Could you supply examples of such debate? I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at.

@abgemacht

Position A "Math is an idea that is useful for describing reality, but not a fundamental reality in and of itself"

Position B "Math is life"

:-)

A

Math didn't exist before someone decided they needed to keep track of how much of something they had.

I thinks you're simplifying math too much Tyran..

Well, I think that I might try to sneak my two bits in and annoy everyone:

My idea is that even if one selected choice "B" they would still change their viewpoint should the official understanding of any part of what we understand as "mathematics" changed.
So, Tyran is perhaps correct ( as maths are based on what we can presently understand and can interpret) and yet he is perhaps not (one still plummets at a mathematically determined rate, off of a cliff, regardless of his literacy in the subject).

Sorry

1 + 1 > 1

Hello Dolores.

"Math is just a tool used by our minds to describe reality, it is not in and of itself reality." I copied and pasted you Wyatt because that statement is absolutely correct. What gets me are those who are let down by this. It's simply true. Time and measure are examples of the same principle. These are tools invented by man to describe reality. That being said, math is one incredibly useful and intricate way to describe reality. It's just that we don't need it to perceive and enjoy reality. We could live without math, but we can't avoid reality.

That was from @Devonian, Fourofswords. Not my words. Though I agree completely

Math is not a physical entity, it is a way of using symbols in a deductive method to explain occurrences in our natural world, as well as make our deductive method more elaborate and complex.

the question really boils down to, what doe "exist" mean?
TIME FOR A DICTIONARY TREASURE HUNT!!!

Exist: have objective reality or being.

have: N/A
objective: not biases by presuppositions, independently true
reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist <-- WTF dictionary COME ON
being: existence <-- this has been useless

DICTIONARY TREASURE HUNT CONCLUSION!!!

The Dictionary doesn't know

Against most commenters here, I maintain that mathematics is as real as the laws of logic, regardless of whether it is associated to any physical stuff. Even if Euclid's fifth postulate does not perfectly describe this Universe, his Elements remain as immutably and eternally true, obeying that premise. The concept of number exists even if there are no stones to count, and mathematics of the last century has become ever increasingly more abstract.

The argument that a conscious mind is necessary for mathematics or logic to have meaning is, to opine on the other popular conversation, rather an argument favouring the necessity of an eternal, conscious Mind that exists independently of the physical universe.

Well that was productive.

@maestro. I like how you said, "the concept of numbers still exists even if there are no stones to count" that definitely opens ones mind up for your argument

Yes, it does exist. Moving on.

Dictionaries alas cannot magically embed new concepts into the minds of their readers; they can only explain with familiar concepts and synonyms.

Yeah the dictionary isn't the only one who doesn't know. People have been working on this problem for literally thousands of years.

DO YOU WANT MONEY?
1. Ask questions
2. ???
3. Profit

exist is to be, and to be is to exist. but who do we know that existence occurs? cognito ergo sum, i think, therefore i am. If existence were impossible, then our ability to think and perceive would be impossible.

but how related is our ability to perceive something, to what we are perceiving? the problem here is that we do not objectively observe any given object.

We can identify an object through 5 primary means:
- picking up particles fallen off of the object through our nasal cavities where receptors send signals to our brain (smell)
- picking up a certain defined spectrum of radiation from the object through the cones in our eyes where receptors send information to our brain (sight)
- touching the material of an object with our own body, where receptors in the skin send information to our brain (touch)
- observing vibrations within a certain spectrum being detected by sensitive receptors within our ears (hearing)
- picking up and feeling certain particles fallen off or that are upon an object through our taste buds, in which the receptors send information to our brain.

Our brain interprets this information into data which for us feels innate.

Presupposition:
If something is observable through all 5 senses, then it exists
Questions:
If something is ONLY observable through 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the senses, but is impossible to detect through the other 1, 2, 3, or 4 senses, does it exist?

I believe so, as far as I'm aware light does not have a smell or taste, but sight and sounds can prove light's existence

Is there a certain combination of senses that show existence without others being necessary?

Sight and sound go together, whereas smell and taste go together as well. touch is generally alongside sight and sounds, though not always. There are many combinations.

If something cannot be observed by ANY of the 5 senses, then can it exist?

Well we know for a fact that our sight and sound senses are limited upon a certain spectrum, but assuming we had full access to the ENTIRE spectrum, what would be left?

How do we observe an idea?

chemicals signals interpreted from electricity moving across synapses are thoughts, so they do have a physical form (though microscopic)

does a way of thinking, such as "math" exist?

Well... math is a process, in which you consider things, and through this many of your neurons will be firing, so math does have a certain physical component

Does Math exist independent of consciousness?

ugh... I dunno. why are you asking me? I mean, things will still exist even if they aren't readily observable, a rock does not stop existing because all conscious life has died. But math as a process, is dead. even if one rock is next to another rock, and together they are two rocks (a love story of generations for sure) they exist as one and one and two. conciousness allows for observation of existence, it confirms existence, but it does not create existence. Cognito Ergo Sum is thus not a causal statement, rather it is a confirmation.

Would it just be easy to say that any physical matter exists, though it may appear in a multitude of potential undetectable ways?

Yeah sure

What about vacuums. or anti-matter?

GODDAMNIT STOP ASKING QUESTIONS JUST TAKE THE MONEY FOR THE RESEARCH GRANT AND GO

and that's how you reach step 3: profit

step 2. was walk into a gov't building

Consider this

imagine you are in the 2nd dimension, you can look around and see a series of dots, across a line. that is your observation. You can do 1 dot + 1 dot = 2 dots

this basic logic still applies.

Imagine the people of the 2nd dimension world, with this basic math. can you do math referring to a cube in the 2nd dimension we ask? let's try to test them. the problem people in the second dimension face, is of course fathoming the 3rd dimension having no capabilities of fathoming it. however, imagine the shape of a cube as you cut it down into vectors. If each face piece is sliced perfectly perpendicular to its face, then you would have an infinite number of TRULY flat pieces that would have to be observed in the 2nd dimension. this infinite number of small vectors could only be observed as a constant non moving dot upon a line. However, a 5 inch by 5 inch by 5 inch cube passing through second dimensional world placed upon a single vector, moving at a constant rate of time (1 inch per second) would only be visible to the people within the second dimension for 5 seconds. They'd see a flat line for 5 seconds, then it would mysteriously disappear. This is intriguing to some of the scholars int he 2nd dimension world. so they'd have a test. They know how shapes work, as depth would still be somewhat observable. While from a distance it would be impossible to determine whether something were a square or circle form a single focal point, with 2 eyeballs in the second dimension, they approach the object while moving at different angles towards it. If the line is unmoving in length, it must be a circle, if the line changes length, then they are observing a square, as there view of one side is slowly being cut off. While they may 'know' circles and squares in a different sense than we do, they'd still have a basic understanding of this depth. Now, the square comes back they deduce a way of measuring it. 2 people on each side, equidistant form each corner. However, this time the square moves downwards AND diagonally so that one specific corner is moving towards its opposite at an equal rate of 1 inch down and 1 inch across and 1 inch in width per second (yes i know mathematically more energy is being exerted this time than the prior as it's adding distance, but this is irrelevant). The 2 dimensional scholars are intrigued, as this object is observable at 2 constant known rates, then it disappears! this is illogical!!! (a similar experiment using a circle could be done, with the diameter (or for them, length, constantly changing but this time at a non-constant rate, but this is besides the point) Things cannot simply disappear.

In the third dimension we now are bored of the second dimension. After all we have an infinite number of second dimensions, and according to some of the people on this site 1/infinity=0 and so they're worthless.

We take our square and we toss it up in the air and the square disappears.

Wait.

Guys.

The square is gone.

This is illogical.

What.

Guys where'd the square go?

I don't know how to stop this story, it really got away from me WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SQUARE???

*meanwhile in the 4th dimension*

"those guys really don't know how limited their form of logic is"
- Chris Evans ('cause he is out-of-this-universe-beautiful fight me bitches)

Get a job James.

i'm looking for some internships

Logic is the base form of life. Maths is applied logic which defines life.
All done

except on quantum level

"Imagine the people of the 2nd dimension world, with this basic math. can you do math referring to a cube in the 2nd dimension we ask?"

Yes, see: Flatland. Anyway, if people in our universe can come up with n-dimensional geometry, there's no reason why 2-dimensional people can't.

Math probably does not exist without entities incapable of reason. It is a form of interpretation and explanation of things real and not real. Therefore, before reasoning beings came to be, there was no math. But now that reasoning beings are, math is as real as thoughts are - you can argue the reality of mental constructs of course. If at some point, reasoning beings cease to be, for example by nuclear holocaust destroying all reasoning life or by selecting a reality show icon as president, then math will cease to be until reasoning beings come to be again.

Flatland was incidentally a favourite book as a child, and it perennially returns to my thoughts.

To answer those who claim that mathematics would cease to exist with conscious life, I remind that the law of gravity and the other laws of physics, all mathematically described, continue to operate upon distant and sterile stars and planets.

So, relevant question