logic and then create math, and math is the final explanation not because there is anything special about it but simply because all the fuzziness in all the previous forms of communication about causality and ontology dropped out and communication about causal processes became maximally precise, to this point it was either exactly as precise as it needed to be or allowed for a lot more unnecessary levels of precision; the goal was met. mathematics was put together because people {{em|physically needed}} to communicate and understand causality and created a tool {{em|for}} that need, not because people simply desired to conquer and change reality. | |||
</li></ol> | </li></ol> | ||
Revision as of 00:00, 30 May 2026
Main entry
- materialist inversion and math -> gosh my rants on this topic got so long I think they need their own page just for them.
From Idealism to math
Language is logic is math
/ Mathematics, formal logic, and language are all ultimately the same thing -> they're all steps in the process from basic signal-response instincts to Idealism to Materialist models of reality. I know this sounds crazy at first but really, this proposition puts to bed the whole question of whether math is some sort of special thing inherently connected to the universe or the universe 'runs on math'. I've heard versions of that so many times and it's silly every time. when you realize that language is basically math but less efficient, you start to realize that it would be ridiculous (for somebody whose sense of irony hasn't been killed by the Bible talking about "the word") to say that physics and English are connected, or physics and German are connected, or physics and Japanese are connected. because, like, all languages contain ontological objects consisting of a word or phrase and a model of something that goes under it, and some ontological models can be more objectively accurate to a particular phenomenon, so if language was inherently connected to reality, then some languages would be inherently superior to others and there would be languages it would be worth getting rid of. you think about that idea for even five seconds and it's very difficult to imagine any particular language actually being the superior language everyone should have to use; which language would it even be when there are hundreds or thousands of languages and each language contains so many models of things? but there is no such thing as a language, literally referring to a language made of speech and words, which is universal and is not particular and is not connected to a culture, because even international auxiliary languages are spoken by particular groups of people who would become the "Esperanto culture". no human language can be generic, and no human language can be the most superior language, so no human language at all, by virtue of being a language, can be the inherent way that physics functions. but all natural languages are actually made of math, because all languages are made of a sort of crude second-order logic they use to express ontological models, and formal logic is a form of math which can actually be modified into many forms, conceivably even one broad enough to cover all the basic things language does. this does imply something people don't usually think about: that there is not just one continuous math, and that maths start out as separate plural bodies of math. however, math is different from natural languages in that the way things are defined is not subjective, and comes with objective rules; 1 + 1 = 2 for particular sets of reasons. plural bodies of math can be combined into larger bodies of math or even into a single large but technically countable body of math. this is how math can become the only "language" that is universal — because subjective cultural understandings that are arbitrary but required in a particular region cannot be mandatory, or at least cannot remain mandatory, in the process of how bodies of math are combined. so human beings start with calls or words associated with objects and then create language and then create Idealism as a bad explanation of how complex processes work and then create logic and then create math, and math is the final explanation not because there is anything special about it but simply because all the fuzziness in all the previous forms of communication about causality and ontology dropped out and communication about causal processes became maximally precise, to this point it was either exactly as precise as it needed to be or allowed for a lot more unnecessary levels of precision; the goal was met. mathematics was put together because people physically needed to communicate and understand causality and created a tool for that need, not because people simply desired to conquer and change reality.
Related
Math can save Trotsky
/ Mathematics can save Leon Trotsky, because morality never will
Ideology codes
- (none)