TED Conversations

Louis Trouchet

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

Where did math originate from?

So we know that everything that is, is one. In some way or another everything in the whole universe is linked, it runs off the same codes that create music, gravity, speech, chemicals, light, frequencies, math etc. down to the structure of an atom to the structure of the whole universe it self. Our solar system is like clock work, all the planets rotate at certain speeds on their axis and around the sun in relation to how far they are from the sun and their mass (Conservation of angular momentum) we can find this also in tornados, cyclones, galaxies and the water the spirals down our drain.. These ratios are even the same found in music, the ratio and distances between notes of a MA7th chord is the same to that of that to the planets in our solar system. (Our solar system is humming at the sound of a major 7th chord), and the universe supposedly hums at the perfect pitch?
Our moods can change listening to music which is just vibrations in the air splitting the space around it to carry across the message it wish's to convey. These vibrational frequencies can be found in light and colour as well which can also shape our mood (green is calming, red is dangerous and fast), and across many factors which hold our universe together.
Anyway to the point, us humans have now figured out these codes and formulas and put meaning to them and understand them (to an extent), but where did they originate from? From where did they come from?
Did some higher being write them? Is it just a thing humans have made up to try and make sense of it all? Or have they just always existed?

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Feb 13 2013: IF self-aware potential energy existed as the singularity, and because of that, all are one and one-with, then the mathematical constructs are built in. I perceive them as geometric (without the math explaining the existence of sines and cosines).

    Quantum Mechanics is suggesting that this is probably the case, thus explanatory math is discovered, not invented.
    • thumb
      Feb 13 2013: nice analysis from a young girl like you
      • thumb
        Feb 14 2013: Thanks, but it's not me. As I am an aspect of the self-aware (eternal) singularity, I merely become one with it (that is the repository of all knowledge), present the question, receive the answer (all questions are answered), and interpret it, using words, to the best of "my" ability. The answer appears in a relative geometric construct that I "feel".

        As I am an eternal being, what is age? I am any age and every age, as I choose in any given moment.
        • thumb
          Feb 21 2013: are you saying we are the universe consciously looking back at its self, therefor the identity the soul has created ( our personality, which comes with the false sense of I being real) is just a way for it to interpret what has happened and put it into what we think to be a true explanation.
          "we are just holes on a flute which nature can blow creative wind though" in a corny way of putting it.
          but is there any reason for why we have this mental process now of creating this false sense of I being inherently existent.
        • Feb 25 2013: I think I know what you mean... in sports, things happen when I'm relaxed; I react instantly without knowing it, or I form complex plans that work out; then I'm troubled that I (my ego) can't claim the ownership of those accomplishments!

          "a relative geometric construct that I 'feel'" Oh now I am just jealous!
  • thumb
    Feb 12 2013: "So we know that everything that is, is one"

    that is the textbook case of deepity, as defined by daniel dennett.
  • Feb 25 2013: One of my favorite sources for such thought is Stan Tenen, heading the Meru Foundation.
    He seems very intellectually honest.
    In The Alphabet That Changed the World, he described the universe as based in a binary state. (I'd like to doubt that, as even he admits that his attempts to break the Torah code really took off when he lined-up the letters in a base-three system.) (The "good/bad, on/off" binary system seems too constricted, anyhow.)
    I like to point people to First Light on youtube as an intro. (I've known about his work for over a decade, and I know nothing else that can begin to compare to this!)
    • thumb
      Mar 2 2013: whats the link for first light steve?
      • Mar 3 2013: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp6Rmhza41U
        This one looks like it's ten minutes long. The one I saw was about thirty.

        Edit: I just watched this one. Apparently the original has been deleted. This one seems to be poorly edited; it's hard for me to think anyone could follow the logic. (The one I saw was pretty much unedited.)
        I encourage you to keep looking. (I will too.)
  • Feb 13 2013: They have always existed ... "forever" and "infinity" are real ... see my earlier post. A creator is superfluous.
  • thumb
    Feb 13 2013: i think that the higher being is the universe its self, which we and everything is apart of. it is only with our external viewpoints and our perception that we decide to look at things differently, and think that there could be a different and higher being out there..... but nothing actually inherently exists besides "nothing" itself. What we see as different is just a phenomenon that has arose due to different causes and effects that has shaped it to externally appear as we see it. when at the end of the day what ever arises out of nothing will return to nothing. And this nothingness is the basis on what everything exists in. For if we didn't have nothing then there would be nowhere for things to exist in. So everything must have a commonality, because it all came from the same source at the very beginning. It is all interrelated and came from nothing? so if we are all from the same source then their cant be a higher being, because we/everything is all the same?. If everything were different with no commonalities it would be remarkable because this would suggest that their actually would be complete differences on how things came to exist meaning their could be another source of energy, another higher being that has created us, and is from a different source of energy therefor is not us and has no commonalties with us? ahhh ok now im getting out of my depth, it would just be very confusing if everything were to be completely different.
  • thumb
    Feb 13 2013: It is interesting that you are most intrigued by how there are common patterns, while others are intrigued by how much differentiation has arisen. If everything were different with no commonalities, would that be more remarkable or less remarkable than what we see?
  • thumb
    Feb 12 2013: so everything that has happened since the beginning of the universe has just happened because it could, and that was the necessary path for it to go down due to the laws of physics. and it just the fact the we as humans can figure it out due to being conscious of this evolution and now have the intelligence to understand it?
    But is our understanding correct? ...Or is our math, numbers and equations just one way to describe what happens.
    If there was to be other intelligent life out there that was similar to our level of intelligence, would they have come up with the same numbers and equations for how the universe works? is it universal what we have figured out?
  • thumb
    Feb 12 2013: I think there is no evidence till date that any higher being is the originator of this all. This may sound terribly uninteresting but then the Universe hardly cares, I guess.
    From a purely philosophical point of view, however, the ONE that is all, all of physical and metaphysical whole seems to need a differentiation into many or else there is nothing to cognitively reflect on, including your question. For example time ceases to exist unless there is a second event to a first (may be it's unit is therefore called so).
    This differentiation is in my opinion, from where everything came and I have a feeling that there is absolutely no purpose at all behind this differentiation. It just happened.
    May be we are entitled to the how questions and not why questions.
  • Feb 12 2013: I think they arose from necessity. Because that is the only way they can be.
    (Maybe this answer seems simple, however it is not.)