6 ms·

But unlike the transistor, and like the electron, the natural integers do exist in nature (i.e. have "natural existence"). To quote my other comment here, [numb

But unlike the transistor, and like the electron, the natural integers do exist in nature (i.e. have "natural existence"). To quote my other comment here, [number 3] exists as the thing that is common between three apples and the three horses you might want to feed these three apples to; and the fact of the (almost) physical existence of that common (i.e., the number) can be proven by you being bitten by the third horse if you only happen to have two apples instead of three. This common exists, objectively (no sane person can say that it does not), so does the number 3 (because that's what it is called). Now, you can say that we invented the infinity, but that's like saying "we invented the idea that jumping off a cliff is dangerous" - because in both cases the "invention" is unavoidable, as it is dictated by the objective reality which tends to harshly punish those who fail to "invent" the facts.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
danbruc 3y ago
What then about mathematical structures that do not exist in the real world? Do you discover some and invent others? Or do you think all mathematical structures are realized? You say that no sane person will deny the existence of three, I am actually willing to go even further, I am willing to deny the natual existence of your apples and horses. The idea of cutting the universe into pieces is arguably an invention. It is of course an extremely useful idea for comprehending the universe, but if you think about it, you are somewhat arbitrarily drawing borders around collections of atoms. There is one forest. And a hundred trees. And millions of cells. Is the water in a tree part of the tree? What about the water inside of the cells? When does it become part of the tree? What about a water molecule just evaporating from a leave, when does it become part of the atmosphere? But even if there are things that can be counted, or if quarks and gluons behave in a way that can be described using SU(3), does that really imply the existence of the mathematical structure used to describe those things? Where do you get multiplication from? Or tetration? Are they invented while the basic structure of the integers is discovered? What exactly does existence even imply or require in this case? And another thing just came to my mind. In which way do the apples and horses tell us anything about three? I can see that you can probably demonstrate that you can pair your apples and your horses, but that is quite far from telling us anything about three as you can do the same with any number of objects. You also say the common thing is three, but that does not really help to pick out what three is, therevare many common things. Also note that you introduced the idea of a set, where does that come from? Three is not something that applies to one of the apples or horses, it applies to the sets of them. Does the set of three horses exist or is that not something you made up, this, this and that, this are my three horses? And now that we are talking about sets, because that is where three comes into play, why did we talk about apples and horses to begin with, it totally doesn't matter what you put into your sets, just how many things. So did we just lose the relationship to the real world or at least conclude that it never mattered? I would at least say that it is certainly not as easy as you want it to be, there is much more nuance to this than three apples, three horses, therefore natural numbers. It actually sound circular. Let me pick three apples and three horse, now look, here are two sets of three things, so three exists. Maybe it would be a nice challenge to tell me how to find three in nature. You obviously can not say take three horses. It seems tempting to say start without a horse, then add one, then another and yet another. But did you then not just invent that, did you not just come up with the axioms of the natural numbers, just expressed with horses instead of symbols?
- Koshkin 3y ago
  > arguably an invention A blind person would definitely disagree, having “invented” things he keeps bumping into, one after another… See, knowledge is never invented, it’s based on discovery; and mathematics is a form of knowledge. > anything about three Well, the discussion wasn’t about any particular number or concept, but if you want to define 3, you should look no further than the special property of a three-legged stool, the smallest polygon, or, if you look close enough, the proton. The general notion of the number, then, may come from a comparison (trying to see if there is a one-to-one correspondence) between the legs of a stool that is safe to sit on and one you risk breaking your neck if you try. If that’s full of “nuance,” I don’t know what isn’t.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    A blind person would definitely disagree, having “invented” things he keeps bumping into, one after another… See, knowledge is never invented, it’s based on discovery; and mathematics is a form of knowledge. I was not talking about inventing the things themselves but logically dividing them up. For the blind person it makes not difference whether he bumps into a tree because you decided to divide the forest into several individual trees or whether he bumps into the entire forest. But if you want to count things, then it of course makes a huge difference whether there is just the forest or whether there is a collection of trees. This subdivision of the universe - or the forest - into several individual object - or trees - is arguably invented, not the universe or the forest itself. Knowledge is a thing you have, your awareness of some fact. Mathematics is not that, it is some form of fact you can be aware of. You can have knowledge about mathematics but it is not knowledge itself. If I name my dog Beethoven, that establishes the fact that the name of my dog is Beethoven, that is a kind of invention. If I tell you about this, you gain knowledge about the name of my dog. No discovery involved, neither when establishing the fact nor when you learn about it. [...] look no further than the special property of a three-legged stool, the smallest polygon [...] Okay, I found a stool that does not wobble on uneven ground and a triangular rock. Nothing about them on their own is related to three. You can of course explain to me what a leg is or the corner of a triangle and then ask me to form the sets of legs and corners and point out to me that the sets have the same number of elements, but there is lot of stuff going on here. You made me find things related to three, and I never doubted that there are such things, the number of dimensions of space would be another good candidate. But you mostly gloss over the hard part of actually extracting the natural numbers in general or three in particular. It is of course trivial in everyday language as we learn about pairing and counting things relatively early in our life and humanity has made use of those ideas for a long time. Look, the number of legs equals the number of corners. And there are as many of them as I have horses and apples. But notice that those sentences are full of ideas and words related to numbers - number of legs, equals, as many. But just as with the horses and apples, nothing about the non-wobbly stool or the smallest polygon - actually you mean the polygon with the fewest number of sides and note that there the idea of numbers already sneaked in again - is intrinsically related to three. It is the set of legs and the set of sides that are related to three, it is the carnality of the sets that behaves like the naturals. The process of forming those sets does a lot of heavy lifting to get you towards finding numbers in nature. And I do not think you can just brush that under the rug, you will have to justify that forming sets and looking at their cardinality is not something that humans invented.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

danbruc 3y ago

What then about mathematical structures that do not exist in the real world? Do you discover some and invent others? Or do you think all mathematical structures are realized? You say that no sane person will deny the existence of three, I am actually willing to go even further, I am willing to deny the natual existence of your apples and horses. The idea of cutting the universe into pieces is arguably an invention. It is of course an extremely useful idea for comprehending the universe, but if you think about it, you are somewhat arbitrarily drawing borders around collections of atoms. There is one forest. And a hundred trees. And millions of cells. Is the water in a tree part of the tree? What about the water inside of the cells? When does it become part of the tree? What about a water molecule just evaporating from a leave, when does it become part of the atmosphere? But even if there are things that can be counted, or if quarks and gluons behave in a way that can be described using SU(3), does that really imply the existence of the mathematical structure used to describe those things? Where do you get multiplication from? Or tetration? Are they invented while the basic structure of the integers is discovered? What exactly does existence even imply or require in this case? And another thing just came to my mind. In which way do the apples and horses tell us anything about three? I can see that you can probably demonstrate that you can pair your apples and your horses, but that is quite far from telling us anything about three as you can do the same with any number of objects. You also say the common thing is three, but that does not really help to pick out what three is, therevare many common things. Also note that you introduced the idea of a set, where does that come from? Three is not something that applies to one of the apples or horses, it applies to the sets of them. Does the set of three horses exist or is that not something you made up, this, this and that, this are my three horses? And now that we are talking about sets, because that is where three comes into play, why did we talk about apples and horses to begin with, it totally doesn't matter what you put into your sets, just how many things. So did we just lose the relationship to the real world or at least conclude that it never mattered? I would at least say that it is certainly not as easy as you want it to be, there is much more nuance to this than three apples, three horses, therefore natural numbers. It actually sound circular. Let me pick three apples and three horse, now look, here are two sets of three things, so three exists. Maybe it would be a nice challenge to tell me how to find three in nature. You obviously can not say take three horses. It seems tempting to say start without a horse, then add one, then another and yet another. But did you then not just invent that, did you not just come up with the axioms of the natural numbers, just expressed with horses instead of symbols?

Koshkin 3y ago
> arguably an invention A blind person would definitely disagree, having “invented” things he keeps bumping into, one after another… See, knowledge is never invented, it’s based on discovery; and mathematics is a form of knowledge. > anything about three Well, the discussion wasn’t about any particular number or concept, but if you want to define 3, you should look no further than the special property of a three-legged stool, the smallest polygon, or, if you look close enough, the proton. The general notion of the number, then, may come from a comparison (trying to see if there is a one-to-one correspondence) between the legs of a stool that is safe to sit on and one you risk breaking your neck if you try. If that’s full of “nuance,” I don’t know what isn’t.
- danbruc 3y ago
  A blind person would definitely disagree, having “invented” things he keeps bumping into, one after another… See, knowledge is never invented, it’s based on discovery; and mathematics is a form of knowledge. I was not talking about inventing the things themselves but logically dividing them up. For the blind person it makes not difference whether he bumps into a tree because you decided to divide the forest into several individual trees or whether he bumps into the entire forest. But if you want to count things, then it of course makes a huge difference whether there is just the forest or whether there is a collection of trees. This subdivision of the universe - or the forest - into several individual object - or trees - is arguably invented, not the universe or the forest itself. Knowledge is a thing you have, your awareness of some fact. Mathematics is not that, it is some form of fact you can be aware of. You can have knowledge about mathematics but it is not knowledge itself. If I name my dog Beethoven, that establishes the fact that the name of my dog is Beethoven, that is a kind of invention. If I tell you about this, you gain knowledge about the name of my dog. No discovery involved, neither when establishing the fact nor when you learn about it. [...] look no further than the special property of a three-legged stool, the smallest polygon [...] Okay, I found a stool that does not wobble on uneven ground and a triangular rock. Nothing about them on their own is related to three. You can of course explain to me what a leg is or the corner of a triangle and then ask me to form the sets of legs and corners and point out to me that the sets have the same number of elements, but there is lot of stuff going on here. You made me find things related to three, and I never doubted that there are such things, the number of dimensions of space would be another good candidate. But you mostly gloss over the hard part of actually extracting the natural numbers in general or three in particular. It is of course trivial in everyday language as we learn about pairing and counting things relatively early in our life and humanity has made use of those ideas for a long time. Look, the number of legs equals the number of corners. And there are as many of them as I have horses and apples. But notice that those sentences are full of ideas and words related to numbers - number of legs, equals, as many. But just as with the horses and apples, nothing about the non-wobbly stool or the smallest polygon - actually you mean the polygon with the fewest number of sides and note that there the idea of numbers already sneaked in again - is intrinsically related to three. It is the set of legs and the set of sides that are related to three, it is the carnality of the sets that behaves like the naturals. The process of forming those sets does a lot of heavy lifting to get you towards finding numbers in nature. And I do not think you can just brush that under the rug, you will have to justify that forming sets and looking at their cardinality is not something that humans invented.