3 ms·
Numbers don't exist, either. Not really. Any 'one' thing you can point to, it's not just one thing in reality. There's always something leaking, something fu
by photochemsyn 11mo ago
Numbers don't exist, either. Not really. Any 'one' thing you can point to, it's not just one thing in reality. There's always something leaking, something fuzzy, something not accounted for in one. One universe, even? We can't be sure other universes aren't leaking into our one universe. One planet? What about all the meteorites banging into the one, so it's not one. So, numbers don't exist in the real world, any more than infinity does. Mathematics is thus proved to be nothing but a figment of the human imagination. And no, the frequency a supercooled isolated atom vibrates at in an atomic clock isn't a number either, there's always more bits to add to that number, always an error bar on the measurement, no matter how small. Numbers aren't real.
- exodust 11mo agoWouldn't it follow that those "things" we're pointing to aren't really "things" because they're all leaking and fuzzy? Begging the question, what ends up on a list of things that do exist?
- photochemsyn 11mo agoThe set of all things that exist - the first question that comes to mind is, is this a finite set, or an infinite set?
- drdeca 11mo agoWhy is it that when I have a stack of business cards, each with a picture of a different finger on my left hand, then when I arrange them in a grid, there’s only one way to do it, but when I instead have each have a picture of either a different finger from either of my left or right hand, there is now two different arrangements of the cards in a grid? I claim the reason is that 5 is prime, while 10 is composite (10 = 5 times 2). Therefore, 5 and 10, and 2, exist.
- griffzhowl 11mo agoYou've already assumed 5 exists in order to assert that it's prime. In any case existence of mathematical objects is a different meaning of existence to physical objects. We can say a mathematical object exists just by defining it, as long as it doesn't lead to contradiction.
- naasking 11mo agoI think your closing paragraph holds the key. 5 doesn't really exist, it's a constructor that parameterizes over something that does exist, eg. you never have "5", you have "5(something)". Saying 5 is prime is then saying that "for all x, 5(x) has the same structural properties as all other primes".
- drdeca 11mo agoYes, the answer to the question does assume that 5 exists. You try answering the question without speaking of 5 or 10. That is my argument.
- griffzhowl 11mo agoNumbers are definitely essential concepts for some kinds of reasoning. If that's what you're saying then fine. The thing is assuming that 5 exists to conclude that 5 exists is obviously circular.
- drdeca 11mo agoWith numbers, I can give an explanation for the phenomenon I described above. If such reasoning cannot be done without reference to numbers, then, if such reasoning is correct, numbers must exist. If there is no other reasoning can be given that provides a good explanation, and as the explanation I gave for the phenomenon is compelling, then I think that a good reason to conclude that the reasoning is correct, and that therefore those particular numbers exist. In particular, I would expect that if numbers don’t exist, the explanation I gave of the phenomenon I described, couldn’t be correct.
- zmgsabst 11mo agoYou’re abstracting to connect the math: 2, 5, 10, multiplication, and primality are all abstract concepts that don’t exist. What you’ve pointed out is that the interactions of your cards, when confined to a particular set of manipulations and placements, is equivalent to a certain abstract model.