You know you're onto something correct when so many kids attempt to emotionally tear your observations down.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
Hahah. It's just one kid as far as I can tell.
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
You two are funny. Where is the emotion? What I see is a lack of understanding of what proof, induction, and deduction actually mean. Diego, you are the last person on the planet to make such a ridiculous claim that I am emotional (while calling me a kid, [a kid that is way ahead of you]). You are so emotional you reject mathematics because it's hard. Grow up. James, you need to grow up too. Your lack of understanding does not make your approach to physics and mathematics better than physicists and mathematicians. Grow up. The fact that you relate an thorough debunking by proof of contradictions as "emotional" is telling. No part of my comments are untrue or emotional.
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
Make another paradox math video, Diego. I could use a good laugh. 😂
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
I am willing to debate these topics with either of you if you are so confident in your mathematical knowledge!
@Buffalo_Soldier
Ай бұрын
Taxes. I think you don't get to have big armies before having taxes and before counting how much food you need for winter.
@ryam4632
Ай бұрын
Interesting! But what about a mob army, not anything fancy and ordered?
@DeanCook
Ай бұрын
Interesting video. Trying to put myself in the shoes of an ancient , fictional person like that helps me to think about all the ideas I hold and essentially take for granted.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
Awesome!
@WalterSamuels
Ай бұрын
Mathematics was invented before language. Language IS math. Counting was the beginning. Saying they invented language before counting is like saying they invented algebra before numbers.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
Math might have been invented before language, true. What makes you say that language is math?
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
@@Inductica Ayn Rand: "The process of concept-formation is, in large part, a mathematical process" "Cognition and Measurement," ITOE, page 7.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@ExistenceUniversity This quote is a non-sequitir: though concept formation has a mathematical nature, that does not mean man needs explicit mathematical concepts before forming concepts. Rand also said somewhere else that the field of mathematics makes explicit what is implicit in the process of concept formation. So the mathematics inherent in forming concepts is implicit only, it is not the same as what I'm developing here, and what Walter was talking about, which is explicit mathematical concepts and methods.
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
@Inductica No, you misunderstand Ms Rand, concept formation is the process of measurements and is the same thing as mathematics. Socrates is a man = Socrates = Man. Concept formation is mathematical. Language is algebra.
@WalterSamuels
Ай бұрын
@@ExistenceUniversity Exactly. Although in the case of Socrates = Man it would be a little more nuanced than that, as all men are not Socrates, so you'd likely use a uni-directional associative symbol rather than bidirectional association, but the general premise you're talking about is correct. There's a recent interesting lecture you can find on KZitem called "Natural language as a cognitive computation on data-compressed grounded symbols" that covers this quite well and demonstrates the algebraic nature of language that is generally left out of the sentences we create for brevity, but still implied.
@eben3357
Ай бұрын
7:36 the 'shape of the moon' served Zhuge Liang and Zhou Yu just fine at the Battle of Chi Bi.
@BalugaWhale37
Ай бұрын
Besides the ability to perceptually discriminate between units up to 7 or 8, @ExistenceUniversity asserted in his recent video that humans can also distinguish large ratios without counting. If you have 20 spears or 80 spears, you can clearly see that 20 is less than 80. As you said in your video, you would not be able to perceive 75 vs 80 vs 85 in the large pile, but we are doing something that makes comparing the groups immediately clear. I know some of our senses work on non-linear bases. Perhaps our visual system has two modes which we can use as the foundational fact to build our mathematical concepts.
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
And it makes sense evolutionarily as a pack of, say, 15 humans versus a pack of 20 can still be a fight you can win, but 15 vs 30, no way.
@BalugaWhale37
Ай бұрын
Delighted to see you identify a method simpler than counting. This series is awesome. The rock carving adds to the story, but I think it has misled some of the commentators. This tribe from Babel is very ancient. They are not the people who had time to make such beautiful carvings or any monumental structures. What your story helps illustrate is the hierarchy of mathematical methods and to tease out methods we use all the time. We automated these comparison as well as the times tables. We don't normally notice them as a skill we learned or invented.
@alexandersanchez9138
Ай бұрын
As is borne out in the history of western mathematics, I would predict that some of man's earliest mathematics would come from music. But not because of harmony--because you very quickly need some kind of measurement system for precisely synchronizing events in time. Indeed, I posit that counting rhythms and cultural understandings of song and dance are probably man's earliest mathematics, even before we started forming sophisticated armies and trading with one another in sophisticated ways.
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
The first sounds you hear before you can "hear" is the heartbeat
@oversquare6625
58 минут бұрын
this depends largely on your definitions of both math and music. if counting is considered math - then primates naturally develop the skill much like walking or chewing. so you might need a working definition of music that can be applied to all adolescent primates.
@idjles
Ай бұрын
8:09 ha! MArduk's soldeiers are wearing clothing with more than 7 tassels! Also they bands on their shoulders. We knew how to group and to count long before the neolithic. And the Egyptians were using scales LONG before the time of your "Marduk" in Babel.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@idjles this is just meant as a fictional story.
@iamomegaboss
Ай бұрын
Why make a fiction? We have the ancient cuneiform tablets. We know that the origin story of writing is also the origin story of accounting. They invented credit money. The ancient near eastern maths were quite advanced. So, why the fiction?
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
It's easier to get the results you want when you invent your own reality.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
Good question. Even if we adhered very closely to the ancient records, we would still have to fill in a lot of gaps regarding the actual observations and reasoning steps. Further, the actual history of math and physics involves lots of wrong turns and faulty reasoning. Our goal in this series is not to present a history of math, but rather to show its observational proof.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@ExistenceUniversity You can see that these are situations which could happen, and that these are reasoning steps one could perform without knowing any math yet, the fictional nature of the narrative does not make it less rigorous.
@grant5392
Ай бұрын
While we know the sumerian tablets contain origin stories of mathematics and various other things. They attribute all the knowledge being passed down to them from the annunaki. So, being that to our current knowledge, no annunaki people(s) factually and undeniably are on the earth to meet the burden of proof of those stories claims - there is absolutely no evidence that anything written in the sumerian tablets pertaining to the origins of math and other things given from the annunaki to humans, is actually where it came from. Don't get me wrong, I do hope that one day we find enough evidence to confirm the sumerians claim, but as of now we just don't have it. And because of that, it may never catch on in the mainstream and you may likely be ridiculed by peers for even suggesting such a thing.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@grant5392 Thanks for this interesting history. Why would I be ridiculed? I claim on multiple occasions that this is just a fictional story to talk about how math could have been invented.
@idjles
Ай бұрын
you don't even need the one-to-one correspondance if you just put them into two pans on a balanced stick.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@idjles what?
@BuckPowers
Ай бұрын
The quantities being compared are item quantities, not weights. And the uniformity of mass per item in this scenario has not been stipulated. So a comparison of weights here would not add value.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@BuckPowers That's right, you are noticing how that his suggestion would break inductive order. I didn't even realize what his suggestion was at first.
@idjles
19 күн бұрын
@@Inductica you are completely overthinking it - scales work by symmetry - no numbers required.
@Cirnenric
Ай бұрын
Fun start! Thanks.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@Cirnenric Much more to come!
@blastx31
Ай бұрын
This was very fascinating to think about. I think a lot of people are missing the point of the video. I see the value in this.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
Thanks!
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
6:45 How did he get access to the enemies? Also, how are we constructing monumental temples at this time, but we can not count?
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
My "Proof, Principles, Inductions, Deductions" actually explains the induction of numbers and the deduction of comparing them without resorting to fiction, and show also that the rock handing out part is a deduction, and so the inductive part is the part that is missing from this video. The hero leader has information about numbers and that they are always the same quantity, and he is using that knowledge to subsume new information by doing a hypothetico-deductive experiment of testing that idea and applying it.
@oversquare6625
2 сағат бұрын
The preliminary assumptions presented in the opening are not viable.
@Inductica
2 сағат бұрын
Which ones?
@oversquare6625
Сағат бұрын
@Inductica the most obvious problem is trying to infer your working definition of "mathematics" that fits the concept of "invented", but more specifically stated is the idea that there could have been a human society "where no one even knows how to count yet" which is contrary to established biology. In sum, the published work of: "Mathematical Cognition and Learning", by Michael J. Beran, Audrey E. Parrish, Theodore A. Evans, Volume 1, 2015, Pages 91-119, ISSN 2214-2568 says that according to research, primates are able to make ordinality judgments based on symbolic representations of numbers. This is a step above an beyond counting. It indicates that even the ancestors of the first humans could count innately. Counting for primates is similar to walking or eating. Its just something they can do.
@yeyito2818
Ай бұрын
20 seconds in and my mind is already blown
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
Awesome!
@ReflectiveJourney
Ай бұрын
The whole story seems to about the pragmatic significance of mathematics for survival which is mostly fine. Although as a platonist, i think it is a discovery not an invention. Also counting presupposes basic arithmetic capacity and i dont see a way around that being innate.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@ReflectiveJourney In our next video, you will see how counting can be invented through observations and reasoning with knowledge established in this video. Respectfully, I’ll give my opinion about the metaphysical nature of math, which is in strong opposition to Platonism: I think quantities and quantitative facts are out there in the world (such as the quantity of troops Marduk has) and that we *invent* mathematical *methods* to grasp those quantities. So the quantities are metaphysical, number, counting and other mathematical methods are inventions for grasping these facts and making inferences about their relationships between one another.
@ReflectiveJourney
Ай бұрын
@@Inductica I would need to know more about what is meant by "quantities" and how is it different from numbers. Do you just mean that there are quantifiable facts like "there are 2 apples on the table" where "2" is the counting method used to state the fact. Interesting view and i would agree with you that the methods and language to talk about mathematical structure is contingent on experience. This doesn't address the ontological issue though. In my view, there are no perfect identities in the material world and it is a feature of our cognitive capacities that we track "close enough" patterns in the experience. Mathematics is the study of pure structures. I don't take a dualist view, the physical world is rationally constrained by the forms. The Pythagorean theorem is constraining the 3rd side of a triangle if you pick any two sides. It is not a generalization but a discovery about a geometrical structure (triangle). Even if we don't have a pure triangle in material world still any close enough structure to the triangle would be constrained by that. i am just probably rephrasing what Plato meant that experiential world is just an image of the forms but i believe he was pretty close.
@UFO314159
Ай бұрын
The number "3" is a group with 3 units in it (at least, from the perspective of the quantity of units in the group).
@BuckPowers
Ай бұрын
@@UFO314159 Your definition references (and depends on) the term it's allegedly defining.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@ReflectiveJourney Thank you for explaining your position clearly and respectfully. You have improved the quality of my comments section XD. Yes, that's very similar to Plato's view. In contrast, I think existence (the material world, as you put it) has full identity and that our senses give us data about that identity. If you'd like to know what my reason is for thinking that, check out the book "Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand."
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
How does ("Name") know that 1 rock can be used to represent 1 soldier? Seems like he has already a pretty big grasp of logic to jump straight to law number 4. Before he can compare two objects with a representative, he must know that numbers are consistent and that 1 is 1 no matter what it is. It is implicit that a child knows a single apple is in front of him, and that a single banana in front of him, but it is not explicit that there are an equal number of items each. Comparing two quantities is a deduction from much earlier inductions. So this video on induction starts with a deduction, a deduction based on information that requires the hero count all the enemies (somehow) and represent them with rocks, without knowing how many men he has? I don't see the motivation even. For what reason does the leader believe quantity matters? He is using the knowledge that quantitative analysis is beneficial and useful before ever once doing it! Why did he think this would work? How did he know this was useful? Maybe start small and earlier. A caveman knows how to divide the meat of the hunt into fair amounts for everyone, animals can do this. So why did this Babylon tribe not know this and also somehow knew this would be useful?
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
He does not count, nor does he even have the number 1, so much of what your saying does not apply. He's already aware of the existence of quantity from trading before (as I explain.) You are right though, that I did not induce the issue of quantity itself. For that you can look at chapter 7 of "A Validation of Knowledge," By Pisaturo.
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
@Inductica To take 1 rock per person is an act of counting. "Counting is the process of determining the number of elements of a finite set of objects; that is, determining the size of the set"
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
@@InducticaHow is he familiar with quantity and trade but not counting or numbers? Surely to go beyond 7 things requires a word or symbol of some kind. If quantity is implicit, so is counting.
@NicholasWilliams-y3m
Ай бұрын
@@Inductica The math is the (real factor) of everything, both in physics description and analytical description. Analytical description, when I say I have 1 of something, what is being communicated is (the object identity occurs 1 times (1 x Object), therefore math used in this case is to scale the number of rocks analytically proportional to (possession count x object identity). However physically, even though the mathematical description gets more complex, it's still math. Physically a rock is the energy computations and composition that defines what the rock actually is (A much larger mathematical equation), which may or may not be obtainable in it's actual full spatial temporal description.
@Inductica
Ай бұрын
@@NicholasWilliams-y3m I don’t follow.
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
0:05 Mathematics is not invented any more than epistemology (the process, not the science) is invented. You can not invent mathematics as the basis of inventing man-made things like a methodology requires concept formation, which is a mathematical process. This is why the triple integration is required. At the most basic level, mathematics, epistemology, and neurology are the same process. So you don't invent epistemology or math, you invent their products using those neurological tools that are built in detectors of reality
@NicholasWilliams-y3m
Ай бұрын
This comment is super good, it exposes what reality actually is, and we are just the passive users of the proverbial mathematical tech, (Universe = mathematical machine) and we are using (it's) tools.
@oversquare6625
22 сағат бұрын
"concept formation, which is a mathematical process." is a gibberish idea. It looks like it is a typical confusing the map with the terrain idea. Math is simply a language that excludes contradiction. A mathematical process then would exclude contradiction at every step. "concept formation" does not meet that constraint. Most concepts are contradictory. To have non-contradictory concept formation, you would need perfect knowledge before you started forming concepts - but that itself is contradictory. Concept formation is a trial and error, stub your toe in the dark process (as far away from math as a process can be). Now you could describe concept formation with math and then have a mathematical model of how concepts form, but then the OP has confused the map with the terrain as previously mentioned.
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
1:15 How do they make they huts? How many for how many people? How many sticks do we need to collect to make 1 hut? How many pieces of meat do we cut? How many people are we sharing with?
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
5:00 How does a tribe that cannot count or do quantitative analysis, aka cannot figure out how to share, grow so large it needs a leader and has an army? Surely each man has his own spear!! So clearly we have been counting for years at this point in the fictional history. Each soldier has 1 helmet and body armor and a weapon and a hut. So the leader is not inducing anything, he was clearly raised by this society from a young age how to count and represent quantity with counting tools!!
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
5:45 Why is it obvious the size with the larger quantity wins when we don't know what quantity is yet?
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
6:43 Presumably, since the men are moving about and impossible to count by pairing off with his imagination, what makes the operation of rock counting easier? Surely, he would still lose track given their motion about the camp! Did he count that man that was at the starting place but walked over to the end counting region twice or once or maybe we counted him 3 or more times as he walked through our count
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
9:34 How you going to argue that counting was invented after counting? How did our fictional hero count the men with a counting tool and then given that information know that one set of numbers is larger than another set of numbers and that his group had countably more men have nothing to do with counting??? Explain yourself!
@ExistenceUniversity
Ай бұрын
9:45 There is absolutely NO WAY that anyone could have taken this approach in reality. In a word where you spawn in as the King of Babylon age 29, Supreme commander and wise beyond his millenia, then he still has no reason to magically start counting, knowing that 1 and 1 is 2 and 1 more is 3, and so on. You cannot start knowledge with a deduction that this mathematical operation of assigning a point (a rock) with anything else will guide you to know which is bigger! There is no reason at this point to represent people with counting tools, nor to use the results of the tool to conclude which is bigger. Do this with a child. Have them count with rocks in a basket the family members at the reunion, then have them hand the rocks out to a different larger group of people, when the rocks are gone and their are still people, that baby child will still not know which group has more. Not until they know that 5 and 6 are different and 6 requires 5 plus 1, which comes years after inducing 6 by itself.
@jaydenwilson9522
Ай бұрын
ONE BUBBLE BOY COMING IN WITH ABSOLUTE SKITZOPOSTING! I am done with Mythomagical musings from larpers hiding in the halls of academia! Geometry is the FATHER! Mathematics is the CHILD! Mathematics is just, Dynamical Abstract Geometry That's it! Some of it has Geometric Representation but most of it doesn't.... it lives in the "imaginary" world of i's and rouge infinities avoided by renormalization.... its all poppyseeds! Sure Arithmetic and Algebra are fine.... but most of the rest is just gobbledygook science-fiction written with numbers. I am a Westerner living in AUS so I don't have anything to gain from this.... but we stole it all from the Indians.... the Vedics.... who used Astronomy as inspiration. Fibonacci was the only honest mathematician who gave credit.... people like Newt the Scrut put his name on RISHI KANADA'S LAWS OF MOTION and took credit for Calculus as well (Doesn't matter because Calculus is FALSE MATH!) John Napier solved problems of computation and uncovered the secrets of logarithms.... the rest just turned solutions into problems to get out of manual labor and to keep the scam going. Here... I wrote this for Mythomagicians! Mythomatics (Mathematics) There once was a mythomatical sage, Who worked on a geometrical page. With values exact, Pompous he'd act, But his proofs were more of a cage. In numbers, he found a grand tale, A myth in each numerical scale. Yet in his rush, To the abstract bus, He'd trip, slip, dip and leave reality pale.
@BuckPowers
Ай бұрын
Gene Ray's been-there-done-that over 25 years ago with his 4 corner simultaneous 4-day TIME CUBE.
@NicholasWilliams-y3m
Ай бұрын
I'm pretty sure geometry is a product of local energy density transformation (local mathematical operations in parallel). This means mathematics is the father of geometry.
Пікірлер: 97