TED Conversations

Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is our math wrong? Is it our assumption of zero, or absolute nothingness?

There are know phenomena out there such as the gamma ray burst that total destroys(use loosely your ego wants to argue this syntax error not the mind) our current math and physics(e=mc2). But instead of saying well maybe we got a key part of our math wrong we make it so the phenomena matches our math. This is my personal take on what I think might be wrong. I think it has to do with our assumption of zero. Seeing how you can never have absolute nothingness as a base or starting point. Conceptually the idea of zero is great. I want an apple. But i am in a complete void of apples. I don't have a single one. Not even applesauce! I have ZERO apples. But I do not need to know that you have zero apples to know when you have 1 apple. On the other had I do need to know that you have 1 apple to understand that now you have 2 apple. I could be wrong. It just something that bothers me.

Also I am not a math person it has always been something I struggled with in school those pesky numbers. However in College I excelled at Logic, but that has been some time ago.

I am not say this is the answer I just say that I think there is something fundamentally wrong with our math

+5
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Wade Crum

    • 0
    Oct 6 2012: Math is simply a point of relativiity to standardize units of measure. It is most helpful when we use it to quantify things we know and understand. It is harmful when try to use it to quantify things we don't understand. I think current mathmatics is weak, in that only useful in linear equations. Once we discover how to understand multidimensional behavior we will then begin to understand how are current system is very limiting.

    The Nothingness is a semantic problem only. 0 in math is actually a midpoint or center point based on a moment of reference. When something moves from that point of reference it only has value based on the current point of reference. I would not say it is flawed, but I would contend that it is limited in it's usefulness for discovery of new phenomenons. I would further suggest that it restricts scientific advancement to rely solely on mathmatical data.

    • Mark Meijer 100+

      • 0
      HostAssociate
      Oct 6 2012: Indeed. And what if what we call "understanding" is actually nothing other than that "point of relativiity to standardize units of measure" itself. Which is to say, it is not really an understanding OF something, but rather, understanding is what (seemingly and convincingly) creates the thing understood.

      In other words, there is no thing outside of the understanding, the thing and the understanding of it arise in a mutual entailment. Although we nonetheless think of the thing as existing prior to our understanding, but then that's still a product of what we think. So in short, what if that's not true...

      What if that's why we can't actually find any object of understanding when we really look for it... What if that's why we can increase our understanding of things endlessly and yet never get any closer to the mystery...

      Things that make ya go hmmmmm :P

      • Jon Ho

        • 0
        Oct 6 2012: YES! YES! YES!

        Finally! Mark, Wade, and Casey... Thou art Gods! ;)

      • Jon Ho

        • +1
        Oct 8 2012: All my knowledge has been passed onto me by rote, but not you guys. You guys learned it through self discovery. I am but an egg compared to you Gods! ;)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.