Are Numbers Manmade?

[RCSaunders]

We don't know if numbers are man made considering they are tied to forms; All numbers are loops of 1 self referencing, they loop between the subject and object when counting, and all forms have a shape that loops when tracing beginning and end points. It's all loops.

That sure sounds loopy to me.

Of course numbers are the invention of human beings and do not exist outside human consciousness.

[Eodnhoj7]

We don't know if numbers are man made considering they are tied to forms; All numbers are loops of 1 self referencing, they loop between the subject and object when counting, and all forms have a shape that loops when tracing beginning and end points. It's all loops.

That sure sounds loopy to me.

Of course numbers are the invention of human beings and do not exist outside human consciousness.

Are forms an invention of human beings if our reasoning follows linear and circular forms?

[RCSaunders]

We don't know if numbers are man made considering they are tied to forms; All numbers are loops of 1 self referencing, they loop between the subject and object when counting, and all forms have a shape that loops when tracing beginning and end points. It's all loops.

That sure sounds loopy to me.

Of course numbers are the invention of human beings and do not exist outside human consciousness.

Are forms an invention of human beings if our reasoning follows linear and circular forms?

Since reasoning (thinking) is only a process of consciousness, (only exists in the human mind), and has no physical existence, it has no physical properties, like shape (linear or circular forms), size, weight, color, or any other.

Does that answer your question?

[Eodnhoj7]

That sure sounds loopy to me.

Of course numbers are the invention of human beings and do not exist outside human consciousness.

Are forms an invention of human beings if our reasoning follows linear and circular forms?

Since reasoning (thinking) is only a process of consciousness, (only exists in the human mind), and has no physical existence, it has no physical properties, like shape (linear or circular forms), size, weight, color, or any other.

Does that answer your question?

If thinking has no form, then how can reasoning be considered linear or circular?

[Skepdick]

If thinking has no form, then how can reasoning be considered linear or circular?

Because a recursive function can be transformed into a linear one and vice versa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_unrolling

Thinking may or may not have form. The description of thinking has form - language.

[RCSaunders]

If thinking has no form, then how can reasoning be considered linear or circular?

That description is metaphorical, not literal.

[Eodnhoj7]

If thinking has no form, then how can reasoning be considered linear or circular?

That description is metaphorical, not literal.

Yet the nature of reasoning can be compared to shapes?

[RCSaunders]

If thinking has no form, then how can reasoning be considered linear or circular?

That description is metaphorical, not literal.

Yet the nature of reasoning can be compared to shapes?

That's what a metaphor is. It is a way of illustrating something by comparing it to something totally different, not a description of what it actually is. Reason no more has a shape because it can be called circular than "a really hot issue," has a temperature or, "a thorny problem," has thorns.

[Eodnhoj7]

That description is metaphorical, not literal.

Yet the nature of reasoning can be compared to shapes?

That's what a metaphor is. It is a way of illustrating something by comparing it to something totally different, not a description of what it actually is. Reason no more has a shape because it can be called circular than "a really hot issue," has a temperature or, "a thorny problem," has thorns.

If something can be compared to something, don't both "things" have a third "thing" in common?

[surreptitious57]

A more profound question other than are numbers man made [ yes they are ] is was mathematics discovered or invented
One that sadly does not have a definitive answer to it although then again neither does any other philosophical question

[jayjacobus]

The question is similar to asking if words are manmade. Of course words are manmade and so are numbers.

Numbers were created to represent amounts. As such, numbers are a frame of reference for amounts.

Without numbers, referring to amounts would be vague. Without numbers, someone might "many, few, massive, some, a lot, etc." but each term is not specific. Numbers give people the ability to be specific.

Saying I have many chickens and some cattle is not specific but saying I have 32 chickens and 4 steers is specific. Not only that I can specify the weight and value of each animal and the total value as well.

[Skepdick]

A more profound question other than are numbers man made [ yes they are ] is was mathematics discovered or invented
One that sadly does not have a definitive answer to it although then again neither does any other philosophical question

You will be disappointed to find out that the distinction is semantic, rather than something profound.

Whether Mathematics is invented or discovered - it comes from the depths of the human mind.

So the "distinction" between invented or discovered is whether Mathematical ideas were always there - waiting to be found by anybody willing to explore the depths of their mind; or whether we genuinely synthesise mathematics out of thin air.

If you are in the "discovered" camp, then anybody who didn't come up with new mathematics "didn't look deep enough."
If you are in the "invented" camp, then anybody who didn't come up with new mathematics "wasn't smart enough".

If you are a dualist, you could trivially see mind and reality as separate, so anything the mind does is invention (because the mind isn't reality).
If you are a monist, you could trivially see mind as part of the universe and if the universe has any structure then the structure of the mind will be "the same" as the structure of the universe, and in observing your mind you are actually observing your own, private corner of the universe.

And then you can say something cheesy like "Mathematics is the language of the Universe!", or "The Universe is a computer" because minds are primarily concerned with language. Symbol manipulation/Computation.

[surreptitious57]

If you are a dualist you could trivially see mind and reality as separate so anything the mind does is invention

From a Gods Eye perspective everything is non dual with no artificial distinction between minds and reality
That is because minds are within reality and therefore a part of it just like everything else within reality is
So dualism is therefore false and philosophically invalid for it cannot be supported logically or empirically

Also non dualism makes zero distinction with regard to anything within it as it is simply the eternal now
Human beings like to compartmentalise and put things into boxes but reality does not operate like this
It is a continuation of the state of now with no beginning or end because that is simply how reality is

[Skepdick]

From a Gods Eye perspective everything is non dual with no artificial distinction between minds and reality.
That is because minds are within reality and therefore a part of it just like everything else within reality is
So dualism is therefore false and philosophically invalid for it cannot be supported logically or empirically

In which case you should have no real objections to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

Ignoring the finer details/distinctions between "universe IS mathematics" vs "universe is DESCRIBED by mathematics" (which is a dualism between representation and ontology).

And so if all distinctions are artificial, then so is the invented/discovered distinction.

Philosophy (drawing distinctions) forces dualism.

[surreptitious57]

In which case you should have no real objections to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

Any attempt to explain reality will be flawed because absolute knowledge is not possible
For it simply exists and is not there to be understood even if human beings try to do so
And when we become extinct then reality will carry on existing just like it always has