Could a 2D creature understand natural numbers? (Split)

[nobox]

If we were 2-dimensional creatures, can we understand natural numbers? Is our math going to be different from 3-d world? Welcome all sorts of answers. Me first: Yes we will have natural numbers in 2-D world. But probably will not develop multiplication or division.

It is interesting to think what happens if we were 1-dimensional beings as far as math is concerned.

[Bignose]

 

If we were 2-dimensional creatures, can we understand natural numbers? Is our math going to be different from 3-d world? Welcome all sorts of answers. Me first: Yes we will have natural numbers in 2-D world. But probably will not develop multiplication or division.

Ummm, we've developed mathematics applicable to all sorts of dimensions. Above and beyond just "our" 3-D. I think that your idea above is refuted by what has actually happened.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Bignose

[nobox]

now, this creature lives on the 2-D surfaces of a box in 3-D world, and there is an inside and outside of it, and the creature can mysteriously travel in between the inside and outside. Do you think his math will be different? Absolutely!

It proves my point that math is human specific and physical world specific. Please refute.

[Strange]

Please refute.

 

He just did.

[nobox]

OK. To count 2+2, sometime he got 4, sometimes he got 0 or 1 or 3, depending on where he is at. So there is a probability for 2+2 and that is correlated to his position relative to the center of the rectangle of one side. So he has a theory and it works all the time. LOOOL

Again, I solemnly reject the oneness of any theory. Every science is relatively and temporarily useful or correct. Most of the 'time' it is NOT. 'Time' starts from infinity to infinity.

The split is just a way to lock this thread and stop exploring. I know it. ;=P

Again, it is day and light to me that math is just a tool and can be very different in different places or times. They can be contradicting each other.

[swansont]

 

The split is just a way to lock this thread and stop exploring. I know it. ;=P

 

!

Moderator Note

 

If I wanted to lock this, I would have. This was split because you hijacked a discussion in order to bring it up, rather than go through the oh-so onerous process of starting a new thread.

 

Please focus on the discussion, and provide support for your claims.

 

[Bignose]

Please refute.

How many dimensions do you want? We, as 3-D creatures, have invented the notion of infinite dimensional spaces: see https://people.math.osu.edu/gerlach.1/math/BVtypset/node4.html as just one of many examples. So, the question is, how many dimensions do you want?

Edited March 6, 2015 by Bignose

[nobox]

People like order and find 'beauty' in orders. People like elegant formulas and think there is something sacred about it. NO!!

Preference of orderliness is a product of animal instinct. It helps animals avoid danger and spot food more easily. As animals we of course would rather spend less time and energy to detect. So I argue that there is nothing sacred about orderliness, it is a human perception and thus holds no place in the universe.

Total complexity or chaos may be the truth of the world. We prefer order since our brain can handle simplicity and has a built in animal instinct to do so!

The world may be completely incomprehensible, yet our brain tends to find patterns and orderliness - a distinct mammal's idiosyncrasy.

This is the most profound findings of the year. for me at least.

Edited March 6, 2015 by nobox

[Bignose]

People like order and found 'beauty' in orders. People likes elegant formulas and think there is something sacred about it. NO!!

Preference of orderliness is a product of animal instinct. It helps animals avoid danger and spot food more easily. As animals we of course would rather spend less time and energy to detect. So I argue that there is nothing sacred about orderliness, it is a human perception and thus holds no place in the universe.

Total complexity or chaos may be the truth of the world. We prefer order since our brain can handle simplicity and has a built in animal instinct to do so!

The world may be completely incomprehensible, yet our brain tends to find patterns and orderliness - a distinct mammal's idiosyncrasy.

 

This is the most profound findings of the year. for me at least.

what does orderliness have to do with perception of 2-D, 3-D, or any-D? have you really gone off topic in your own off topic? going for the record?

 

if you are looking for a place to just post random musings, there are plenty of webpages that will give you your own blog...

[nobox]

In another word, we are fooling ourselves with invented patterns. Of course if you look you can find patters in complete randomness, if you look hard enough. I am not saying it is the case, but at least we know there is another explanation why the world around us 'looks' explainable.

Math is all about orderliness and logic. I am going to attack that soon.

what does orderliness have to do with perception of 2-D, 3-D, or any-D? have you really gone off topic in your own off topic? going for the record?

if you are looking for a place to just post random musings, there are plenty of webpages that will give you your own blog...

If you don't like and cannot contribute, please stay away from the thread I started.

Edited March 6, 2015 by nobox

[Bignose]

In another word, we are fooling ourselves with invented patterns. Of course if you look you can find patters in complete randomness, if you look hard enough. I am saying it is the case, but at least we know there is another explanation why the world around us 'looks' explainable.

 

Math is all about orderliness and logic. I am going to attack that soon.

yes! ability to use same comment in same thread:

 

what does randomness have to do with perception of 2-D, 3-D, or any-D? have you really gone off topic in your own off topic? and, i think you are going for the record for most off topic posts in one go, aren't ya?

[nobox]

I found hardly anything useful to me in this forum, most people just like to criticize/complain and call it 'rigor'. Nothing, absolutely nothing useful can be found.

Edited March 6, 2015 by nobox

[Bignose]

I found hardly anything useful to me in this forum, most people just like to criticize/complain and call it 'rigor'. Nothing, absolutely nothing useful can be found.

 

soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, just to be a total smart alec, just what is forcing you to be here, then?

[nobox]

I want to educate.

And it is hard. Anyway, math is the type of thing called human's high intellect. I just believe it is a futile effort to extract meaning from the universe. One can construct any math as one wishes and work pretty well with the world. Everything can be explained with math/physics that can be invented 4 times in a day, all completely different from each other.

[Bignose]

I want to educate.

Then you need to do so. I think you'll find people here are willing to listen.

 

But, if you want more than just a cursory glance, you need to provide supporting evidence.

 

I can write "I have an invisible dinosaur in my basement." and you can read that as well as anyone else. But do you believe it? Wouldn't you ask for more supporting evidence? You're not just going to take me at my word, are you?

 

Well, it is the same thing with your attempts to "educate". You can write things, and we will read them. But, we're going to point out where your ideas are in conflict with known results. You don't get the just wave those away. You have to show us how your idea works with them. If you keep insisting that you know better, we're going to turn away and ignore you, just like you would me if I stood on the corner yelling about my invisible dinosaur.

 

So, want to start over? Want to try to actually explain why you think math would be different in a 1-D or 2-D world? Want to try to explain how the mathematics of many dimensions we've invented would be different? Or are you just going to keep writing haphazard musings as they come to you?

 

The main thing science is interested in is supporting evidence. In science, not all ideas are equal. It is very much a meritocracy. And merit is earned by supporting evidence, mostly in the form of predictions that agree with measurement.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Bignose

[nobox]

Maybe that is a bit extreme. But let me say, if I invent 2+2 is 3, it is fine in some world. We choose not to believe. 2-D world is not our world, but certainly is a possible world. It can be real in computer. SO I can create this civilization in computer with 2+2 is 3, and it will work well in that world. That world is not different from our own 'real world', except we have our animal centric view - anything not edible has little significance.

[Bignose]

But let me say, if I invent 2+2 is 3, it is fine in some world.

Not really. Apart from a trivial redefinition of "3" and "4", if we allow this into mathematics, then basically you let any two numbers sum to any other two. Math loses its predictive ability, and thusly its usefulness.

 

But, again, I'll listen. Explain to me a "world" where 2 + 2 = 3 and not just a trivial redefinition would "work well". Just saying "civilization in a computer" isn't good enough. You need to dive deeper and show us. Show me all the implications of it, and show me how it would be fine. Otherwise, it isn't science, it is just story telling.

[nobox]

I accomplished one thing:

Proved that the preference of orderliness, pattern and elegance is just rooted in animal instinct.

People believe elegance is the trait of the ultimate world, and orderliness is what is in store for us.

It is very likely that the animal instinct leads to falsely assume there is order, or pattern in the universe and elegant theory to explain the world.

Consider my earlier attack on natural numbers from another angle, I have to say I am right on.

[Bignose]

I accomplished one thing:

Proved that the preference of orderliness, pattern and elegance is just rooted in animal instinct.

People believe elegance is the trait of the ultimate world, and orderliness is what is in store for us.

It is very likely that the animal instinct leads to falsely assume there is order, or pattern in the universe and elegant theory to explain the world.

Consider my earlier attack on natural numbers from another angle, I have to say I am right on.

1) Earlier you told us to remove the word "prove" from our vocabularies.

 

2) and you're back to just stating things instead of supporting them. This is soapboxing. This isn't science. I'm pretty much done here, because you refuse to discuss science.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Bignose

[nobox]

Yes, Einsterin's thought experiment has no value because he did not prove anything. He was in fact speculating.

This web site is so amateurish! Bye bye!!!

[Bignose]

Yes, Einsterin's thought experiment has no value because he did not prove anything. He was in fact speculating.

ummm, yeah. he made these things, they are called predictions. And like, they were very close to what was actually, you know, measured. Where exactly is this from you? I asked for them several times. Invoking Einstein's good name here is dishonest and disingenuous at best.

[Mordred]

He also excelled at mathematics, it was his mathematics that was listened to not his verbatim. In order for any model to make predictions, it requires mathematics.

[ajb]

I would imagine that beings in one dimension may have found it difficult to develop higher dimensional geometry. I say this because the core of most important mathematical ideas lies in physics. Without some natural notion of a two dimensional space at least, then they would not have had the motivation or any feeling for higher dimensions. Two dimensional beings would be okay in this respect, they know it takes two numbers to describe any point on the map of their world.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Can we stick to the topic please and avoid soapboxing!

I see no reason that the twoD being stuck to the plain cannot reason her way past (assuming a reasoning 2d being obviously) the first and second dimension. They can observe a single point and then a line array of points and then a grid of points (would be like us in a columned room - why can they then not make the same logical leap we have to a unseen third dimension?

[Endy0816]

I keep thinking of Flatland here.