I’m leaning towards ‘discovered’

bit of both, honestly

It was inevitably both devised and discovered.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m leaning towards ‘discovered’

I am too. Mathematics is all around us. We simply observed it.

Bubblecar said:

It was inevitably both devised and discovered.

Well we had to put names and descriptions on it all.

Certainly the maths associated with the Constants like pi and exponential e etc would be considered discoveries.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

It was inevitably both devised and discovered.

Well we had to put names and descriptions on it all.

People had to devise formal number systems with consistent internal relationships etc. This process itself entailed all kinds of discoveries.

Ancient counting of food rations around the tribes.

I wonder how quickly it evolved.
.

never mind maths, was science invented or discovered?

I’m sure we’ve had this discussion before, but a long time ago.

Let me cogitate on the topic for a while.

Science was invented

The scientific method was invented.

Science is a deliberately constrained course of decision-making in a process of attaining knowledge of the world, and judging whether it constitutes such knowledge.

So it’s a matter of cognitive beings taking disciplined control of their cognition. Inevitably, mathematics shares that characteristic.

Thinking around the question rather than at the question.

The first use of written mathematics was for calculating taxes. Are taxes inevitable, yes but only after the population reaches some critically large value. Animals other than humans get by without tax calculations. Some animals still have taxes, but judge them by what seems fair rather than mathematically.

I came to the conclusion long ago that if you want to communicate with an alien civilization, you don’t try to communicate using pure mathematics: primes, pi and so on. You try to communicate using chemistry, because chemistry is fundamental to life. That said, chemistry involves the integers, two hydrogens to one oxygen in water for example.

“Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper.” – David Hilbert.

“Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk” (“God made the integers, all else is the work of man”) – Leopold Kronecker.

But how realistic are the above quotes?

There are some interesting papers here about ethnomathmatics in Australia.

http://aiatsis.gov.au/collections/collections-online/digitised-collections/ethnomathematics-australia/contents

dv said:

Science was invented

So you think that maths was both invented and discovered, but science was just invented?

That seems rather strange to me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Science was invented

So you think that maths was both invented and discovered, but science was just invented?

That seems rather strange to me.

Science as a body of knowledge is discovered, but as an approach to the attainment of knowledge, is a particular epistemological collaboration.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Science was invented

So you think that maths was both invented and discovered, but science was just invented?

That seems rather strange to me.

Science as a body of knowledge is discovered, but as an approach to the attainment of knowledge, is a particular epistemological collaboration.

Doesn’t the same apply to maths?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you think that maths was both invented and discovered, but science was just invented?

That seems rather strange to me.

Science as a body of knowledge is discovered, but as an approach to the attainment of knowledge, is a particular epistemological collaboration.

Doesn’t the same apply to maths?

Indeed.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Science was invented

So you think that maths was both invented and discovered, but science was just invented?

That seems rather strange to me.

I think things back then were progressively discovered and as more discoveries were made it eventually lead to science being accepted as a collection of discoveries. Today science covers a collection of different subcategories of science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

How The Word ‘Scientist’ Came To Be

In 1834, Cambridge University historian and philosopher of science William Whewell coined the term “scientist” to replace such terms as “cultivators of science.” Historian Howard Markel discusses how “scientist” came to be, and lists some possibilities that didn’t make the cut.

More…

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Science as a body of knowledge is discovered, but as an approach to the attainment of knowledge, is a particular epistemological collaboration.

Doesn’t the same apply to maths?

Indeed.

I shall have to wait for dv to explain his strange statement then :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you think that maths was both invented and discovered, but science was just invented?

That seems rather strange to me.

They are two different kinds of things

The History of Science: When Was The Word “Scientist” First Used?
http://symbionticism.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/the-history-of-science-when-was-word.html

As a scientist, I found Prof. Laura Snyder’s TED talk fascinating. I suspect her narrative on the history of science will have wide appeal, which is why Im sharing it here as a blog post rather than tweet.

Prof. Laura Synder is a Fulbright Scholar and Professor of Philosophy at St. John’s University. In her talk, she illuminates to me and I suspect to you as well that the word “scientist” was shockingly first used in 1833, not that long ago! We owe its origins to a poet’s inquisitiveness. Ultimately, it was the scientist William Whewell who coined the term scientist in response to the poet’s plea that “natural philosophers” upgrade the name of their profession. How could it be that the word scientist was invented so recently?

The weighty history and meaning behind the word ‘science’

The meaning of science has evolved over the past two centuries. So too has the recognition that the soft sciences are just as critical to humanity as the traditional hard sciences.

In fields as different as genomics or human geography, the raisons d’être of hard and soft sciences and many of their applied allies, like engineering or accountancy, are the development of new knowledge through research. This is taken further by advancing that knowledge, and sharing it through publication and teaching. It is as complicated and yet as simple: the South African Journal of Science publishes work based on, or leading to, these foundations.

More…

Still thinking around the question, rather than directly at it.

The “Princeton guide to advanced physics” attempts to include all the mathematics necessary (as a preliminary, there are hundreds of advancements and adaptions of every equation listed) for an understanding of Physics as it was known in the mid 1990s. There are 153 equations in chapter 1 starting with Taylor’s series, 280 equations in Chapter 2 starting with the virial theorem, 195 equations in Chapter 3 starting with Faraday’s Law. Chapter 4 starts with the equation for an electromagnetic wave. Chapter 5 starts with the Boltzmann equation. Chapter 6 starts with Poisson’s equation. Chapter 7 starts with the Lorentz transformation.

Chapter 8 starts with the state function of quantum mechanics. Chapter 9 starts with the deflection of charged particles by electric fields. Chapter 10 starts with the equation for binding energy as a function of protons and neutrons. Chapter 11 starts with the ideal gas equation. Chapter 12 starts with the equation for DC electrical conductivity. And the appendix has vector identities, vector derivatives, spherical and cylindrical coordinates, and physical constants.

The point here is that every one of the 2,000 or so equations in the Princeton guide to advanced physics can be considered to have been discovered rather than invented.

I can go further. I’m on record as stating that there is not even one equation in pure mathematics that has not found an application in applied mathematics. As an example, the purest pure mathematics that I know is the Banach-Tarski theorem, the theorem that states that is it possible to cut a solid sphere into five pieces that can be reassembled to make two unit spheres of the same volume. This theorem violates the principle of conservation of volume, so I expected to have no practical application – to be a pure invention if you like. But a practical use for the Banach-Tarski theorem has actually been found. I don’t remember the details but I can look them up. If you can’t wait for that, then I’ll refer you to:

“Links between physics and set theory” by Bruno W. Augenstein. The abstract is “The mathematics used in physics is derivable from set theory. But do basic underlying constructs of set theory — individual axioms, objects such as infinite sets, and theorems — have any bearing on physical reality? Cited responses from set theorists typically give decidedly negative answers. This paper examines a large number of instances suggesting, to the contrary, that such constructs have direct roles in the accepted physical reality. After a brief précis of relevant set theoretic notions, applicable analogies, examples and research topics are explored to support this contrary conclusion, examining direct links between physics and set theory. Notably, many of these direct links occur in quantum mechanics. Potential implications are sketched for allied questions of mathematical realism, and of interrelations of physics and mathematics. A substantial number of the topics noted appear to warrant further study; it is hoped future researchers will take up these challenges.”

What is the origin of the word “mathematics”?

Etymology: < Middle French mathematique (adjective) mathematical (French mathématique ), (feminine noun) mathematics (both 13th cent. in Old French; also matematique ), (masculine noun) astrologer (14th cent.), mathematician (15th cent.) and its etymon classical Latin mathēmaticus (adjective) mathematical, astrological, (noun) mathematician, astrologer, also mathēmatica (noun, short for ars mathēmatica ) mathematics < ancient Greek μαθηματικός(adjective) mathematical, (noun) mathematician (the senses ‘astronomical, astronomer’ are Hellenistic Greek),

More…

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you think that maths was both invented and discovered, but science was just invented?

That seems rather strange to me.

They are two different kinds of things

OK, but reasonable positions, depending on what exactly you mean by “discovered” and “invented”, would seem to be:

Both maths and science were both discovered and invented.

or

Science was both discovered and invented, but maths was just invented.

To have the study of real physical objects as being purely invented, when the study of abstract properties of numbers is both discovered and invented, seems strange to me.

I suppose the difference is that it’s much easier to “stick to the rules” with mathematics than it is with science :)

I once saw a cartoon. Can’t see it on the web. It’s appropriate.

A man, let’s call him Professor Xander, is walking dejectedly across in front of a blackboard with maths on. Two colleagues in the foreground are discussing why.

Colleague 1: Why is Professor Xander so sad?
Colleague 2: Because someone found a use for his mathematics.

Having talked around the question for a while, I’m now ready to answer it.

By definition:
Applied maths is discovered
Pure maths is invented
As civilization progresses, more and more pure maths becomes applied maths.

Now print it out and put it up on your wall.

To extrapolate?

PermeateFree said:

To extrapolate?

Interpolated from both extremes towards the happy middle.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you think that maths was both invented and discovered, but science was just invented?

That seems rather strange to me.

They are two different kinds of things

OK, but reasonable positions, depending on what exactly you mean by “discovered” and “invented”, would seem to be:

Both maths and science were both discovered and invented.

or

Science was both discovered and invented, but maths was just invented.

To have the study of real physical objects as being purely invented, when the study of abstract properties of numbers is both discovered and invented, seems strange to me.

Because I consider science to be a methodology, and hence necessarily an artefact of human society: it is an invention, inasmuch.

Whereas maths is a combination of fundamental truths (which were discovered) and specific techniques (which were invented.)

dv said:

Because I consider science to be a methodology, and hence necessarily an artefact of human society: it is an invention, inasmuch.

Whereas maths is a combination of fundamental truths (which were discovered) and specific techniques (which were invented.)

We seem to be making progress here.

Seeing science as purely a methodology seems strange to me.

Science and maths part company when it comes to chemistry
Chemical formulas that explain chemical reactions are not maths but they serve a similar purpose.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Because I consider science to be a methodology, and hence necessarily an artefact of human society: it is an invention, inasmuch.

Whereas maths is a combination of fundamental truths (which were discovered) and specific techniques (which were invented.)

We seem to be making progress here.

Seeing science as purely a methodology seems strange to me.

Well that would be an argument about definition and that would not be fruitful.

If science includes all of the things that have been discovered using science then obviously it is part discovery, part invention.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Because I consider science to be a methodology, and hence necessarily an artefact of human society: it is an invention, inasmuch.

Whereas maths is a combination of fundamental truths (which were discovered) and specific techniques (which were invented.)

We seem to be making progress here.

Seeing science as purely a methodology seems strange to me.

Well that would be an argument about definition and that would not be fruitful.

If science includes all of the things that have been discovered using science then obviously it is part discovery, part invention.

You seem to have a narrow view of science, with some sciences you do not need to invent anything, but you do need to discover. Did Einstein invent anything?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

We seem to be making progress here.

Seeing science as purely a methodology seems strange to me.

Well that would be an argument about definition and that would not be fruitful.

If science includes all of the things that have been discovered using science then obviously it is part discovery, part invention.

You seem to have a narrow view of science, with some sciences you do not need to invent anything, but you do need to discover. Did Einstein invent anything?

yes

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Well that would be an argument about definition and that would not be fruitful.

If science includes all of the things that have been discovered using science then obviously it is part discovery, part invention.

You seem to have a narrow view of science, with some sciences you do not need to invent anything, but you do need to discover. Did Einstein invent anything?

yes

the electrodynamics of moving bodies?

and one of his “discoveries” would be, i imagine, the cause brownian motion?

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

You seem to have a narrow view of science, with some sciences you do not need to invent anything, but you do need to discover. Did Einstein invent anything?

yes

the electrodynamics of moving bodies?

and one of his “discoveries” would be, i imagine, the cause brownian motion?

No I’d count that a discovery.

I was thinking more of his work on stress–energy–momentum pseudotensors, the Einstein refrigerator, and his work on B-E stats.

Hmmmm I was thinking models being inventions.

ChrispenEvan said:

Hmmmm I was thinking models being inventions.

Happy to call it a grey area

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Hmmmm I was thinking models being inventions.

Happy to call it a grey area

anyway it is all philosophical so not really important.

;-)

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Hmmmm I was thinking models being inventions.

Happy to call it a grey area

anyway it is all philosophical so not really important.

;-)

Meeting adjourned

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Because I consider science to be a methodology, and hence necessarily an artefact of human society: it is an invention, inasmuch.

Whereas maths is a combination of fundamental truths (which were discovered) and specific techniques (which were invented.)

We seem to be making progress here.

Seeing science as purely a methodology seems strange to me.

Well that would be an argument about definition and that would not be fruitful.

If science includes all of the things that have been discovered using science then obviously it is part discovery, part invention.

I’m not sure about arguments about definitions not being fruitful, but it seems that we would agree on the discovered/invention if we could just agree what is included in “science”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

We seem to be making progress here.

Seeing science as purely a methodology seems strange to me.

Well that would be an argument about definition and that would not be fruitful.

If science includes all of the things that have been discovered using science then obviously it is part discovery, part invention.

I’m not sure about arguments about definitions not being fruitful, but it seems that we would agree on the discovered/invention if we could just agree what is included in “science”.

(sweeping floor) You still here? I was about to lock up. Chrispy and I already sorted it.

(sweeping floor) You still here? I was about to lock up. Chrispy and I already sorted it.

I saw that.

We just have to settle whether philosophy is a waste of time or not, then we can call it a day.

The Rev Dodgson said:

(sweeping floor) You still here? I was about to lock up. Chrispy and I already sorted it.

I saw that.

We just have to settle whether philosophy is a waste of time or not, then we can call it a day.

Perhaps we should see what the Rev Dodgson had to say on that question:

What the Tortoise said to Achilles

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Hmmmm I was thinking models being inventions.

Happy to call it a grey area

It is not a grey area at all, it is only grey in your mind. Science DISCOVERS LAWS OF NATURE, they are already there, science or scientists did not invent them, they discovered them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

(sweeping floor) You still here? I was about to lock up. Chrispy and I already sorted it.

I saw that.

We just have to settle whether philosophy is a waste of time or not, then we can call it a day.

(shrugs)

I think probably the useful parts of philosophy are now covered by other fields…

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

(sweeping floor) You still here? I was about to lock up. Chrispy and I already sorted it.

I saw that.

We just have to settle whether philosophy is a waste of time or not, then we can call it a day.

(shrugs)

I think probably the useful parts of philosophy are now covered by other fields…

Mr dv, pull down your blinkers!

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

(sweeping floor) You still here? I was about to lock up. Chrispy and I already sorted it.

I saw that.

We just have to settle whether philosophy is a waste of time or not, then we can call it a day.

(shrugs)

I think probably the useful parts of philosophy are now covered by other fields…

Actually, I noticed last year that the exact opposite can be true.

I wrote a monograph on some pure mathematics.
I presented it first to the Monash Uni Mathematics department and then to the RMIT Philosophy department.

Not only did the mathematicians not understand a word of what I was saying, they didn’t care.
But the philosophers understood every word of it, loved it, and offered me a chance to turn it into a PhD.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

(sweeping floor) You still here? I was about to lock up. Chrispy and I already sorted it.

I saw that.

We just have to settle whether philosophy is a waste of time or not, then we can call it a day.

(shrugs)

I think probably the useful parts of philosophy are now covered by other fields…

Actually, I noticed last year that the exact opposite can be true.

I wrote a monograph on some pure mathematics.
I presented it first to the Monash Uni Mathematics department and then to the RMIT Philosophy department.

Not only did the mathematicians not understand a word of what I was saying, they didn’t care.
But the philosophers understood every word of it, loved it, and offered me a chance to turn it into a PhD.

Did you accept?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

(shrugs)

I think probably the useful parts of philosophy are now covered by other fields…

Actually, I noticed last year that the exact opposite can be true.

I wrote a monograph on some pure mathematics.
I presented it first to the Monash Uni Mathematics department and then to the RMIT Philosophy department.

Not only did the mathematicians not understand a word of what I was saying, they didn’t care.
But the philosophers understood every word of it, loved it, and offered me a chance to turn it into a PhD.

Did you accept?

No. Because I’d already spent a year doing the mathematics and did’t feel like spending another three years polishing it. One year was long enough.

I suppose I could go back to it some time.

Why do the Yanks do Math? when the rest of the world do Maths?

The question’s half half a step from are quantities and qualities an invention, a construction, something generated by minds.

And, does anything out there have essential characteristics (that make it what it is), including mechanisms.

Gravity and light certainly aren’t inventions (not the things themselves), nor kinetic energy. The list is long.

I think brute computation preceded humans, and preceded life on earth, it preceded the existence of the earth..

transition said:

The question’s half half a step from are quantities and qualities an invention, a construction, something generated by minds.

And, does anything out there have essential characteristics (that make it what it is), including mechanisms.

Gravity and light certainly aren’t inventions (not the things themselves), nor kinetic energy. The list is long.

I think brute computation preceded humans, and preceded life on earth, it preceded the existence of the earth..

Personally I don’t think it is helpful to call the interaction of things in ways that can be described by mathematics “computation”.

Even if we add “brute” on the front.

In my opinion “computation” (in this context) requires at least the construction of some sort of mental model of some real interaction, so it requires some sort of brain (although not necessarily as we know it).

transition said:

The question’s half half a step from are quantities and qualities an invention, a construction, something generated by minds.

And, does anything out there have essential characteristics (that make it what it is), including mechanisms.

Gravity and light certainly aren’t inventions (not the things themselves), nor kinetic energy. The list is long.

I think brute computation preceded humans, and preceded life on earth, it preceded the existence of the earth..

The mention of “essential characteristics” makes me look up the meanings of the words “invention” and “discovery”.

“U.S. Patent Law. a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship.”

The key wording here is “did not exist previously”.

I have a patent on some applied mathematics – does that make it an invention rather than a discovery?

Then there is the quote from Douglas Adams to consider:
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

In that Douglas Adams version of the strong anthropic principle, is the Universe a discovery or an invention? Or something completely different!

>In my opinion “computation” (in this context) requires at least the construction of some sort of mental model of some real interaction, so it requires some sort of brain (although not necessarily as we know it).

dunno

The incremental evolution (involving dna) of organisms might seen as computation, that gave rise to that ability for your thoughts on the subject

What percentage of mathematics has practical uses no matter how obscure, compared to mathematics which are more just a thought exercise.

Cymek said:

What percentage of mathematics has practical uses no matter how obscure, compared to mathematics which are more just a thought exercise.

100

hardly surprising really that a bunch of evolving competing replicators, that of them might emerge the capacity to count. It’s certainly in the field of the general business of a replicator. Additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions…..

dna storing information and variously executing certainly looks like it lends to computation, to me.

memory, inputs, ouputs, complex transformations, algorithms, cycles, clocks, involved in taking nformation from past a present and projecting whatever onto the future. Maintaining and building order.

performing survival functions.

dunno, looks a bit computational to me

mollwollfumble said:

In that Douglas Adams version of the strong anthropic principle, is the Universe a discovery or an invention? Or something completely different!

Either I don’t know what the strong anthropic principle is, or that is just the ordinary anthropic principle, or (more likely) both.

transition said:

hardly surprising really that a bunch of evolving competing replicators, that of them might emerge the capacity to count. It’s certainly in the field of the general business of a replicator. Additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions…..

dna storing information and variously executing certainly looks like it lends to computation, to me.

memory, inputs, ouputs, complex transformations, algorithms, cycles, clocks, involved in taking nformation from past a present and projecting whatever onto the future. Maintaining and building order.

performing survival functions.

dunno, looks a bit computational to me

I thought you were attributing computation to non-living things. If you meant living things on other planets, before Earth existed, then I agree that it is likely that there was computation before Earth existed.

As for when the processes of evolution become computational, I’d say that was an extremely fuzzy boundary.

I wonder if we could recognise mathematics from an alien culture even if we didn’t understand the symbols they used, would the patterns make sense to us

Cymek said:

I wonder if we could recognise mathematics from an alien culture even if we didn’t understand the symbols they used, would the patterns make sense to us

No?

>I thought you were attributing computation to non-living things. If you meant living things on other planets, before Earth existed, then I agree that it is likely that there was computation before Earth existed.

What’s living?

Minus organic life on earth, is the planet spinning around the sun and on its own axis and trillions of tonnes of water washing around in a hydrological cycle life, or living? Is the example alive in any sense?

What do you need for life, you first need the possibility.

You were a possibility before you came into existence.

Life’s as much about potentials and possibilities, as it is what is at any moment.

Probably a dumb analogy, but a battery doesn’t stop being a store of energy if its sitting idle with nothing connected. Point being there’s likely to be naturally occuring chemistries, for example (depositions, layers, whatever) that have structure and store, or convert energy. Would such a thing be alive in any sense if it lends to the maintenance of its own, or further structure?

What does something have to be to be alive, work in opposition to entropy? (on some scale, somewhere)

transition said:

What does something have to be to be alive, work in opposition to entropy? (on some scale, somewhere)

Make copies of itself, which pass on the information required for the copies to make copies of themselves.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

What does something have to be to be alive, work in opposition to entropy? (on some scale, somewhere)

Make copies of itself, which pass on the information required for the copies to make copies of themselves.

does accretion of galaxies qualify in any sense? Does the gravity of mass pass on any information?

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

What does something have to be to be alive, work in opposition to entropy? (on some scale, somewhere)

Make copies of itself, which pass on the information required for the copies to make copies of themselves.

does accretion of galaxies qualify in any sense? Does the gravity of mass pass on any information?

Well it’s another fuzzy transition, from non-life to life, but I’d say galaxy accretion is about as close to the non-life end as you can get, since a new galaxy is almost certain to have a totally different structure to the galaxies that provided the material.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Personally I don’t think it is helpful to call the interaction of things in ways that can be described by mathematics “computation”.

I agree. Also, it irks me when people describe the act of a person catching a ball as a “complex computation”, especially if they also mention “calculus”. A robot may need to perform computations but the brain does things differently.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Personally I don’t think it is helpful to call the interaction of things in ways that can be described by mathematics “computation”.

I agree. Also, it irks me when people describe the act of a person catching a ball as a “complex computation”, especially if they also mention “calculus”. A robot may need to perform computations but the brain does things differently.

Lot of geometry involved in catching a ball

I think the brain does computation to do that, probably involves intuitive geometry.

Here’s a paradox.

Supposedly, an invention can be patented and a discovery can’t.

Suppose that applied math is discovered but pure maths is invented.

The paradox is that applied math can be patented but pure maths can’t.

>Personally I don’t think it is helpful to call the interaction of things in ways that can be described by mathematics “computation”.

probably not, but the thread is about the genesis of math

transition said:

>Personally I don’t think it is helpful to call the interaction of things in ways that can be described by mathematics “computation”.

probably not, but the thread is about the genesis of math

——

Well then it goes back 100’s of millions of years ago to mating when it was realised that 3-1 =2 in breeding competition.

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Personally I don’t think it is helpful to call the interaction of things in ways that can be described by mathematics “computation”.

I agree. Also, it irks me when people describe the act of a person catching a ball as a “complex computation”, especially if they also mention “calculus”. A robot may need to perform computations but the brain does things differently.

Hmmm. Not sure I’d go that far. Assuming no-one mentions the calculus, I think it is reasonable to call the brain activities involved in catching a ball “computation”, even though we aren’t aware of what it is doing.

transition said:

>Personally I don’t think it is helpful to call the interaction of things in ways that can be described by mathematics “computation”.

probably not, but the thread is about the genesis of math

What?

We aren’t allowed to branch the discussion into new and surprising directions now?