Why do numbers exist?

[HexHammer]

3 apples is not per se maths, that is an abstraction not the pure math.

I think you're creating a distinction that doesn't exist. If Johnny has three apples and gives one to Alice, how many does he have left? Of course we agree that the question is really meaningless since one apple may be rotten and he might use the other apple to grow an apple orchard. But when mathematicians say "3 - 1 = 2" they believe that the equation can be filled in with any units at all. If you've driven one mile how much distance is left on a three mile trip? 1 = 3 - X is equivalent to 3m - 1m = 2m even though there may be no road or the bridge is out after one mile.

Math works because it is logical. It's not that reality conforms to math but that math conforms to reality. We mistake math for reality because reality affects experiment which is the basis of theory. It appears to us that reality conforms to math but it does not. There is never a one to one correspondance between math and reality but only between math and the models (paradigms) (constructs) we build to describe reality.

Must agree with cladking, Blagg can calculate great numbers, but basic thinking ..there he usually fails utterly.

[Blaggard]

3 apples in abstraction only humans and some great apes can grasp perhaps even the corividae or crow family has rudimentary understanding of the numerical abstractions, there are 3 apples we know this, but whether it is a fundamental of the universe, or law that 3 is discovered not invented is the point. It's not arbitrary it's a very obvious question our vague assertions on reality not withstanding. In the same way a thing can be a tree and an oak, but it can't be an elm and an oak. fundamentally then their is the concept of maths and application of it, which are distinct mathematical categories with some overlap.

"I have looked upon beauty bare."

Euclid on maths.

Define basic thinking and then explain how numbers are more than conceptual abstractions and perhaps I will agree, are there 3 apples, or is that arbitrary based on an axiom generally agreed to that things being real is demonstrable, as to numbers actually existing as more than a concept with out indeed the qualifier apples well there are after all perhaps 3 trillion apple cells, does 3 apples really have an intrinsic worth or is it an agreement that apples can share the property of being 3 and the actuality of being apples.

Maths is of course an approximation, everything is, but the devil is in the details.

I think maths is an invention it certainly isn't a law of reality or pre existing invertebrate/mammalian or indeed alien thought, although it could perhaps be used to model it.

an alien mathematical system might use only binary, might agree that there are no numbers and that everything is one great energy field, could be anything, but as to whether b11 subjunct EF11A is actually anything more than an agreement to set some conditions agreed to about reality which appear to be true is indeed perfectly arguable.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I'd say math is like this.

Math involves time. 2d Math is really 3d Math. Think about it.

3+1=4

When you do the calculation in your head, at Time A you have 3.
Then at Time B you add 1 to Time A. 3+1. And at a later time, you get the final result, which lasts forever, until you do another math.

Even a spontaneous universe, 3+1=4. If an apple suddenly became 2 apples, then it would still abide by math, it would still be 1+1=2.

Would math exist in an empty universe.

If there is nothing in the universe, but the shape of a circle, How then would their be a shape of circle? The shape would be a contrast from the nothingness around it. Therefore, there would be something in the universe. There would two things, nothingness, and the circle.

And if the circle was so large that it itself was thought to be the nothingness, then it would cease to be perceived as a circle. Just like how you zoom in on a tree, and the molecules cease to be a tree, so would a circle cease to be a circle if you zoomed in on it so far you could no longer see the bounds of the circle.

[Seizing]

Numbers for me are Metaphysical-singularities, because I'm a New-Ager that looks for angel~signs.

For instance, 28 means the word "Infinities-Ultimate" to me, as the Infinite goes Forever forwards and backwards, and 8 itself is a timeless-loop.
Another one I'm fond of is 1.9 to 1.6, like at the Extremities of victory, hell is overturned into a Mountaintop!

That may sound rather superstitious to some people, but it's what a look for, holes across space-time in which intervals can be reversing-clockworks.

Now let's go to the regular view of numbers; they're definitions of value, a way of stacking things from Emeralds to Lightning, whether we're measuring qualities or manifestations!

[Breath]

I'd say math is like this.

Math involves time. 2d Math is really 3d Math. Think about it.

I agree with you. Numbers are the products of acts, like counting and measuring. Acts are temporal, they occur in time, they require a past and a future.

Breath

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Numbers for me are Metaphysical-singularities, because I'm a New-Ager that looks for angel~signs.

For instance, 28 means the word "Infinities-Ultimate" to me, as the Infinite goes Forever forwards and backwards, and 8 itself is a timeless-loop.
Another one I'm fond of is 1.9 to 1.6, like at the Extremities of victory, hell is overturned into a Mountaintop!

That may sound rather superstitious to some people, but it's what a look for, holes across space-time in which intervals can be reversing-clockworks.

Now let's go to the regular view of numbers; they're definitions of value, a way of stacking things from Emeralds to Lightning, whether we're measuring qualities or manifestations!

The problem I have with New Age 48'ers is that their numerology is inconsistent, and not absolute. Sure it rings true in certain areas, in certain places, but not all the time. 4 is a strong number when it comes to computer collisions but elsewhere is it so strong? Taken too far it becomes an Illuminati Confirmed farce.

I prefer my 1's and 3's thankyou.

[Nibbana]

numbers are part of mathematical language. who created such language? of course, human beings did. so numbers exist because of human beings. but who created human beings? I've been thinking about it.

[qsa]

Well maybe this will help.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/categor ... =community

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2412

[Breath]

Well maybe this will help.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/categor ... =community

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2412

No, I am not going to look at these links. If you cannot make your point simply, that is the end of the discussion for me.

Bye.

[qsa]

I'd say math is like this.

Math involves time. 2d Math is really 3d Math. Think about it.

3+1=4

When you do the calculation in your head, at Time A you have 3.
Then at Time B you add 1 to Time A. 3+1. And at a later time, you get the final result, which lasts forever, until you do another math.

Even a spontaneous universe, 3+1=4. If an apple suddenly became 2 apples, then it would still abide by math, it would still be 1+1=2.

Would math exist in an empty universe.

If there is nothing in the universe, but the shape of a circle, How then would their be a shape of circle? The shape would be a contrast from the nothingness around it. Therefore, there would be something in the universe. There would two things, nothingness, and the circle.

And if the circle was so large that it itself was thought to be the nothingness, then it would cease to be perceived as a circle. Just like how you zoom in on a tree, and the molecules cease to be a tree, so would a circle cease to be a circle if you zoomed in on it so far you could no longer see the bounds of the circle.

Very good wise one, you seem to come close to my idea which is really a slight variation of the standard picture as in the second reference that I gave(BTW, the author is a famous mathematician).
My idea is based on Indistinguishable. For instance if there is something only then it cannot exist and it is meaningless because there is nothing to differentiate it. so for nothing to be meaningful so something else must exist like 1. Now the set 0,1 also is meaningless and so on. that is why numbers don't have an end.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philo ... aNumCouNot

Also, wise one, you came very close to the truth in your other thread

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14923


http://www.reality-theory.net/
http://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm

I hope you know JavaScript, you could confirm the results for yourself, provided you know some QM.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I'd say math is like this.

Math involves time. 2d Math is really 3d Math. Think about it.

3+1=4

When you do the calculation in your head, at Time A you have 3.
Then at Time B you add 1 to Time A. 3+1. And at a later time, you get the final result, which lasts forever, until you do another math.

Even a spontaneous universe, 3+1=4. If an apple suddenly became 2 apples, then it would still abide by math, it would still be 1+1=2.

Would math exist in an empty universe.

If there is nothing in the universe, but the shape of a circle, How then would their be a shape of circle? The shape would be a contrast from the nothingness around it. Therefore, there would be something in the universe. There would two things, nothingness, and the circle.

And if the circle was so large that it itself was thought to be the nothingness, then it would cease to be perceived as a circle. Just like how you zoom in on a tree, and the molecules cease to be a tree, so would a circle cease to be a circle if you zoomed in on it so far you could no longer see the bounds of the circle.

Very good wise one, you seem to come close to my idea which is really a slight variation of the standard picture as in the second reference that I gave(BTW, the author is a famous mathematician).
My idea is based on Indistinguishable. For instance if there is something only then it cannot exist and it is meaningless because there is nothing to differentiate it. so for nothing to be meaningful so something else must exist like 1. Now the set 0,1 also is meaningless and so on. that is why numbers don't have an end.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philo ... aNumCouNot

Also, wise one, you came very close to the truth in your other thread

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14923


http://www.reality-theory.net/
http://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm

I hope you know JavaScript, you could confirm the results for yourself, provided you know some QM.

checked out your website it was cool. naptime for me, ill check out the rest later. in the meantime make a page devoted to your spooky action at work, simulations details diagrams and such

[Lawrence Crocker]

The question whether numbers exist may be like the questions whether starfish are conscious and whether Confucianism is a religion. The problem lies more in “consciousness” and “a religion” than in starfish and Confucianism. In the same way we have a better understanding of the natural numbers than we do of existence, or at least an understanding that is less confused.

Of course there are respects or senses in which natural numbers exist. There is (there exists) exactly one even prime number. 2 does not, however, exist in the ways that shoelaces, or electrons, or symphonies, or sympathies exist.

Thinking about some questions may help us get clearer on the way that numbers exist, and the ways that the don’t: Do we expect that when we encounter space aliens, they will be using natural numbers? Does the successor of every natural number exist? Does the continuum hypothesis have a truth value? (If the latter question seems philosophically interesting to you, you might want to look at http://lawrencecrocker.blogspot.com/201 ... is-and.htm. It is not very technical. )