>math was invented by huma-ACK

Brainlets are very active today

>>16707897
>brainlets are very active toda-ACK

>>16707891 (OP)
Eureka moment

>>16707891 (OP)
Math was invented by humans to describe natural phenomena.
The snowflake isn't following a set of equations. The equations describe what a snowflake does.

>>16707978
Math is just various forms of counting...
>Calm the fuck down.

>>16707978
>The equations describe what a snowflake does.
It must do that for no reason then, I guess. What a coincidence that it agrees with mathematic formulae.

>>16708029
It's not a coincidence. You're just inverting cause and effect.

When an apple falls from a tree, it's not "following an equation." It's just falling from a tree. Humans studied the apple's behavior as it falls and created an equation that describes it.

>>16708043
Humans still haven't figured out why apple falls from a tree.

>>16708099
NTA but boy are you a fun case study of dunning kruger. for your next post start telling us how 2 minute noodles in the microwave somehow know they’re done in 2 minutes keep doing you OP

>>16708104
Because those noodles were done before they were dehydrated and packed into the sloppa cup you subhuman. Imagine actually buying that shit.

>>16708099
You're right, man. Must be the equations making the apple fall.

>>16708132
Most of those equations are wrong. Or coping so hard that variables change depending on where the tree is.

>>16708160
I'll spell this out to you in very simple terms:
Sure, we don't know "why" the apple falls. If you get to a fundamental enough level, we don't know "why" anything does anything. A child can ask a vapid series of "why" questions to any adult until that adult runs out of answers. This isn't the deep philosophical quandary you think it is.

The apple falls either way. And the rate that it falls increases at a constant rate. We humans can model this as a linear equation and then reframe that as a geometry question about the area of a right triangle to further abstracate the distance traveled as a quadratic.
However, there's nothing intrinsically linking the distance the apple falls to the area of a fucking triangle. It's a series of analogies humans invented so we can put on paper an abstract depiction of the observations we made as the apple fell.

>>16708170
>This isn't the deep philosophical quandary you think it is.
depends on who's asking and which meaning of "why" is intended.

>>16708170
>And the rate that it falls increases at a constant rate.
Except it's not constant, it literally differs. Different countries experience gravity differently. Engineers have to factor this in when building anything. Fuck off Dunning Kruger.

>>16708173
Context matters but "who's asking" does not.

>>16708174
I was talking about the rate of acceleration for a given apple as it falls, not every apple that ever falls. Hence the singular "it."
If you wanna bang on pedantry, the rate of acceleration isn't constant because air resistance exists but pointing out obvious exceptions to a rule as if they aren't obvious just betrays your ignorance of the topic.

>>16708176
>Dunning Kruger thinks wind affects gravity.

>>16708176
who's asking is part of the context

>>16708181
You either think you're trolling or you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old Indian.
In either case, this doesn't affect the core point of the discussion which is whether math is a human invention.
It is. And the mismatch between mathematical modeling and observed reality reflects this fact. Thanks for playing.

>>16708183
It's the same question regardless of whether Socrates or Einstein or a child with downs syndrome asks it. Not all bits of context are relevant.

>>16708187
>And the mismatch between mathematical modeling and observed reality reflects this fact.

...source? If it can get us to the moon, it seems to reflect reality quite accurately...

>>16708244
Force of gravity approaches infinity as distance from center of mass approaches zero.
Do you reckon there's a black hole at the center of my right nut?

>>16708253
In what way would this make reality not mathematical in nature?

>>16708257
Explained more in detail here:
>>16708170

We invent equations to model reality. They are a series of abstracations and analogies that allow us to represent what's happening on paper.

>>16708261
>We invent equations to model reality
What does reality run on and what is it constrained by?

>>16708330
>What does reality run on
Can't really say it "runs on" anything in particular. It just kinda exists. And stuff in reality does stuff to stuff.

>what is it constrained by?
This question is a bit more meaningful I suppose. "Self consistency" I suppose.
You could make a decent argument for a form of logical Platonism with this line of thinking and math is downstream of logic. But it does not follow that math itself exist independent from man-made abstraction.

>>16708335
I mean, I'm OP and am, in fact, arguing for Platonism without calling it Platonism.
"Math" is an abstraction of an underlying reality, yes. The point is that reality is not purely material.
Constraints on material imply forces (or rules, or laws, or forms, what have you) "above" or "beyond" the material. Or else "it just does that" and we can never define what "does" is.
The universe is mathematical insofar as math describes it. The universe is also "colorful" insofar as color "describes" it.

>>16708346
As I already said, you can only use this line of reasoning for logical Platonism. So logic would be the underlying "meta-reality" here. Reality does not fundamentally contradict itself.
A = A and A != !A.

Math is downstream from logic. It is a system we invented for ourselves to conveniently establish what must be true in a self-consistent universe.

I wouldn't even necessarily argue in favor of logical Platonism. But it is a much easier position to defend than mathematical Platonism.

>>16707978
>Math was invented by humans to describe natural phenomena.
>natural phenomena
More so, its invented to describe the limits of the natural human cognition.

Terry Pratchett was right again...

https://turtle360.net/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language)

It's turtles all the way down...

MIT = THE OVERHYPED RETARD BOX
(DEATH BY DEI)

Microsoft's workforce includes a significant percentage of employees from India or of Indian origin. Here are the key numbers:

Global Workforce (2023): Microsoft employs about 221,000 people worldwide, with 120,000 in the U.S. and 101,000 internationally.

Indian-Origin Employees in U.S.: Reports indicate about 34% of Microsoft's U.S. workforce (around 40,800 employees) are of Indian origin.

Microsoft India Employees: The company's India operations employ over 18,000 people as of 2025.

Total Estimate: Combining these figures gives approximately 58,800 employees either working in India or of Indian origin in U.S. offices. This represents roughly 26.6% of Microsoft's global workforce.

Additional Context:
- The 34% figure for Indian-origin employees in U.S. offices reflects broader tech industry trends
- Microsoft India has grown significantly, from 8,000 employees in 2020 to over 18,000 in 2025
- Data wasn't available for Indian-origin employees in Microsoft's other international locations

This means about one-quarter of Microsoft's total employees worldwide are either based in India or of Indian heritage working in the U.S. offices. The percentage could be higher if Indian-origin employees in other countries were included, but specific numbers aren't available.

>>16708364
>More so, its invented to describe the limits of the natural human cognition.
An interesting thought, its one I've been banging my head against for a bit while thinking about the underlying characteristics of our mathematical construction, namely, I've been thinking about the incompleteness of our understanding of mathematics. Deep within me, I feel there is a way to "complete" our system, but we as humans are fundamentally divorced from it. The truth lies within infinity, but as finite beings, such can never be foundationally understood by us.

>>16708429
Funny thing about that:
It appears to have been proven that no formal logic or mathematical system possibly can be "complete" and without contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

>>16708432
Yes, that is exactly what I've been pondering about, I just didn't want to outright say it I guess. There is a way to unlock ourselves from it, but its something that will forever be out of our reach just simply by our nature. At least, that is something I want to say with certainty is true. Yet, something from within me tells me there is a way through, a way to resolve the incompleteness, some consideration that would yield a proper methodology. Perhaps it is just a limitation of nature, that nature itself is incomplete, and since it is, we too are, thus can not rectify such a fundamental issue.

:(

>>16708459
?