undefined | Better HN

0 pointstimschmidt1y ago0 comments

> [sic]Cause there’s no such thing as three apples or three people.

I understand what you're saying. Occurrences like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species demonstrate that the idea of "species" isn't firm and that what truly matters is each individual and their unique circumstances. But this seems to me to be more a limitation of language and philosophy than a repudiation of math.

As you pointed out, it's all equivalent to drawing tally lines, counting pebbles, sliding counters on an abacus, or counting fingers and toes. Despite the fractal nature of coastlines and the constant exchange of matter and energy between adjacent parts of the universe, it is possible to agree upon useful delineations. And there is not any alternative maths which happens to describe practical observations in a way which does not reduce to the maths with which we are familiar.

0 comments

lazide1y ago

I’d argue that is because the maths we are familiar with are familiar exactly because they are useful, and repeatedly so.

But that is a philosophical oroboros.

timschmidtOP1y ago

They are useful repeatedly because they derive from fundamental properties of the observable universe. We can imagine other sorts of universes - one with hyperbolic geometry as opposed to flat, for instance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe ). Parts of geometry would work differently there, and laws of motion as well. But interestingly, many fundamental rules of math would still apply. Just with different outcomes which are less useful for predicting results here.

throwway1203851y ago

Kind of like trying to prove Euclid's Fifth Postulate, which we know now is truly a postulate and not an axiom.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse