3 ms·

> Numbers and numeric quantities aren't a real thing that exists in the world. They exist only in our minds. Is math invented or discovered? * https://www.sfu

> Numbers and numeric quantities aren't a real thing that exists in the world. They exist only in our minds. Is math invented or discovered? * https://www.sfu.ca/~rpyke/cafe/livio.pdf https://www.sfu.ca/~rpyke/cafe/livio.pdf See also "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" by Wigner: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...

lazide 2y ago
Was ‘Blue’ invented or discovered? Fundamentally, it’s the same type of problem - and really more of a philosophical thing.
- gavmor 2y ago
  We're using the term "Blue" ambiguously. The term was invented; its assignment and scope were invented, too. The wavelengths themselves were discovered. So there are two different "Blues;" signifier and signified.
- gavmor 2y ago
  We're using the term "Blue" ambiguously. The term was invented; its assignment and scope were invented, too. The wavelengths themselves were discovered. So there are two different "blues;" sigmifier, and signified.
- crote 2y ago
  The interesting part is that perception is shaped by language. The Ancient Greeks did not have a word for blue, which led to things like the sky being described as "wine-colored" or "bronze". Similarly, the English "blue" is split into two in Russian: light blue (голубой – goluboy) and deep/dark blue (синий – siniy), a speaker has to choose between them when describing something. The wavelengths may have always existed but colors only become a thing when we draw the arbitrary lines between them.
  - labster 2y ago
    In English, speakers are forced to make the same light/dark distinction between pink/red and orange/brown as well. I don’t think most native speakers of English think of orange as the same as light brown.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Ah hah! This explains something. I’ve literally had an argument with someone where they insisted burnt umber was not orange or orange like. Which, uh - maybe? But c’mon. It’s totally somewhat Orange!
      - wruza 2y ago
        You may be interested in https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ if not seen it yet. If you desaturate the main chart to around 70%, #8a3324 lands onto a red-brown-orange triangle. I think I agree with that someone, cause at 70% the whole orange region sort of bleaks away.
- timschmidt 2y ago
  Color perception depends on peculiarities of biology. Numbers and numeric quantities do not. The number of quarks in a proton or neutron is always 3. There are a fair number of dimensionless physical constants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constan... You can choose different number systems to represent the values symbolically, but the numbers will always be the same. At least in this universe. Wildly, parts of physics are only possible to describe adequately using imaginary numbers, which suggests that we could have chosen a better name for them: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-physics-imaginary-numbers-math-reality https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-physics-imaginar...
  - wruza 2y ago
    Interestingly, this argument was weak before we ended up with truly elementary particles. Cause there’s no such thing as three apples or three people. They are unique objects with similarities defined by an observer, and then you go deeper and note that “object” is also a purely synthetic delineation. 3 is a model, not an element of reality. Even advanced maths define it as a set which contains nothing, 1 and 2 (which contains nothing and 1, which contains nothing and is preceded by nothing). Counting and measuring is equivalent to drawing lines — adding something that wasn’t there before. The fact that particles have identity is also vague, afaiu, so existence of numbers or their non-biological origin is not as easy to prove by example as it seems.
    - timschmidt 2y ago
      > [sic]Cause there’s no such thing as three apples or three people. I understand what you're saying. Occurrences like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species demonstrate that the idea of "species" isn't firm and that what truly matters is each individual and their unique circumstances. But this seems to me to be more a limitation of language and philosophy than a repudiation of math. As you pointed out, it's all equivalent to drawing tally lines, counting pebbles, sliding counters on an abacus, or counting fingers and toes. Despite the fractal nature of coastlines and the constant exchange of matter and energy between adjacent parts of the universe, it is possible to agree upon useful delineations. And there is not any alternative maths which happens to describe practical observations in a way which does not reduce to the maths with which we are familiar.

lazide 2y ago

Was ‘Blue’ invented or discovered? Fundamentally, it’s the same type of problem - and really more of a philosophical thing.

gavmor 2y ago
We're using the term "Blue" ambiguously. The term was invented; its assignment and scope were invented, too. The wavelengths themselves were discovered. So there are two different "Blues;" signifier and signified.
gavmor 2y ago
We're using the term "Blue" ambiguously. The term was invented; its assignment and scope were invented, too. The wavelengths themselves were discovered. So there are two different "blues;" sigmifier, and signified.
crote 2y ago
The interesting part is that perception is shaped by language. The Ancient Greeks did not have a word for blue, which led to things like the sky being described as "wine-colored" or "bronze". Similarly, the English "blue" is split into two in Russian: light blue (голубой – goluboy) and deep/dark blue (синий – siniy), a speaker has to choose between them when describing something. The wavelengths may have always existed but colors only become a thing when we draw the arbitrary lines between them.
- labster 2y ago
  In English, speakers are forced to make the same light/dark distinction between pink/red and orange/brown as well. I don’t think most native speakers of English think of orange as the same as light brown.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Ah hah! This explains something. I’ve literally had an argument with someone where they insisted burnt umber was not orange or orange like. Which, uh - maybe? But c’mon. It’s totally somewhat Orange!
    - wruza 2y ago
      You may be interested in https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ if not seen it yet. If you desaturate the main chart to around 70%, #8a3324 lands onto a red-brown-orange triangle. I think I agree with that someone, cause at 70% the whole orange region sort of bleaks away.
timschmidt 2y ago
Color perception depends on peculiarities of biology. Numbers and numeric quantities do not. The number of quarks in a proton or neutron is always 3. There are a fair number of dimensionless physical constants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constan... You can choose different number systems to represent the values symbolically, but the numbers will always be the same. At least in this universe. Wildly, parts of physics are only possible to describe adequately using imaginary numbers, which suggests that we could have chosen a better name for them: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-physics-imaginary-numbers-math-reality https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-physics-imaginar...
- wruza 2y ago
  Interestingly, this argument was weak before we ended up with truly elementary particles. Cause there’s no such thing as three apples or three people. They are unique objects with similarities defined by an observer, and then you go deeper and note that “object” is also a purely synthetic delineation. 3 is a model, not an element of reality. Even advanced maths define it as a set which contains nothing, 1 and 2 (which contains nothing and 1, which contains nothing and is preceded by nothing). Counting and measuring is equivalent to drawing lines — adding something that wasn’t there before. The fact that particles have identity is also vague, afaiu, so existence of numbers or their non-biological origin is not as easy to prove by example as it seems.
  - timschmidt 2y ago
    > [sic]Cause there’s no such thing as three apples or three people. I understand what you're saying. Occurrences like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species demonstrate that the idea of "species" isn't firm and that what truly matters is each individual and their unique circumstances. But this seems to me to be more a limitation of language and philosophy than a repudiation of math. As you pointed out, it's all equivalent to drawing tally lines, counting pebbles, sliding counters on an abacus, or counting fingers and toes. Despite the fractal nature of coastlines and the constant exchange of matter and energy between adjacent parts of the universe, it is possible to agree upon useful delineations. And there is not any alternative maths which happens to describe practical observations in a way which does not reduce to the maths with which we are familiar.