4 ms·

> To you point about quantity. There are grains of sand. Does that mean that there are also numbers? I obviously argue no. You have to take some of the grains a

> To you point about quantity. There are grains of sand. Does that mean that there are also numbers? I obviously argue no. You have to take some of the grains and set them aside to count them. You have to split your pile into two and recombine the two piles to add them. You have to line the grains up in order to number them. numbers exist without sand, sand needs numbers to exist you can count apples instead of sand yet physical phenomena, such as the formation of sand or apples, depends on quantity chemistry shows that how many particles in what structure determine how it interacts physically with its environment a hadron with three quarks is a baryon, a hadron with a different number is fundamentally different

ThomPete 10y ago
Numbers need a reduction of reality to exist. There is an infinite number between 0.1 and 0.00000000000000000000000001 The only reason we can grable with these things in mathematics is because we are conscious minds who create symbolic meaning. There aren't any numbers "out there". "Out there" there are no perspectives only everything at once.
- justifier 10y ago
  but my argument is that mathematics is the infinite values 'between 0.1 and 0.00000000000000000000000001' stead some symbolic subset i am using to describe some physical phenomena ..edit.. I'm unable to reply again so I'll clarify what I mean here: for me physics is behavior, mathematics is existence
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    the infinite values between 0.1 and 0.00000000000000000000000000001 is infinite and thus nothing. It's in reality a gradient with no distinct steps. Only when you reduce reality (like humans do) and you start manipulating with symbols do you get mathematics. This manipulation with symbols (and it's foundation of a quantifiable universe on top of a quantum universe) is the foundation of math, not the other way around. Math is simply a way this underlying reality gets expressed, it is not what the reality is.
danbruc 10y ago
numbers exist without sand, sand needs numbers to exist Why would sand need numbers to exist? I can pile up sand without ever knowing how many grains of sand are in the piles. I can not see how combining several things requires numbers, it only requires several things, i.e. you have to define what the different things are, where the boundaries between them are. you can count apples instead of sand Obviously, that was just an example. You need several objects. yet physical phenomena, such as the formation of sand or apples, depends on quantity It does only insofar as you need several distinct objects, it does not depend on numbers. Also note that you have to arbitrarily decide to count apples or grains of sand. Why apples or grains, why not atoms or quarks? There is a bunch of stuff and you have to divide into several distinct objects before you can even start to count them. The fact that you decide to divide all the quarks and electrons into things you call apples is an arbitrary decision and imposes a structure on top of the things that are there by itself. Only with this imposed structure and your [imagined] action of dividing and combining subsets of the things does something like counting, and numbers and addition emerge. a hadron with three quarks is a baryon, a hadron with a different number is fundamentally different Arbitrary definition. There are quarks, calling collections of them baryons or mesons or tetraquarks is an arbitrary definition made by humans, albeit a useful one.
- justifier 10y ago
  > Why would sand need numbers to exist? I can pile up sand without ever knowing how many grains of sand are in the piles. But those grains of sand you are piling already exist ;P In a universe where quarks only collect in groups of four sand would fail to exist it needs baryons.. or whatever name you want to ascribe, yes it is scientifically known and recognised that naming conventions are arbitrary and often localised but naming stems from consistent behaviour In a universe without baryons to claim sand exists would be making up a new substance that uses 3 quarked particles Or if you add a fourth quark to one proton in a grain of sand it would cease to be sand So the number of quarks that collect and how they structure determines the existence of sand Similar to how a beach is formed based on the number of grains of sand anyway the root of the issue is confounding to me.. how often has physics been disproven and replaced by implementing mathematics? for me physics is behavior, mathematics is existence

ThomPete 10y ago

Numbers need a reduction of reality to exist. There is an infinite number between 0.1 and 0.00000000000000000000000001 The only reason we can grable with these things in mathematics is because we are conscious minds who create symbolic meaning. There aren't any numbers "out there". "Out there" there are no perspectives only everything at once.

justifier 10y ago
but my argument is that mathematics is the infinite values 'between 0.1 and 0.00000000000000000000000001' stead some symbolic subset i am using to describe some physical phenomena ..edit.. I'm unable to reply again so I'll clarify what I mean here: for me physics is behavior, mathematics is existence
- ThomPete 10y ago
  the infinite values between 0.1 and 0.00000000000000000000000000001 is infinite and thus nothing. It's in reality a gradient with no distinct steps. Only when you reduce reality (like humans do) and you start manipulating with symbols do you get mathematics. This manipulation with symbols (and it's foundation of a quantifiable universe on top of a quantum universe) is the foundation of math, not the other way around. Math is simply a way this underlying reality gets expressed, it is not what the reality is.

danbruc 10y ago

numbers exist without sand, sand needs numbers to exist Why would sand need numbers to exist? I can pile up sand without ever knowing how many grains of sand are in the piles. I can not see how combining several things requires numbers, it only requires several things, i.e. you have to define what the different things are, where the boundaries between them are. you can count apples instead of sand Obviously, that was just an example. You need several objects. yet physical phenomena, such as the formation of sand or apples, depends on quantity It does only insofar as you need several distinct objects, it does not depend on numbers. Also note that you have to arbitrarily decide to count apples or grains of sand. Why apples or grains, why not atoms or quarks? There is a bunch of stuff and you have to divide into several distinct objects before you can even start to count them. The fact that you decide to divide all the quarks and electrons into things you call apples is an arbitrary decision and imposes a structure on top of the things that are there by itself. Only with this imposed structure and your [imagined] action of dividing and combining subsets of the things does something like counting, and numbers and addition emerge. a hadron with three quarks is a baryon, a hadron with a different number is fundamentally different Arbitrary definition. There are quarks, calling collections of them baryons or mesons or tetraquarks is an arbitrary definition made by humans, albeit a useful one.

justifier 10y ago
> Why would sand need numbers to exist? I can pile up sand without ever knowing how many grains of sand are in the piles. But those grains of sand you are piling already exist ;P In a universe where quarks only collect in groups of four sand would fail to exist it needs baryons.. or whatever name you want to ascribe, yes it is scientifically known and recognised that naming conventions are arbitrary and often localised but naming stems from consistent behaviour In a universe without baryons to claim sand exists would be making up a new substance that uses 3 quarked particles Or if you add a fourth quark to one proton in a grain of sand it would cease to be sand So the number of quarks that collect and how they structure determines the existence of sand Similar to how a beach is formed based on the number of grains of sand anyway the root of the issue is confounding to me.. how often has physics been disproven and replaced by implementing mathematics? for me physics is behavior, mathematics is existence