2 ms·
> some numbers are purely theoretical. It is naive (no offense indended) to think that only things that can be seen in our "human" reality exist (think of viru
by blackbear_ 4y ago
> some numbers are purely theoretical.
It is naive (no offense indended) to think that only things that can be seen in our "human" reality exist (think of viruses etc.). But even if this was the case with numbers, what is the problem? Natural language allows us to entertain abstract thoughts with no immediate realization, and numbers are just one of these things.
- xyzelement 4y agoNo offense taken and I am kinda amused that I triggered you into being defensive about numbers (not saying you are, it's just a funny image in my head) So to be clear, there's no problem but there's clearly a difference between things that are solely abstract and things that also have a physical manifestation. I'm abstract, we can talk about "Napoleon's invasion of Russia," "Napoleon's invasion of Japan," and "Napoleon's invasion of the nucleus of an atom" as concepts on the same level, but it still matters is that one is a historical fact, one is a thing that didn't happen but logically could have existed, and one is a purely abstract idea without meaning. Same pattern. "3 has definitely happened. There's definitely been 3 of something", "739163859115 may have happened. No guarantee that this exact number of anything was ever present but obviously could have", "10^1,000,000,000,000,000 isn't possible because it's more than countable things in the universe." But I agree with you that this is just a human perspective. To the infinite G-d, no number is abstract :)