Are Numbers Manmade?

[Skepdick]

How did a rose come to be associated with its name, I.e. the word “rose”?

Ostensively. Pointing.

This is a rose.

rose.png (180.97 KiB) Viewed 2334 times

“That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” ~ W.S.Shakespeare

How did we associate the words "smell" and "sweetness" ?

That's harder

[commonsense]

Yes, of course ostensively!

I think the same method is used to name anything. I suppose it would take a certain amount of prior vocabulary and present examples. I’m afraid I’m not well read in philosophy of language.

[Eodnhoj7]

Do we invent the symbol making process?

In so far as the invented/discovered distinction doesn't matter - yes we do.

Aristotle started it all. Law of identity. A is itself.

And he created A.

Actually history is skeptical whether aristotelian identity properties are subject to Aristotle's creation alone, they may have been a product of logical evolution.

Regardless, A is a variable. A variable can mean many different things, just as in real life a phenomenon has many different meanings. Are variables manmade or is variability, the phenomenon meaning multiple things, an inherent degree of "being"?

[Eodnhoj7]

Do we invent the symbol making process?

What rules are there, if any, to the process of assigning symbols to numbers (or assigning symbols to anything)?

The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature.

As to the formation of symbols the only rules I can see are:

1. One symbol inverts to another symbol and/or phenomenon.
2. The symbol repeats.
3. The symbol is a variable, ie means one and many things.

[Eodnhoj7]

How did a rose come to be associated with its name, I.e. the word “rose”?

Ostensively. Pointing.

This is a rose.

rose.png

“That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” ~ W.S.Shakespeare

How did we associate the words "smell" and "sweetness" ?

That's harder

Actually that is a picture of a rose, it is an image of an image (ie all phenomenon are images).

We associate the words by forming abstractions of the quality and point one abstraction to another.

The process of abstraction falls under isomorphism (one state inverting to another symmetrical state), recursion (repitition of the phenomenon) and variability (one thing meaning one and many things.).

I cannot seem to break down "being" past recursion, isomorphism and variables without using these same principles...unless someone is seeing something I am not.

[commonsense]

...all phenomena, please

[Sculptor]

There is no "one." Integers are an impossible concept to have in reality.
How many oranges are in the bowl?
As each orange is completely unique went you count them you are not counting the same thing. It is impossible for two oranges to be equal ,since they are comprised of a different amount of atoms, the atoms though similar are not in the same proportion. Even oranges grown together in the same branch are not the same. So if no two oranges are the same there cannot be 1+1 = 2 oranges.
This is pretty much true of all natural things. Next time you see an oak tree, I challenges you to find two leaves that are indistinguishable. Find a good enough scale and you shall find they do not weigh the same. I they do they are not exactly the same shape.

The problem with maths do not stop their. Is a circle bounded by a line, or is it a polygon of infinite side? How can we investigate this without PI? And what is PI but an irrational number incommensurable, yet how then do circles exist??

Bu wait, we seem to rely on many shapes such as polygons and circles, yet none of them can possibly exist. Two dimensional things can only be conceptual.

[Sculptor]

How did a rose come to be associated with its name, I.e. the word “rose”?

Ostensively. Pointing.

This is a rose.

rose.png

“That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” ~ W.S.Shakespeare

How did we associate the words "smell" and "sweetness" ?

That's harder

Actually that is a picture of a rose, it is an image of an image (ie all phenomenon are images).

We associate the words by forming abstractions of the quality and point one abstraction to another.

The process of abstraction falls under isomorphism (one state inverting to another symmetrical state), recursion (repitition of the phenomenon) and variability (one thing meaning one and many things.).

I cannot seem to break down "being" past recursion, isomorphism and variables without using these same principles...unless someone is seeing something I am not.

cesi ne pas une pipe

[Skepdick]

Regardless, A is a variable. A variable can mean many different things, just as in real life a phenomenon has many different meanings. Are variables manmade or is variability, the phenomenon meaning multiple things, an inherent degree of "being"?

The word "variable" is a variable.

It could mean many different things, but you mean something very particular and very precise when you use it.

If you didn't - you would be equivocating yourself.

[Eodnhoj7]

Regardless, A is a variable. A variable can mean many different things, just as in real life a phenomenon has many different meanings. Are variables manmade or is variability, the phenomenon meaning multiple things, an inherent degree of "being"?

The word "variable" is a variable.

I know, it is subject to it's own laws as well as isomorphism and recursion.

1. Variability
2. Recursion
3. Isomorphism

are all self referential principles.

It could mean many different things, but you mean something very particular and very precise when you use it.

If you didn't - you would be equivocating yourself.

Its meaning is derived by context thus contexts are variables as well.

C=(A+B)
C=(A1+B1)
C=(A2+B2)
...
C= (Ax-->Ay)+(Bx-->By)


Observes C is one context existing through many. All variables are one context inside another context.

[surreptitious57]

Now do we invent the symbol making process ?

Mathematics may have been discovered or invented but the symbols themselves are of human origin

The Greeks did not have irrationals or decimals so they had to be invented otherwise the square root of 2 would only be I
Negative and postive integers existed before 0 and so that had to be invented because it is the centre of the number line
The complex number line had to be invented because the square root of - I cannot be found on the standard number line

Therefore any new symbol / notation in mathematics will come into existence on the basis of necessity

So assuming that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe then they will - given enough time - have also discovered mathematics
Their symbols will be different to ours but the fundamental truth they describe - such as the value of pi for example - will be the same

And so mathematics is a truly universal language that can be understood by any minds not just human ones

[Skepdick]

Its meaning is derived by context thus contexts are variables as well.

C=(A+B)
C=(A1+B1)
C=(A2+B2)
...
C= (Ax-->Ay)+(Bx-->By)


Observes C is one context existing through many. All variables are one context inside another context.

Sure. These are called continuations in computer science.

The "highest context" of the program is called the control flow

The emphasis on explicit control flow distinguishes an imperative programming language from a declarative programming language.

It's the fundamental source of debates in all of philosophy. The failure to distinguish between the declarative and imperative moods.

Philosophers and logicians in general claim and purport to be using the declarative mood. They claim to be describing reality, but that's a lie told out of ignorance.

If you are USING language, you are USING it in the imperative mood, while pretending (intentionally or ignorantly) to be using the declarative mood.
When you say "this IS an apple", what you are really doing is saying "you OUGHT to be called an apple".

It's a command/instruction: you WILL call this an apple (because that's what everybody calls it).

And as soon as you realise that ALL language is imperative (e.g an OUGHT) then formal logic (and all of Philosophy really) ceases to matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_logic

Imperative logic is the field of logic concerned with arguments containing sentences in the imperative mood. In contrast to sentences in the declarative mood, imperatives are neither true nor false. This leads to a number of logical dilemmas, puzzles, and paradoxes. Unlike classical logic, there is almost no consensus on any aspect of imperative logic

ALL mathematical operators are imperative. +, -, *, /. They are commands. Instructions. They are man-made too.

Algebra is imperative programming. Algorithms.

[Eodnhoj7]

Its meaning is derived by context thus contexts are variables as well.

C=(A+B)
C=(A1+B1)
C=(A2+B2)
...
C= (Ax-->Ay)+(Bx-->By)


Observes C is one context existing through many. All variables are one context inside another context.

Sure. These are called continuations in computer science.

The "highest context" of the program is called the control flow

The emphasis on explicit control flow distinguishes an imperative programming language from a declarative programming language.

It's the fundamental source of debates in all of philosophy. The failure to distinguish between the declarative and imperative moods.

Philosophers and logicians in general claim and purport to be using the declarative mood. They claim to be describing reality, but that's a lie told out of ignorance.

If you are USING language, you are USING it in the imperative mood, while pretending (intentionally or ignorantly) to be using the declarative mood.
When you say "this IS an apple", what you are really doing is saying "you OUGHT to be called an apple".

It's a command/instruction: you WILL call this an apple (because that's what everybody calls it).

And as soon as you realise that ALL language is imperative (e.g an OUGHT) then formal logic (and all of Philosophy really) ceases to matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_logic


No, philosophy and language just readapt under a new formalism. The tautological nature of phenomena act as a new formal system where phenomena take on the form of strings and loops.

Imperative logic is the field of logic concerned with arguments containing sentences in the imperative mood. In contrast to sentences in the declarative mood, imperatives are neither true nor false. This leads to a number of logical dilemmas, puzzles, and paradoxes. Unlike classical logic, there is almost no consensus on any aspect of imperative logic

ALL mathematical operators are imperative. +, -, *, /. They are commands. Instructions. They are man-made too.

Are arithmetic functions man made if we reason through these same processes?

Algebra is imperative programming. Algorithms.

[Skepdick]

No, philosophy and language just readapt under a new formalism. The tautological nature of phenomena act as a new formal system where phenomena take on the form of strings and loops.

Is the new system descriptive or imperative?

Programming languages are imperative. There's no tautologies in imperative logic - there are just expressions.

Words and effects.

Are arithmetic functions man made if we reason through these same processes?

Are ANY functions man-made if we reason through the same process?

Pointless question. We think in terms of functions. And functions of functions. And functions of functions of functions.

Composability.

There is always a black box somewhere.

Blackbox3D-obs.png (23.26 KiB) Viewed 2251 times

[commonsense]

If you are USING language, you are USING it in the imperative mood, while pretending (intentionally or ignorantly) to be using the declarative mood.
When you say "this IS an apple", what you are really doing is saying "you OUGHT to be called an apple".

It's a command/instruction: you WILL call this an apple (because that's what everybody calls it).

What you are really saying is, “This is a thing that most everybody calls an apple. You may call it whatever you want. If you want most everybody to understand you, then in that case you must call it an apple.”