Lets say that a behavior, action, thought, or mindset is represented by an equation. The x in said equation corresponds to time. If you take the limit, as x approaches infinity you will find how this behavior will affect ultimately affect you. Now you can make x any number, 1, 2, 3.... Or maybe if you are trying to reduce the behavior take the limit as x approaches 0. Now this is abstraction in comparison to data, cold hard numbers. It's not like we can write an equation that represents a certain behavior, lets say, eating ice cream. But we can imagine it as one. You can decide what to make x, how many times you want to eat ice cream. If it is an everyday thing than maybe x does approach infinity. You can simplify or amplify one act, and it's overall effect. Maybe the act of waking up every morning is x, or 2x, or x/8, in these equations it shows that waking up every morning continuously will have a divergent effect, allowing infinite possibilities. But maybe another equation stands for giving up, loss of all hope, 1/x, 8x/x, or another convergent equation. Where your life goes to a finite halt, maybe 0, or 8, but there is no longer life left, no changes or possibilities. Having a positive attitude and a nice equation will give you the most joy from your time on earth.

I don't deny a possibility as the definition of math is not the study of numbers, but the study of patterns. Numbers are just one tool in math.

Still, I don't personally see how current math can really apply to philosophy. Maybe someone can find a way of analyzing philosophical patterns somehow, quantitatively or not.

I think the math taught in college is a terrific tool for modelling physical phenomenon. As far as biology, not so much. I've heard from a few biologists that a prediction within an order of magnitude is considered pretty good.

A biologist told me an great line. "With the proper substrate, nutrition, humidity, temperature and all other environmental considerations held constant. Referencing past performance, the organism will do... what it damn well pleases!"

A part of me is glad that you can't really mathematically model , "Damn well pleases."

May I recommend: Tao of Chaos: Merging East and West by Katya Walker

http://www.amazon.com/Ta...-East-West/dp/1852308060

Just purchased a used copy. Only 6.50 with shipping. Seems interesting thanks!

Wow this book is amazing.

for the uninitiated: http://www.academia.edu/...ematics_and_Model_Theory

Slavoj Zizek has said Badiou is a "Hegel among us" .. imo if you're interested in this idea he's the person to look to.

I'd like to add that the concept of self, ergo the ego, identity; is like math, a tool, a means and an artifice, a non thing that we invest with attention and thus perceive as real when it is illusory.

My understanding of math is that it is a language. Like a language, it can be very good at describing certain things, while other things it lack in (at least, at the current level of the language).

So, just like when you come back from an intense DMT trip and you have no words to describe it, so too does math lack the words to describe some things. But with other things, it is an unbelievably powerful tool.

Ever since taking my college math classes, my thinking has been shifted to view many things in terms of math. I can't always put an equation to things, but I can often abstractly model certain things almost automatically. It's very cool, and has definitely opened my mind.

Object Alpha moves from point A to point B instantly, this distance is a single meter...

What is the velocity (V1) of the object in terms of measurement?

Object alpha then moves from point B to point A instantly, however B has itself moved and the distance between the two is now 1000 meters...

What is the velocity(V2) of the object?

What is the difference between V1 and V2?

Consider that in the same instant (measurement of time) V2 covers 1000X more distance than V1.

Is V2 1000 times faster than V1?

Usually when Zizek says something, I run in the opposite direction.

Analytic philosophy has made better use of mathematics, in my opinion. The Continental thinkers, like Deleuze or Badiou, employ it more figuratively than literally.

If you're exploring set theory, for instance, Quine, Putnam, or Kripke all seem more suitable candidates for further investigation than Badiou.

P.S. I recently posted a link to the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, which houses extraordinary lectures on iTunes that apply mathematics directly to philosophical questions.

If X is the number of grams of marijuana I smoke in a given day, Y is the amount of free time I have in the same day in 5-minute units, and Z is a value of my laziness, say one unit equalling one 5-minute interval in which I want to do nothing more than lay down in my bed with a blankey over my face, probably moaning pathetically then:

XY^2 / Z = C,

with C being the number of pints of Ben and Jerry's I will attempt to consume.

This is what I call the Happiness Equation, which is utilized as a means of transforming happy energy into abject bodily depression.

I disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeyBqxY3MsQ

That is a portion of a roundtable discussion among some of the most world-famous naturalists (e.g., Daniel Dennett). Whenever the nature of mathematics is mentioned, it is acknowledged as stubbornly inexplicable.

Ultimately, the nature of mathematics is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with naturalism (i.e., dismissing incontestable, incorporeal mathematical truths as "illusory" requires more than hand-waving).

V=D/t

D1=1m, D2= -1000m (from b to a)

V1= lim(t->0) D1/t

V2= lim(t->0) D2/t

V2/V1= lim(t->0) (D2/t) / (D1/t)
= lim(t->0) D2/D1
=D2/D1
=-1000m/1m
=-1000

Short answer: yes

There are different sizes of infinities! Thanks for the fun question!