A Request of All Mathematicians

Many hundreds of years ago, mathematicians divorced themselves from philosophy, and spirituality. Most of them. Perhaps for good reason. For example Pythagoras, whom it is said killed a man over his mathematics, because he had merged them with his own emotions, and spirituality. I ask you all to consider the good that has come out of such mergers. Such as Isaac Newton, the inventor of calculus. It is impossible to separate philosophy from the concept of that which is infinite, and infinitesimal.

I ask you all, to acknowledge that there are "things" that exist, that are abstract. Such as numbers. Consider quantum mechanics. Consider the electron. No human has ever actually seen or touched an electron. Yet we know they exist, because of the consequences of their existence. We know sub atomic particles exist, only because of computer read outs, of our experiments. That is the result of the consequences of their existence.

Such as the wind. I cannot touch it, or see it. Yet I may point to a flag waving in the wind, and prove that the wind exist. I ask you all to re-marry philosophy, and spirituality in all of the work that you do. If it is done in love, and in love alone. Then we can avoid the mistakes of Pythagoras, and achieve the beauty of Newton, once again.

Thank you,

 

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by this...? Are you saying hat most mathematicians deny the existence of abstract mathematics? Are you saying that most astronomers deny the existence of that for which they are diligently searching (namely, dark matter and dark energy)? Are you saying that most physicists deny the existence of the quantum world? If not, then what *are* you saying?

 

Apologies for not being clearer.

Mathematicians deny that abstract numbers are a real "thing". It gets semantical. I said nothing of astronomers. Quantum physicist were my point of proof. That they, like astronomers, do NOT deny the real existence of that which is abstract.

The point, was to request mathematicians, as well as physcist....to re-marry philosophy within their fields of work.

Thank you.

 

Since when do mathematicians deny that numbers exist?

 

I did not say that they deny the existence of numbers. I said they deny that abstract numbers are a thing. If something can be proven to exist, then it is then by definition a thing. I told you it got semantical. If something exists, then it is a thing. Absract or otherwise. I could even point you to some post on this forum suggesting that absract numbers are NOT a thing.

Consider the electron. It is totality absract. But physicist's do not claim it is not a thing. So too astronomers and "dark matter". Or whatever else it might be that is making up the majority of the universe's mass.

 

Since when are electrons an abstract construct, rather than sub-atomic particles / probability waves composed of a certain combination of quarks? Which astronomer, when, where, how, said that dark matter isn't a physical thing?

You say that "being proven to exist" makes something "a thing". You say that (at least some) mathematicians deny that "numbers are NOT a thing". By your definition, this means that they are saying that numbers do not exist. Which mathematicians, where on this forum, when, how, say that numbers do not exist?

 

Can you touch an electron? See an electron? The only reason we know that they are there is because of the consequences of their existence. Computer generated measurements. Therefore they are absract. Such as LOVE. I cannot see it. I can not touch it. I know that it is there however because of the consequences of its existence.

Under the section "Other Advanced Math". Thread "I made a set of groups/numbers". By Zion does math weird.

You will see what I mean by it is universally accepted by mathematicians that absract numbers are not "things".

Further I feel we are off topic, and wish to return to the purpose of the original post. If this is not your wish I understand, and thank you for your time.

Lastly...whether mathematicians consider absract numbers a "thing". Has no baring on the op. Forget it...if you wish. The op still stands without it.

 

Ah, You wish your claims and new definitions to be accepted without proof, or even fixed definitions. Gotcha.

 

No not at all. Actually you are arguing my point. Read only the first two paragraphs of the post "The Unified Number" by me. I like you believe that absract things...are "things". In this original post, there are no axioms given. It is only a philosophical discussion about the reunification of philosophy, and science. Philosophy, and mathematics. Whether mathematician's think abstraction is a "thing". Is not dependent on the concept of the reunification of these things.

I am more than happy to continue this specific discussion on the concept of abstractions....but it should be another thread. Don't you think?

Thank you very much for you time.