Do numbers exist?

[ack44]

What is your gut reaction to this philosophical question?

[Portrucci]

They don't exist in the tangible world. They are a human creation used to measure.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Yes. I'm going with Aristoteles' view:
Numbers exist as concepts. So we can't see them in the real world but they still exist because they exist in our minds.

[cthrubuoy]

inb4 joke about 73109

I'd say yes, they do exist. Although a human creation, numbers are used in the same sense that words are. To say that numbers does not exist would mean that words do not exist. And then headasplode.

[hefdaddy42]

What is the point of the question?

[ack44]

Okay, so far no disagreement.

How about the numerical system. So far nobody seems to be accepting numbers as fundamental. Following that logic, is there nothing fundamental about the numerical system? Another question is, fundamentally, is there no such thing as division? Because it would seem that any kind of division, or duality would necessitate numbers and the numerical system.

(By numerical system I mean the laws and patters that numbers follow, such as 1 + 1 = 2)

[cthrubuoy]

wat

[ack44]

avatar quote

[Seventh Son]

Okay, so far no disagreement.

How about the numerical system. So far nobody seems to be accepting numbers as fundamental. Following that logic, is there nothing fundamental about the numerical system? Another question is, fundamentally, is there no such thing as division? Because it would seem that any kind of division, or duality would necessitate numbers and the numerical system.

(By numerical system I mean the laws and patters that numbers follow, such as 1 + 1 = 2)

What? Of course there are fundamentals regarding numbers, otherwise how do explain advanced mathematical concepts like algebra and calculus?

[ack44]

Okay, so far no disagreement.

How about the numerical system. So far nobody seems to be accepting numbers as fundamental. Following that logic, is there nothing fundamental about the numerical system? Another question is, fundamentally, is there no such thing as division? Because it would seem that any kind of division, or duality would necessitate numbers and the numerical system.

(By numerical system I mean the laws and patters that numbers follow, such as 1 + 1 = 2)

What? Of course there are fundamentals regarding numbers, otherwise how do explain advanced mathematical concepts like algebra and calculus?

I didn't ask whether there are fundamentals regarding numbers or not. Let me put it another way. Does existence itself govern the numerical system or does the numerical system have an unmovable grip on existence?

[ehra]

Okay, so far no disagreement.

How about the numerical system. So far nobody seems to be accepting numbers as fundamental. Following that logic, is there nothing fundamental about the numerical system? Another question is, fundamentally, is there no such thing as division? Because it would seem that any kind of division, or duality would necessitate numbers and the numerical system.

(By numerical system I mean the laws and patters that numbers follow, such as 1 + 1 = 2)

Math is a way for us to understand how our concept of numbers work in the real world application. If you have a single thing then we understand that as one, if another single thing joins the previous thing then we understand the result as two. It's a shorthand we created for expressing patterns we've noticed in how the universe works.

[rumborak]

I'm not sure numbers exist actually. First of all, they are ideal approximations that are never met anywhere in the real world. That is, no matter what your definition of an apple is, you will never find a 1.0000... of an apple (except the one you might have used for definition itself).

rumborak

[cthrubuoy]

Going on size, one might agree. But just because an apple isn't a big, doesn't mean it is any less an apple. It is still 1 apple.

[rumborak]

Yeah, I guess you're right
Even so, the fact that numbers (the concept) is a human invention, makes them for me not-real.

rumborak

[ack44]

I'm not sure numbers exist actually. First of all, they are ideal approximations that are never met anywhere in the real world. That is, no matter what your definition of an apple is, you will never find a 1.0000... of an apple (except the one you might have used for definition itself).

rumborak

Can't agree with this. Numbers aren't ideal approximations, measurements are. Numbers in their practical use are useful approximations. In science, measurements are always incomplete, since we don't have a theory of physics that can make predictions with precise accuracy yet. But numbers are not always this way, especially in the science of the quantum world.

[ehra]

This might be the sort of question that's just begging to be made fun of, but if numbers and math exist then where are they?

[ack44]

This might be the sort of question that's just begging to be made fun of, but if numbers and math exist then where are they?

Plato's Heaven  

But my question is, what do you believe the fundamental makeup of the world to be? Is there a limit? What about the number of dimensions that exist? As soon as you think you've found the limit and you're stuck with numbers, this is a problem because if there are a limited number of fundamental objects/laws, then these objects/laws will be subject to the system of mathematics and they themselves will not be fundamental anymore.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

How is this political or religious?

[ack44]

Science and philosophy are common themes around here.

[icysk8r]

If a tree falls in a forrest with nothing around to hear it, does it make a sound?


Same question.

EDIT: Dunno what happened with those typos

[ack44]

If a tree falls in a forrest with nothing around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Same question.

Actually this is a perfect illustration of why the question is important. For your question, there are two ways of answering it. For one the answer is 'no' because there is nobody to hear it and interpret the vibrations in the air as sound. For the other it's 'yes' because sound is the air vibrations themselves and the vibrations exist independent of a hearer. But phenomena (or concepts) such as 'sound' can always be 'eliminated' if you look at what the players in that phenomena are composed of. The small details of the interactions of the atoms in air can't be understood as vibrations, but rather by electromagnetism. Electromagnetism can be further simplified to the electroweak force, then to the electronuclear force. All concepts, systems and phenomena all emerge from swarms and the laws governing these swarms. But what about numeric qualities? Sound can be eliminated along with everything else, except perhaps the concept of 'existence', but what about numerical qualities? Do these qualities ever melt away to something more fundamental?

[yorost]

Not really icysk8r, it is a question as to whether mathematics is a philosophy or a science.  Mathematics is a set of truths based on a small set of axioms.  Axioms are assumptions made that we assume to be true.  They have a large range of widely accepted ones such as the ability to represent nothing to some more contentious ones such as the ability to arbitrarily choose something from a collection.

We don't really prove the existence of numbers so much as start with a few basic assumptions and deduce all of our mathematical structure from that.  Occasionally we discover a new axiom might be needed, ie Axiom of Choice, but that's basically how math works.  If you accept the axioms as truth all of mathematics is true, if you contend any axiom you contend all mathematics that has been built using that axiom.

[7StringedBeast]

If a tree falls in a forrest with nothing around to hear it, does it make a sound?


Same question.

EDIT: Dunno what happened with those typos

By definition a sound would not be made.  Vibrations would be made and sound waves would be formed, but a "sound" as we know it by definition needs the conversion of the human brain from wave to what we hear.  So the answer is no.

[Seventh Son]

If a tree falls in a forrest with nothing around to hear it, does it make a sound?


Same question.

EDIT: Dunno what happened with those typos

By definition a sound would not be made.  Vibrations would be made and sound waves would be formed, but a "sound" as we know it by definition needs the conversion of the human brain from wave to what we hear.  So the answer is no.

The sound waves are still formed though. Human presence doesn't dictate if a sound is made or not.

[7StringedBeast]

If a tree falls in a forrest with nothing around to hear it, does it make a sound?


Same question.

EDIT: Dunno what happened with those typos

By definition a sound would not be made.  Vibrations would be made and sound waves would be formed, but a "sound" as we know it by definition needs the conversion of the human brain from wave to what we hear.  So the answer is no.

The sound waves are still formed though. Human presence doesn't dictate if a sound is made or not.

Yes the waves are formed, of course.  But they are not converted into a sound without the ear and a brain.  Otherwise its just vibration.  The two are different.

[Adami]

I think I'm with the beast on this one.

[7StringedBeast]

Also, numbers exist.  I do not believe things have to be tangible in order to exist.

[j]

If a tree falls in a forrest with nothing around to hear it, does it make a sound?


Same question.

EDIT: Dunno what happened with those typos

By definition a sound would not be made.  Vibrations would be made and sound waves would be formed, but a "sound" as we know it by definition needs the conversion of the human brain from wave to what we hear.  So the answer is no.

The sound waves are still formed though. Human presence doesn't dictate if a sound is made or not.

Yes the waves are formed, of course.  But they are not converted into a sound without the ear and a brain.  Otherwise its just vibration.  The two are different.

The vibrations aren't "converted" into anything.  They're just sensed.  They don't change into something else when our auditory organs perceive them.

-J

[7StringedBeast]

Yes they get converted into electrical impulses that our brain then reads.  Then we hear it in our heads.  The waves of air vibrations get converted.  Without the brain, there would be nothing audible.

[ehra]

Isn't that like saying a surface has no texture unless it's being touched?

[7StringedBeast]

No becasue the surface is always the surface.  When the wave goes through your ear, the ear drum vibrates, and that is converted into electrical signals.  So if that conversion does not take place, no sound is made.  The vibrations just vibrate shit.

PS im sorry for hijacking the thread 

[ehra]

But if you're not touching the surface of something then the nerve endings in your skin can't send the signals to your brain necessary to interpret its texture. What's the difference between that and vibrations sent out from a tree falling not being sound unless someone hears it?

[Adami]

But if you're not touching the surface of something then the nerve endings in your skin can't send the signals to your brain necessary to interpret its texture. What's the difference between that and vibrations sent out from a tree falling not being sound unless someone hears it?

Because a surface is a physical idea, not a reception of an idea. Sound is strictly a reception of a sound wave, just as color is reception of light waves. A chair exists if you're not sitting in it as well. Because the concept of a chair isn't dependent on us sitting on it.

[ehra]

The texture is how the surface feels, not the surface itself.

[Adami]

The texture is how the surface feels, not the surface itself.

No the texture is the physical contour of the surface. Ridges, smooth, whatever. Those are physical things.