IS Math Real?
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2024 8:04 pm
Something I've been thinking a lot about lately but only barely touch on in the paper I published is that everything is as real as it needs to be in that framework. 'Is math real' is a weird question if we haven't established what 'real' means, as we know we only live in an approximation of 'reality.' Does it do the same thing every time and have practical applications in physical time and space? Yes? Then it's real. But like, our perceptions aren't 'real' the way we perceive things to be. It's always an approximation and always depends on the frame.
I kind of look at it like some shimmering blob of infinity. You can pull whatever you want out of it, and that's a 'dimension,' a measurement. Could be one of space, consciousness, math, etc. In any causally connected space, that dimension will work the exact same every time. Has to. If just using the x dimension and assuming space is curved in on itself, you could describe an entire 3-dimensional object in one x long x slice. It would be the sum of 'infinity' (a measurement has to be, in some sense, finite, to be valid) in the x axis. It is a complete accurate and faithful representation of everything in x. You could do the same for y and get a similar but entirely different segmentation in y, or something like y = 2x +1. Whatever. But it's only valid in that framework. Add x to y or vice versa and the data's unintelligible from the standpoint of its original configuration without the translation factor.
But it also means that _maybe_ you can measure one thing perfectly in the x dimension, but that is only valid in an x dimensional framework. Math is an extraction pulled from that same source. It's a real thing in terms of itself, but only in terms of itself. Nothing can be completely real in the terms of something else. Some little bit that doesn't quite in our out of the frame will get cut off or left with space. No matter what significant figures you're working with, there will always be more of pi.
I kind of look at it like some shimmering blob of infinity. You can pull whatever you want out of it, and that's a 'dimension,' a measurement. Could be one of space, consciousness, math, etc. In any causally connected space, that dimension will work the exact same every time. Has to. If just using the x dimension and assuming space is curved in on itself, you could describe an entire 3-dimensional object in one x long x slice. It would be the sum of 'infinity' (a measurement has to be, in some sense, finite, to be valid) in the x axis. It is a complete accurate and faithful representation of everything in x. You could do the same for y and get a similar but entirely different segmentation in y, or something like y = 2x +1. Whatever. But it's only valid in that framework. Add x to y or vice versa and the data's unintelligible from the standpoint of its original configuration without the translation factor.
But it also means that _maybe_ you can measure one thing perfectly in the x dimension, but that is only valid in an x dimensional framework. Math is an extraction pulled from that same source. It's a real thing in terms of itself, but only in terms of itself. Nothing can be completely real in the terms of something else. Some little bit that doesn't quite in our out of the frame will get cut off or left with space. No matter what significant figures you're working with, there will always be more of pi.
